❓ A parliamentary question regarding potential bias of the Minister for Environment and Heritage in the Mauds Landing development decision due to a prior appeal. The Minister acknowledges the concerns, is seeking further legal clarification, and emphasises the importance of process and transparency.
AnsweredQoN 412Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer the minister to her statements reported in the media earlier this week that she would remove herself from any decision relating to the proposed Mauds Landing development at Ningaloo if the Crown Solicitor deemed that her 1997 appeal against the proposed amendment meant that she could now not act without bias. (1) Has the minister received advice from the Crown Solicitor? (2) If so, what is the substance of that advice and what action will the minister take? (3) If not, when does the minister expect to receive the advice and make an announcement regarding her position? Dr J.M. EDWARDS
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(3) This is a very interesting issue that is being peddled by Hon Norman Moore, a member of the upper House. He has every right to ask these questions, and I have every right, as I am doing, to take them incredibly seriously. However, I hope that people are thinking about precedents, as I am. At the end of 1995 and in my role as the opposition environment spokesperson, I submitted an appeal against the original Mauds Landing proposal. That was seven years ago. In 1997 the member for Kingsley, who was then the Minister for the Environment, determined that appeal. She upheld it totally. She did not uphold it in part, but totally. The letter of my appeal and the letter containing the minister’s response are interesting documents, as they are very similar. The basis of my appeal was the magnitude and size of the proposal and its impact on the environment. The response was very similar. I assume that, with her Cabinet, the then minister - obviously I am not party to all these details - clearly told the proponents that their proposal was not accepted and that they should go away and develop a new one. Under the Environmental Protection Act, the Environmental Protection Authority can assess only new proposals. It cannot reassess a proposal. The previous Government oversaw that process. The level of assessment for the new proposal was set in May 2000. The former minister presided over the public comment period, which ran over the term of the election campaign and closed just after the election. On 28 October the EPA released its bulletin on the new proposal. After the appeal period closed, I saw the Appeals Convener. I reminded him that I had submitted an appeal in 1995 and checked whether there was a problem. In his opinion there was not a problem. About 10 days ago we heard a rumour that if I continued in my position and made a decision that made the proponent unhappy, legal action could be taken against me. On the basis of that I again saw the Appeals Convenor, and we initiated the seeking of legal advice, which I received about a day and a half ago. After reading that I sought a meeting with the Crown Solicitor, which took place late yesterday. I am seeking final clarification on one point of that advice. I do not believe I am biased. When I took this job I swore an oath or affirmed an affirmation that I would undertake my responsibilities without fear or favour. I am a highly qualified professional. I have two degrees and a postgraduate degree. I spent my working life prior to entering Parliament making decisions, some of which directly affected people’s lives. In my mind and heart I believe I am not biased. I believe I have skills and that I am a competent decision maker. Nevertheless, there is now some perception of bias felt by Hon Norman Moore - or perhaps it suits his purposes to say so - and other people. I make it clear that I need more time to clarify the legal advice and think this through. I am not biased. My reading is that there is no legal issue that would require me to stand aside. My main concern is the process. I am part of a Government that believes in the process being transparent and accountable. I am waiting to discuss this with the Premier. The prime factor is the decision; it is not the minister. I will await the clarification I am seeking. In some ways, it will not really matter what that is, because at the end of the day it is the process that matters. When I make my decision I will make it public. However, people need to look at these issues very carefully. I believe that as an elected member, whether in opposition or government, I should exercise the responsibilities given to me in the broadest manner possible. I believe that at all times I have done that. Government members: Hear, hear!
