❓ Hon Ray Halligan questions the Minister regarding inaction against Urban Focus's principal for allegedly breaching financial provisions of the Local Government Act, despite a recommendation for action following the City of Belmont inquiry. The Minister defends the decision, citing legal advice and public interest.
AnsweredQoN 335Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
URBAN FOCUS PRINCIPAL, FINANCIAL INTEREST DISCLOSURE
I refer the minister to the report of inquiry into the City of Belmont tabled in April 2003, which recommends that the Department of Local Government and Regional Development consider taking action against the principal of Urban Focus for not complying with obligations placed on him under the financial provisions of the Local Government Act. (1) With reference to recommendation 10 of the City of Belmont inquiry, what action has been taken against the principal of Urban Focus for breaching the financial provisions of the Local Government Act? (2) Given that the Act specifies that financial interest must be disclosed or a fine or imprisonment will be imposed, if neither the Department of Local Government and Regional Development nor the State Solicitor’s office propose to take action against the principal of Urban Focus for failing to disclose an interest, what reasons have been given for this inaction? (3) If no action has been taken or is to be taken, does the minister concede that the failure to fully implement the recommendations of the inquiry is an affront to those who prepared the report and the ratepayers of the City of Belmont? Hon TOM STEPHENS
I refer the minister to the report of inquiry into the City of Belmont tabled in April 2003, which recommends that the Department of Local Government and Regional Development consider taking action against the principal of Urban Focus for not complying with obligations placed on him under the financial provisions of the Local Government Act. (1) With reference to recommendation 10 of the City of Belmont inquiry, what action has been taken against the principal of Urban Focus for breaching the financial provisions of the Local Government Act? (2) Given that the Act specifies that financial interest must be disclosed or a fine or imprisonment will be imposed, if neither the Department of Local Government and Regional Development nor the State Solicitor’s office propose to take action against the principal of Urban Focus for failing to disclose an interest, what reasons have been given for this inaction? (3) If no action has been taken or is to be taken, does the minister concede that the failure to fully implement the recommendations of the inquiry is an affront to those who prepared the report and the ratepayers of the City of Belmont? Hon TOM STEPHENS
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(3) I am advised that the Department of Local Government and Regional Development has decided not to take prosecution action against Mr Colin Evans of Urban Focus. The department has written to Mr Evans to inform him that, although prima facie evidence of breaches of the financial interest provisions of the Local Government Act 1995 may exist, in consideration of all relevant factors it was decided not to take any further action on his alleged failure to disclose interest under the Act. Mr Evans has been reminded to give careful consideration to the requirements of the financial provisions of the Act and how they may affect him in future. The department’s decision to not take legal action reflects advice received from the State Solicitor’s Office that identified and considered a number of mitigating factors. In keeping with recommendation 10 of the Belmont inquiry report, the department considered taking action against Mr Evans. A brief was sent to the State Solicitor’s Office for advice on prosecution. On the basis of the advice received, the department concluded that it would not be in the public interest to pursue prosecution. I do not consider that this constitutes in any way an affront to the Belmont inquiry officers or Belmont ratepayers.
(1) With reference to recommendation 10 of the City of Belmont inquiry, what action has been taken against the principal of Urban Focus for breaching the financial provisions of the Local Government Act? (2) Given that the Act specifies that financial interest must be disclosed or a fine or imprisonment will be imposed, if neither the Department of Local Government and Regional Development nor the State Solicitor’s office propose to take action against the principal of Urban Focus for failing to disclose an interest, what reasons have been given for this inaction? (3) If no action has been taken or is to be taken, does the minister concede that the failure to fully implement the recommendations of the inquiry is an affront to those who prepared the report and the ratepayers of the City of Belmont? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: (1)-(3) I am advised that the Department of Local Government and Regional Development has decided not to take prosecution action against Mr Colin Evans of Urban Focus. The department has written to Mr Evans to inform him that, although prima facie evidence of breaches of the financial interest provisions of the Local Government Act 1995 may exist, in consideration of all relevant factors it was decided not to take any further action on his alleged failure to disclose interest under the Act. Mr Evans has been reminded to give careful consideration to the requirements of the financial provisions of the Act and how they may affect him in future. The department’s decision to not take legal action reflects advice received from the State Solicitor’s Office that identified and considered a number of mitigating factors. In keeping with recommendation 10 of the Belmont inquiry report, the department considered taking action against Mr Evans. A brief was sent to the State Solicitor’s Office for advice on prosecution. On the basis of the advice received, the department concluded that it would not be in the public interest to pursue prosecution. I do not consider that this constitutes in any way an affront to the Belmont inquiry officers or Belmont ratepayers.
