❓ A WA parliamentary question regarding a potential conflict of interest of the EPA Chairman in deciding not to assess the Shire of Broome Local Planning Scheme No. 6, given his prior involvement with the Browse LNG Precinct assessment and related legal challenges. The Minister's response defends the Chairman's actions.
AnsweredQoN 386Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
With regard to the 8 April 2013 decision by the Chairman of the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) that the Shire of Broome Local Planning Scheme No. 6 not be assessed, the determination of Chief Justice Wayne Martin in The Wilderness Society (WA) Inc. v Minister for the Environment [2013] WASC 307, and the Government Gazette No. 29 / 28-Feb-2012 - EV402 in relation to Environmental Protection Act 1986 Delegation No. 26; and given that, on 31 July 2008, the Chairman formally determined that the EPA would provide advice as to the selection of the site for the Browse Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Precinct; and given that, on 16 July 2012, the Chairman, acting alone after determining that EPA members Dr Whitaker, Dr Lukatelich and Mr Glennon were conflicted from participating further in the environmental assessment of the Browse LNG Precinct, issued Report 1444 recommending that the Browse LNG Precinct could be implemented; and given that the Chairman had relied on a process of assessment undertaken by the EPA with the benefit of contributions by Dr Whitaker, Dr Lukatelich and Mr Glennon in releasing the second report published on 16 July 2012; and given that, on 17 December 2012, the Chairman, together with the Deputy Chairman, issued a notice declaring Woodside Energy Limited’s proposal to construct and operate an LNG processing and export facility as part of the Browse LNG Hub to be a derived proposal; and given that, on 18 December 2012, an application for judicial review of the foregoing decisions was lodged in the Supreme Court of Western Australia; and given that, by 8 April 2013, it was clear that the grounds upon which judicial review of the decisions were sought included conflict of interest on the part of Dr Whitaker, Dr Lukatelich and Mr Glennon, and perceived bias of the Chairman as a result of his long collaboration with the conflicted members during the environmental assessment of the Browse LNG Hub; and given that the Chairman knew or should have known that conflicts and the appearance of bias on the part of EPA members, including the Chairman, were live issues in the then-pending Supreme Court proceeding; and given that the Shire of Broome Local Planning Scheme No. 6 incorporates planning provisions and strategies throughout that are premised on development of the Browse LNG Precinct spurring future residential, commercial, industrial and other development, I ask: (a) can the Minister please explain why the Chairman did not declare a conflict and instead proceeded with his 8 April 2013 Shire of Broome Local Planning Scheme No. 6 decision; (b) can the Minister please explain why the Chairman did not stand aside from the 8 April 2013 Shire of Broome Local Planning Scheme No. 6 decision; and (c) in what capacity and using what decision-making process did the Chairman decide that the Shire of Broome Local Planning Scheme No. 6 not be assessed?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
19 November 2013
Responded by
Minister for Mental Health representing the Minister for Environment
Response time
27 days
The Minister for Environment has provided the following response.
(a) I am advised by the Chairman that he did not consider that he had a conflict of interest in making a decision under s.48A of the
Environmental Protection Act 1986
(EP Act) (WA) in respect of the Shire of Broome Local Planning Scheme No. 6.
(b) See the answer to (a).
(c) The Chairman made his decision under s.48A of the EP Act, in the exercise of delegated authority (Delegation No. 9 of 1998, gazetted on 18 August 1998), following review of the potential environmental impacts and recommendations of the Office of the Environmental Protection Authority in accordance with normal processes.
(a) I am advised by the Chairman that he did not consider that he had a conflict of interest in making a decision under s.48A of the
Environmental Protection Act 1986
(EP Act) (WA) in respect of the Shire of Broome Local Planning Scheme No. 6.
(b) See the answer to (a).
(c) The Chairman made his decision under s.48A of the EP Act, in the exercise of delegated authority (Delegation No. 9 of 1998, gazetted on 18 August 1998), following review of the potential environmental impacts and recommendations of the Office of the Environmental Protection Authority in accordance with normal processes.
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.