(1) Has the minister received advice from the Crown Solicitor? (2) If so, what is the substance of that advice and what action will the minister take? (3) If not, when does the minister expect to receive the advice and make an announcement regarding her position? Dr J.M. EDWARDS replied: (1)-(3) This is a very interesting issue that is being peddled by Hon Norman Moore, a member of the upper House. He has every right to ask these questions, and I have every right, as I am doing, to take them incredibly seriously. However, I hope that people are thinking about precedents, as I am. At the end of 1995 and in my role as the opposition environment spokesperson, I submitted an appeal against the original Mauds Landing proposal. That was seven years ago. In 1997 the member for Kingsley, who was then the Minister for the Environment, determined that appeal. She upheld it totally. She did not uphold it in part, but totally. The letter of my appeal and the letter containing the minister’s response are interesting documents, as they are very similar. The basis of my appeal was the magnitude and size of the proposal and its impact on the environment. The response was very similar. I assume that, with her Cabinet, the then minister - obviously I am not party to all these details - clearly told the proponents that their proposal was not accepted and that they should go away and develop a new one. Under the Environmental Protection Act, the Environmental Protection Authority can assess only new proposals. It cannot reassess a proposal. The previous Government oversaw that process. The level of assessment for the new proposal was set in May 2000. The former minister presided over the public comment period, which ran over the term of the election campaign and closed just after the election. On 28 October the EPA released its bulletin on the new proposal. After the appeal period closed, I saw the Appeals Convener. I reminded him that I had submitted an appeal in 1995 and checked whether there was a problem. In his opinion there was not a problem. About 10 days ago we heard a rumour that if I continued in my position and made a decision that made the proponent unhappy, legal action could be taken against me. On the basis of that I again saw the Appeals Convenor, and we initiated the seeking of legal advice, which I received about a day and a half ago. After reading that I sought a meeting with the Crown Solicitor, which took place late yesterday. I am seeking final clarification on one point of that advice. I do not believe I am biased. When I took this job I swore an oath or affirmed an affirmation that I would undertake my responsibilities without fear or favour. I am a highly qualified professional. I have two degrees and a postgraduate degree. I spent my working life prior to entering Parliament making decisions, some of which directly affected people’s lives. In my mind and heart I believe I am not biased. I believe I have skills and that I am a competent decision maker. Nevertheless, there is now some perception of bias felt by Hon Norman Moore - or perhaps it suits his purposes to say so - and other people. I make it clear that I need more time to clarify the legal advice and think this through. I am not biased. My reading is that there is no legal issue that would require me to stand aside. My main concern is the process. I am part of a Government that believes in the process being transparent and accountable. I am waiting to discuss this with the Premier. The prime factor is the decision; it is not the minister. I will await the clarification I am seeking. In some ways, it will not really matter what that is, because at the end of the day it is the process that matters. When I make my decision I will make it public. However, people need to look at these issues very carefully. I believe that as an elected member, whether in opposition or government, I should exercise the responsibilities given to me in the broadest manner possible. I believe that at all times I have done that. Government members: Hear, hear!
(2) If so, what is the substance of that advice and what action will the minister take? (3) If not, when does the minister expect to receive the advice and make an announcement regarding her position? Dr J.M. EDWARDS replied: (1)-(3) This is a very interesting issue that is being peddled by Hon Norman Moore, a member of the upper House. He has every right to ask these questions, and I have every right, as I am doing, to take them incredibly seriously. However, I hope that people are thinking about precedents, as I am. At the end of 1995 and in my role as the opposition environment spokesperson, I submitted an appeal against the original Mauds Landing proposal. That was seven years ago. In 1997 the member for Kingsley, who was then the Minister for the Environment, determined that appeal. She upheld it totally. She did not uphold it in part, but totally. The letter of my appeal and the letter containing the minister’s response are interesting documents, as they are very similar. The basis of my appeal was the magnitude and size of the proposal and its impact on the environment. The response was very similar. I assume that, with her Cabinet, the then minister - obviously I am not party to all these details - clearly told the proponents that their proposal was not accepted and that they should go away and develop a new one. Under the Environmental Protection Act, the Environmental Protection Authority can assess only new proposals. It cannot reassess a proposal. The previous Government oversaw that process. The level of assessment for the new proposal was set in May 2000. The former minister presided over the public comment period, which ran over the term of the election campaign and closed just after the election. On 28 October the EPA released its bulletin on the new proposal. After the appeal period closed, I saw the Appeals Convener. I reminded him that I had submitted an appeal in 1995 and checked