❓ Hon. Norman Moore questions the Premier's understanding and handling of appeals related to the EPA report on the Coral Coast Resort proposal, alleging a failure to meet legal obligations and follow due process. The Premier deflects, referring to a previous answer.
AnsweredQoN 1487Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer the Premier to his answer to Question on Notice No. 1227, dated September 10 2003 in which the Premier stated that he was ‘…obliged to consider only the environmental factors relevant to the proposal in determining appeals against the proposal’, and ask -
(1) Should the words ‘appeals against the proposal’ be taken to mean that the Premier did not understand that the appeal process he was presiding over was dealing only with appeals against the EPA report on the Coral Coast Resort proposal, not against the proposal per se?
(2) If the Premier did understand the appeal process was dealing with appeals against the EPA report, why did he accept the Appeal Committee’s only recommendation despite it not addressing the matter subject to appeal, that being the EPA report?
(3) Since Fiona Keating, the one-person Appeal Committee, did not make a recommendation dealing with appeals against the EPA report, as was the Committee’s lawful obligation, how can the Premier’s reliance on a single, critically flawed Committee recommendation be perceived as anything but a failure to meet legal obligations and follow due process in dealing with the appeals against the EPA report?
(1) Should the words ‘appeals against the proposal’ be taken to mean that the Premier did not understand that the appeal process he was presiding over was dealing only with appeals against the EPA report on the Coral Coast Resort proposal, not against the proposal per se?
(2) If the Premier did understand the appeal process was dealing with appeals against the EPA report, why did he accept the Appeal Committee’s only recommendation despite it not addressing the matter subject to appeal, that being the EPA report?
(3) Since Fiona Keating, the one-person Appeal Committee, did not make a recommendation dealing with appeals against the EPA report, as was the Committee’s lawful obligation, how can the Premier’s reliance on a single, critically flawed Committee recommendation be perceived as anything but a failure to meet legal obligations and follow due process in dealing with the appeals against the EPA report?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
2 March 2004
Responded by
Leader of the House representing the Premier
Response time
103 days
(2)-(3) I refer the member to the answer to Parliamentary Question 1299.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.