whether there was a problem. In his opinion there was not a problem. About 10 days ago we heard a rumour that if I continued in my position and made a decision that made the proponent unhappy, legal action could be taken against me. On the basis of that I again saw the Appeals Convenor, and we initiated the seeking of legal advice, which I received about a day and a half ago. After reading that I sought a meeting with the Crown Solicitor, which took place late yesterday. I am seeking final clarification on one point of that advice. I do not believe I am biased. When I took this job I swore an oath or affirmed an affirmation that I would undertake my responsibilities without fear or favour. I am a highly qualified professional. I have two degrees and a postgraduate degree. I spent my working life prior to entering Parliament making decisions, some of which directly affected people’s lives. In my mind and heart I believe I am not biased. I believe I have skills and that I am a competent decision maker. Nevertheless, there is now some perception of bias felt by Hon Norman Moore - or perhaps it suits his purposes to say so - and other people. I make it clear that I need more time to clarify the legal advice and think this through. I am not biased. My reading is that there is no legal issue that would require me to stand aside. My main concern is the process. I am part of a Government that believes in the process being transparent and accountable. I am waiting to discuss this with the Premier. The prime factor is the decision; it is not the minister. I will await the clarification I am seeking. In some ways, it will not really matter what that is, because at the end of the day it is the process that matters. When I make my decision I will make it public. However, people need to look at these issues very carefully. I believe that as an elected member, whether in opposition or government, I should exercise the responsibilities given to me in the broadest manner possible. I believe that at all times I have done that. Government members: Hear, hear!
(3) If not, when does the minister expect to receive the advice and make an announcement regarding her position? Dr J.M. EDWARDS replied: (1)-(3) This is a very interesting issue that is being peddled by Hon Norman Moore, a member of the upper House. He has every right to ask these questions, and I have every right, as I am doing, to take them incredibly seriously. However, I hope that people are thinking about precedents, as I am. At the end of 1995 and in my role as the opposition environment spokesperson, I submitted an appeal against the original Mauds Landing proposal. That was seven years ago. In 1997 the member for Kingsley, who was then the Minister for the Environment, determined that appeal. She upheld it totally. She did not uphold it in part, but totally. The letter of my appeal and the letter containing the minister’s response are interesting documents, as they are very similar. The basis of my appeal was the magnitude and size of the proposal and its impact on the environment. The response was very similar. I assume that, with her Cabinet, the then minister - obviously I am not party to all these details - clearly told the proponents that their proposal was not accepted and that they should go away and develop a new one. Under the Environmental Protection Act, the Environmental Protection Authority can assess only new proposals. It cannot reassess a proposal. The previous Government oversaw that process. The level of assessment for the new proposal was set in May 2000. The former minister presided over the public comment period, which ran over the term of the election campaign and closed just after the election. On 28 October the EPA released its bulletin on the new proposal. After the appeal period closed, I saw the Appeals Convener. I reminded him that I had submitted an appeal in 1995 and checked whether there was a problem. In his opinion there was not a problem. About 10 days ago we heard a rumour that if I continued in my position and made a decision that made the proponent unhappy, legal action could be taken against me. On the basis of that I again saw the Appeals Convenor, and we initiated the seeking of legal advice, which I received about a day and a half ago. After reading that I sought a meeting with the Crown Solicitor, which took place late yesterday. I am seeking final clarification on one point of that advice. I do not believe I am biased. When I took this job I swore an oath or affirmed an affirmation that I would undertake my responsibilities without fear or favour. I am a highly qualified professional. I have two degrees and a postgraduate degree. I spent my working life prior to entering Parliament making decisions, some of which directly affected people’s lives. In my mind and heart I believe I am not biased. I believe I have skills and that I am a competent decision maker. Nevertheless, there is now some perception of bias felt by Hon Norman Moore - or perhaps it suits his purposes to say so - and other people. I make it clear that I need more time to clarify the legal advice and think this through. I am not biased. My reading is that there is no legal issue that would require me to stand aside. My main concern is the process. I am part of a Government that believes in the process being transparent and accountable. I am waiting to discuss this with the Premier. The prime factor is the decision; it is not the minister. I will await the clarification I am seeking. In some ways, it will not really matter what that is, because at the end of the day it is the process that matters. When I make my decision I will make it public. However, people need to look at these issues very carefully. I believe that as an elected member, whether in opposition or government, I should exercise the responsibilities given to me in the broadest manner possible. I believe that at all times I have done that. Government members: Hear, hear!
Dr J.M. EDWARDS replied: (1)-(3) This is a very interesting issue that is being peddled by Hon Norman Moore, a member of the upper House. He has every right to ask these questions, and I have every right, as I am doing, to take them incredibly seriously. However, I hope that people are thinking about precedents, as I am. At the end of 1995 and in my role as the opposition environment spokesperson, I submitted an appeal against the original Mauds Landing proposal. That was seven years ago. In 1997 the member for Kingsley, who was then the Minister for the Environment, determined that appeal. She upheld it totally. She did not uphold it in part, but totally. The letter of my appeal and the letter containing the minister’s response are interesting documents, as they are very similar. The basis of my appeal was the magnitude and size of the proposal and its impact on the environment. The response was very similar. I assume that, with her Cabinet, the then minister - obviously I am not party to all these details - clearly told the proponents that their proposal was not accepted and that they should go away and develop a new one. Under the Environmental Protection Act, the Environmental Protection Authority can assess only new proposals. It cannot reassess a proposal. The previous Government oversaw that process. The level of assessment for the new proposal was set in May 2000. The former minister presided over the public comment period, which ran over the term of the election campaign and closed just after the election. On 28 October the EPA released its bulletin on the new proposal. After the appeal period closed, I saw the Appeals Convener. I reminded him that I had submitted an appeal in 1995 and checked whether there was a problem. In his opinion there was not a problem. About 10 days ago we heard a rumour that if I continued in my position and made a decision that made the proponent unhappy, legal action could be taken against me. On the basis of that I again saw the Appeals Convenor, and we initiated the seeking of legal advice, which I received about a day and a half ago. After reading that I sought a meeting with the Crown Solicitor, which took place late yesterday. I am seeking final clarification on one point of that advice. I do not believe I am biased. When I took this job I swore an oath or affirmed an affirmation that I would undertake my responsibilities without fear or favour. I am a highly qualified professional. I have two degrees and a postgraduate degree. I spent my working life prior to entering Parliament making decisions, some of which directly affected people’s lives. In my mind and heart I believe I am not biased. I believe I have skills and that I am a competent decision maker. Nevertheless, there is now some perception of bias felt by Hon Norman Moore - or perhaps it suits his purposes to say so - and other people. I make it clear that I need more time to clarify the legal advice and think this through. I am not biased. My reading is that there is no legal issue that would require me to stand aside. My main concern is the process. I am part of a Government that believes in the process being transparent and accountable. I am waiting to discuss this with the Premier. The prime factor is the decision; it is not the minister. I will await the clarification I am seeking. In some ways, it will not really matter what that is, because at the end of the day it is the process that matters. When I make my decision I will make it public. However, people need to look at these issues very carefully. I believe that as an elected member, whether in opposition or government, I should exercise the responsibilities given to me in the broadest manner possible. I believe that at all times I have done that. Government members: Hear, hear!
(1)-(3) This is a very interesting issue that is being peddled by Hon Norman Moore, a member of the upper House. He has every right to ask these questions, and I have every right, as I am doing, to take them incredibly seriously. However, I hope that people are thinking about precedents, as I am. At the end of 1995 and in my role as the opposition environment spokesperson, I submitted an appeal against the original Mauds Landing proposal. That was seven years ago. In 1997 the member for Kingsley, who was then the Minister for the Environment, determined that appeal. She upheld it totally. She did not uphold it in part, but totally. The letter of my appeal and the letter containing the minister’s response are interesting documents, as they are very similar. The basis of my appeal was the magnitude and size of the proposal and its impact on the environment. The response was very similar. I assume that, with her Cabinet, the then minister - obviously I am not party to all these details - clearly told the proponents that their proposal was not accepted and that they should go away and develop a new one. Under the Environmental Protection Act, the Environmental Protection Authority can assess only new proposals. It cannot reassess a proposal. The previous Government oversaw that process. The level of assessment for the new proposal was set in May 2000. The former minister presided over the public comment period, which ran over the term of the election campaign and closed just after the election. On 28 October the EPA released its bulletin on the new proposal. After the appeal period closed, I saw the Appeals Convener. I reminded him that I had submitted an appeal in 1995 and checked whether there was a problem. In his opinion there was not a problem. About 10 days ago we heard a rumour that if I continued in my position and made a decision that made the proponent unhappy, legal action could be taken against me. On the basis of that I again saw the Appeals Convenor, and we initiated the seeking of legal advice, which I received about a day and a half ago. After reading that I sought a meeting with the Crown Solicitor, which took place late yesterday. I am seeking final clarification on one point of that advice. I do not believe I am biased. When I took this job I swore an oath or affirmed an affirmation that I would undertake my responsibilities without fear or favour. I am a highly qualified professional. I have two degrees and a postgraduate degree. I spent my working life prior to entering Parliament making decisions, some of which directly affected people’s lives. In my mind and heart I believe I am not biased. I believe I have skills and that I am a competent decision maker. Nevertheless, there is now some perception of bias felt by Hon Norman Moore - or perhaps it suits his purposes to say so - and other people. I make it clear that I need more time to clarify the legal advice and think this through. I am not biased. My reading is that there is no legal issue that would require me to stand aside. My main concern is the process. I am part of a Government that believes in the process being transparent and accountable. I am waiting to discuss this with the Premier. The prime factor is the decision; it is not the minister. I will await the clarification I am seeking. In some ways, it will not really matter what that is, because at the end of the day it is the process that matters. When I make my decision I will make it public. However, people need to look at these issues very carefully. I believe that as an elected member, whether in opposition or government, I should exercise the responsibilities given to me in the broadest manner possible. I believe that at all times I have done that. Government members: Hear, hear!
(1) Has the minister received advice from the Crown Solicitor? (2) If so, what is the substance of that advice and what action will the minister take? (3) If not, when does the minister expect to receive the advice and make an announcement regarding her position? Dr J.M. EDWARDS replied: (1)-(3) This is a very interesting issue that is being peddled by Hon Norman Moore, a member of the upper House. He has every right to ask these questions, and I have every right, as I am doing, to take them incredibly seriously. However, I hope that people are thinking about precedents, as I am. At the end of 1995 and in my role as the opposition environment spokesperson, I submitted an appeal against the original Mauds Landing proposal. That was seven years ago. In 1997 the member for Kingsley, who was then the Minister for the Environment, determined that appeal. She upheld it totally. She did not uphold it in part, but totally. The letter of my appeal and the letter containing the minister’s response are interesting documents, as they are very similar. The basis of my appeal was the magnitude and size of the proposal and its impact on the environment. The response was very similar. I assume that, with her Cabinet, the then minister - obviously I am not party to all these details - clearly told the proponents that their proposal was not accepted and that they should go away and develop a new one. Under the Environmental Protection Act, the Environmental Protection Authority can assess only new proposals. It cannot reassess a proposal. The previous Government oversaw that process. The level of assessment for the new proposal was set in May 2000. The former minister presided over the public comment period, which ran over the term of the election campaign and closed just after the election. On 28 October the EPA released its bulletin on the new proposal. After the appeal period closed, I saw the Appeals Convener. I reminded him that I had submitted an appeal in 1995 and checked whether there was a problem. In his opinion there was not a problem. About 10 days ago we heard a rumour that if I continued in my position and made a decision that made the proponent unhappy, legal action could be taken against me. On the basis of that I again saw the Appeals Convenor, and we initiated the seeking of legal advice, which I received about a day and a half ago. After reading that I sought a meeting with the Crown Solicitor, which took place late yesterday. I am seeking final clarification on one point of that advice. I do not believe I am biased. When I took this job I swore an oath or affirmed an affirmation that I would undertake my responsibilities without fear or favour. I am a highly qualified professional. I have two degrees and a postgraduate degree. I spent my working life prior to entering Parliament making decisions, some of which directly affected people’s lives. In my mind and heart I believe I am not biased. I believe I have skills and that I am a competent decision maker. Nevertheless, there is now some perception of bias felt by Hon Norman Moore - or perhaps it suits his purposes to say so - and other people. I make it clear that I need more time to clarify the legal advice and think this through. I am not biased. My reading is that there is no legal issue that would require me to stand aside. My main concern is the process. I am part of a Government that believes in the process being transparent and accountable. I am waiting to discuss this with the Premier. The prime factor is the decision; it is not the minister. I will await the clarification I am seeking. In some ways, it will not really matter what that is, because at the end of the day it is the process that matters. When I make my decision I will make it public. However, people need to look at these issues very carefully. I believe that as an elected member, whether in opposition or government, I should exercise the responsibilities given to me in the broadest manner possible. I believe that at all times I have done that. Government members: Hear, hear!
(2) If so, what is the substance of that advice and what action will the minister take? (3) If not, when does the minister expect to receive the advice and make an announcement regarding her position? Dr J.M. EDWARDS replied: (1)-(3) This is a very interesting issue that is being peddled by Hon Norman Moore, a member of the upper House. He has every right to ask these questions, and I have every right, as I am doing, to take them incredibly seriously. However, I hope that people are thinking about precedents, as I am. At the end of 1995 and in my role as the opposition environment spokesperson, I submitted an appeal against the original Mauds Landing proposal. That was seven years ago. In 1997 the member for Kingsley, who was then the Minister for the Environment, determined that appeal. She upheld it totally. She did not uphold it in part, but totally. The letter of my appeal and the letter containing the minister’s response are interesting documents, as they are very similar. The basis of my appeal was the magnitude and size of the proposal and its impact on the environment. The response was very similar. I assume that, with her Cabinet, the then minister - obviously I am not party to all these details - clearly told the proponents that their proposal was not accepted and that they should go away and develop a new one. Under the Environmental Protection Act, the Environmental Protection Authority can assess only new proposals. It cannot reassess a proposal. The previous Government oversaw that process. The level of assessment for the new proposal was set in May 2000. The former minister presided over the public comment period, which ran over the term of the election campaign and closed just after the election. On 28 October the EPA released its bulletin on the new proposal. After the appeal period closed, I saw the Appeals Convener. I reminded him that I had submitted an appeal in 1995 and checked whether there was a problem. In his opinion there was not a problem. About 10 days ago we heard a rumour that if I continued in my position and made a decision that made the proponent unhappy, legal action could be taken against me. On the basis of that I again saw the Appeals Convenor, and we initiated the seeking of legal advice, which I received about a day and a half ago. After reading that I sought a meeting with the Crown Solicitor, which took place late yesterday. I am seeking final clarification on one point of that advice. I do not believe I am biased. When I took this job I swore an oath or affirmed an affirmation that I would undertake my responsibilities without fear or favour. I am a highly qualified professional. I have two degrees and a postgraduate degree. I spent my working life prior to entering Parliament making decisions, some of which directly affected people’s lives. In my mind and heart I believe I am not biased. I believe I have skills and that I am a competent decision maker. Nevertheless, there is now some perception of bias felt by Hon Norman Moore - or perhaps it suits his purposes to say so - and other people. I make it clear that I need more time to clarify the legal advice and think this through. I am not biased. My reading is that there is no legal issue that would require me to stand aside. My main concern is the process. I am part of a Government that believes in the process being transparent and accountable. I am waiting to discuss this with the Premier. The prime factor is the decision; it is not the minister. I will await the clarification I am seeking. In some ways, it will not really matter what that is, because at the end of the day it is the process that matters. When I make my decision I will make it public. However, people need to look at these issues very carefully. I believe that as an elected member, whether in opposition or government, I should exercise the responsibilities given to me in the broadest manner possible. I believe that at all times I have done that. Government members: Hear, hear!
(3) If not, when does the minister expect to receive the advice and make an announcement regarding her position? Dr J.M. EDWARDS replied: (1)-(3) This is a very interesting issue that is being peddled by Hon Norman Moore, a member of the upper House. He has every right to ask these questions, and I have every right, as I am doing, to take them incredibly seriously. However, I hope that people are thinking about precedents, as I am. At the end of 1995 and in my role as the opposition environment spokesperson, I submitted an appeal against the original Mauds Landing proposal. That was seven years ago. In 1997 the member for Kingsley, who was then the Minister for the Environment, determined that appeal. She upheld it totally. She did not uphold it in part, but totally. The letter of my appeal and the letter containing the minister’s response are interesting documents, as they are very similar. The basis of my appeal was the magnitude and size of the proposal and its impact on the environment. The response was very similar. I assume that, with her Cabinet, the then minister - obviously I am not party to all these details - clearly told the proponents that their proposal was not accepted and that they should go away and develop a new one. Under the Environmental Protection Act, the Environmental Protection Authority can assess only new proposals. It cannot reassess a proposal. The previous Government oversaw that process. The level of assessment for the new proposal was set in May 2000. The former minister presided over the public comment period, which ran over the term of the election campaign and closed just after the election. On 28 October the EPA released its bulletin on the new proposal. After the appeal period closed, I saw the Appeals Convener. I reminded him that I had submitted an appeal in 1995 and checked whether there was a problem. In his opinion there was not a problem. About 10 days ago we heard a rumour that if I continued in my position and made a decision that made the proponent unhappy, legal action could be taken against me. On the basis of that I again saw the Appeals Convenor, and we initiated the seeking of legal advice, which I received about a day and a half ago. After reading that I sought a meeting with the Crown Solicitor, which took place late yesterday. I am seeking final clarification on one point of that advice. I do not believe I am biased. When I took this job I swore an oath or affirmed an affirmation that I would undertake my responsibilities without fear or favour. I am a highly qualified professional. I have two degrees and a postgraduate degree. I spent my working life prior to entering Parliament making decisions, some of which directly affected people’s lives. In my mind and heart I believe I am not biased. I believe I have skills and that I am a competent decision maker. Nevertheless, there is now some perception of bias felt by Hon Norman Moore - or perhaps it suits his purposes to say so - and other people. I make it clear that I need more time to clarify the legal advice and think this through. I am not biased. My reading is that there is no legal issue that would require me to stand aside. My main concern is the process. I am part of a Government that believes in the process being transparent and accountable. I am waiting to discuss this with the Premier. The prime factor is the decision; it is not the minister. I will await the clarification I am seeking. In some ways, it will not really matter what that is, because at the end of the day it is the process that matters. When I make my decision I will make it public. However, people need to look at these issues very carefully. I believe that as an elected member, whether in opposition or government, I should exercise the responsibilities given to me in the broadest manner possible. I believe that at all times I have done that. Government members: Hear, hear!
Dr J.M. EDWARDS replied: (1)-(3) This is a very interesting issue that is being peddled by Hon Norman Moore, a member of the upper House. He has every right to ask these questions, and I have every right, as I am doing, to take them incredibly seriously. However, I hope that people are thinking about precedents, as I am. At the end of 1995 and in my role as the opposition environment spokesperson, I submitted an appeal against the original Mauds Landing proposal. That was seven years ago. In 1997 the member for Kingsley, who was then the Minister for the Environment, determined that appeal. She upheld it totally. She did not uphold it in part, but totally. The letter of my appeal and the letter containing the minister’s response are interesting documents, as they are very similar. The basis of my appeal was the magnitude and size of the proposal and its impact on the environment. The response was very similar. I assume that, with her Cabinet, the then minister - obviously I am not party to all these details - clearly told the proponents that their proposal was not accepted and that they should go away and develop a new one. Under the Environmental Protection Act, the Environmental Protection Authority can assess only new proposals. It cannot reassess a proposal. The previous Government oversaw that process. The level of assessment for the new proposal was set in May 2000. The former minister presided over the public comment period, which ran over the term of the election campaign and closed just after the election. On 28 October the EPA released its bulletin on the new proposal. After the appeal period closed, I saw the Appeals Convener. I reminded him that I had submitted an appeal in 1995 and checked whether there was a problem. In his opinion there was not a problem. About 10 days ago we heard a rumour that if I continued in my position and made a decision that made the proponent unhappy, legal action could be taken against me. On the basis of that I again saw the Appeals Convenor, and we initiated the seeking of legal advice, which I received about a day and a half ago. After reading that I sought a meeting with the Crown Solicitor, which took place late yesterday. I am seeking final clarification on one point of that advice. I do not believe I am biased. When I took this job I swore an oath or affirmed an affirmation that I would undertake my responsibilities without fear or favour. I am a highly qualified professional. I have two degrees and a postgraduate degree. I spent my working life prior to entering Parliament making decisions, some of which directly affected people’s lives. In my mind and heart I believe I am not biased. I believe I have skills and that I am a competent decision maker. Nevertheless, there is now some perception of bias felt by Hon Norman Moore - or perhaps it suits his purposes to say so - and other people. I make it clear that I need more time to clarify the legal advice and think this through. I am not biased. My reading is that there is no legal issue that would require me to stand aside. My main concern is the process. I am part of a Government that believes in the process being transparent and accountable. I am waiting to discuss this with the Premier. The prime factor is the decision; it is not the minister. I will await the clarification I am seeking. In some ways, it will not really matter what that is, because at the end of the day it is the process that matters. When I make my decision I will make it public. However, people need to look at these issues very carefully. I believe that as an elected member, whether in opposition or government, I should exercise the responsibilities given to me in the broadest manner possible. I believe that at all times I have done that. Government members: Hear, hear!
(1)-(3) This is a very interesting issue that is being peddled by Hon Norman Moore, a member of the upper House. He has every right to ask these questions, and I have every right, as I am doing, to take them incredibly seriously. However, I hope that people are thinking about precedents, as I am. At the end of 1995 and in my role as the opposition environment spokesperson, I submitted an appeal against the original Mauds Landing proposal. That was seven years ago. In 1997 the member for Kingsley, who was then the Minister for the Environment, determined that appeal. She upheld it totally. She did not uphold it in part, but totally. The letter of my appeal and the letter containing the minister’s response are interesting documents, as they are very similar. The basis of my appeal was the magnitude and size of the proposal and its impact on the environment. The response was very similar. I assume that, with her Cabinet, the then minister - obviously I am not party to all these details - clearly told the proponents that their proposal was not accepted and that they should go away and develop a new one. Under the Environmental Protection Act, the Environmental Protection Authority can assess only new proposals. It cannot reassess a proposal. The previous Government oversaw that process. The level of assessment for the new proposal was set in May 2000. The former minister presided over the public comment period, which ran over the term of the election campaign and closed just after the election. On 28 October the EPA released its bulletin on the new proposal. After the appeal period closed, I saw the Appeals Convener. I reminded him that I had submitted an appeal in 1995 and checked whether there was a problem. In his opinion there was not a problem. About 10 days ago we heard a rumour that if I continued in my position and made a decision that made the proponent unhappy, legal action could be taken against me. On the basis of that I again saw the Appeals Convenor, and we initiated the seeking of legal advice, which I received about a day and a half ago. After reading that I sought a meeting with the Crown Solicitor, which took place late yesterday. I am seeking final clarification on one point of that advice. I do not believe I am biased. When I took this job I swore an oath or affirmed an affirmation that I would undertake my responsibilities without fear or favour. I am a highly qualified professional. I have two degrees and a postgraduate degree. I spent my working life prior to entering Parliament making decisions, some of which directly affected people’s lives. In my mind and heart I believe I am not biased. I believe I have skills and that I am a competent decision maker. Nevertheless, there is now some perception of bias felt by Hon Norman Moore - or perhaps it suits his purposes to say so - and other people. I make it clear that I need more time to clarify the legal advice and think this through. I am not biased. My reading is that there is no legal issue that would require me to stand aside. My main concern is the process. I am part of a Government that believes in the process being transparent and accountable. I am waiting to discuss this with the Premier. The prime factor is the decision; it is not the minister. I will await the clarification I am seeking. In some ways, it will not really matter what that is, because at the end of the day it is the process that matters. When I make my decision I will make it public. However, people need to look at these issues very carefully. I believe that as an elected member, whether in opposition or government, I should exercise the responsibilities given to me in the broadest manner possible. I believe that at all times I have done that. Government members: Hear, hear!
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.