(2) Given that the Act specifies that financial interest must be disclosed or a fine or imprisonment will be imposed, if neither the Department of Local Government and Regional Development nor the State Solicitor’s office propose to take action against the principal of Urban Focus for failing to disclose an interest, what reasons have been given for this inaction? (3) If no action has been taken or is to be taken, does the minister concede that the failure to fully implement the recommendations of the inquiry is an affront to those who prepared the report and the ratepayers of the City of Belmont? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: (1)-(3) I am advised that the Department of Local Government and Regional Development has decided not to take prosecution action against Mr Colin Evans of Urban Focus. The department has written to Mr Evans to inform him that, although prima facie evidence of breaches of the financial interest provisions of the Local Government Act 1995 may exist, in consideration of all relevant factors it was decided not to take any further action on his alleged failure to disclose interest under the Act. Mr Evans has been reminded to give careful consideration to the requirements of the financial provisions of the Act and how they may affect him in future. The department’s decision to not take legal action reflects advice received from the State Solicitor’s Office that identified and considered a number of mitigating factors. In keeping with recommendation 10 of the Belmont inquiry report, the department considered taking action against Mr Evans. A brief was sent to the State Solicitor’s Office for advice on prosecution. On the basis of the advice received, the department concluded that it would not be in the public interest to pursue prosecution. I do not consider that this constitutes in any way an affront to the Belmont inquiry officers or Belmont ratepayers.
(3) If no action has been taken or is to be taken, does the minister concede that the failure to fully implement the recommendations of the inquiry is an affront to those who prepared the report and the ratepayers of the City of Belmont? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: (1)-(3) I am advised that the Department of Local Government and Regional Development has decided not to take prosecution action against Mr Colin Evans of Urban Focus. The department has written to Mr Evans to inform him that, although prima facie evidence of breaches of the financial interest provisions of the Local Government Act 1995 may exist, in consideration of all relevant factors it was decided not to take any further action on his alleged failure to disclose interest under the Act. Mr Evans has been reminded to give careful consideration to the requirements of the financial provisions of the Act and how they may affect him in future. The department’s decision to not take legal action reflects advice received from the State Solicitor’s Office that identified and considered a number of mitigating factors. In keeping with recommendation 10 of the Belmont inquiry report, the department considered taking action against Mr Evans. A brief was sent to the State Solicitor’s Office for advice on prosecution. On the basis of the advice received, the department concluded that it would not be in the public interest to pursue prosecution. I do not consider that this constitutes in any way an affront to the Belmont inquiry officers or Belmont ratepayers.
Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: (1)-(3) I am advised that the Department of Local Government and Regional Development has decided not to take prosecution action against Mr Colin Evans of Urban Focus. The department has written to Mr Evans to inform him that, although prima facie evidence of breaches of the financial interest provisions of the Local Government Act 1995 may exist, in consideration of all relevant factors it was decided not to take any further action on his alleged failure to disclose interest under the Act. Mr Evans has been reminded to give careful consideration to the requirements of the financial provisions of the Act and how they may affect him in future. The department’s decision to not take legal action reflects advice received from the State Solicitor’s Office that identified and considered a number of mitigating factors. In keeping with recommendation 10 of the Belmont inquiry report, the department considered taking action against Mr Evans. A brief was sent to the State Solicitor’s Office for advice on prosecution. On the basis of the advice received, the department concluded that it would not be in the public interest to pursue prosecution. I do not consider that this constitutes in any way an affront to the Belmont inquiry officers or Belmont ratepayers.
(1)-(3) I am advised that the Department of Local Government and Regional Development has decided not to take prosecution action against Mr Colin Evans of Urban Focus. The department has written to Mr Evans to inform him that, although prima facie evidence of breaches of the financial interest provisions of the Local Government Act 1995 may exist, in consideration of all relevant factors it was decided not to take any further action on his alleged failure to disclose interest under the Act. Mr Evans has been reminded to give careful consideration to the requirements of the financial provisions of the Act and how they may affect him in future. The department’s decision to not take legal action reflects advice received from the State Solicitor’s Office that identified and considered a number of mitigating factors. In keeping with recommendation 10 of the Belmont inquiry report, the department considered taking action against Mr Evans. A brief was sent to the State Solicitor’s Office for advice on prosecution. On the basis of the advice received, the department concluded that it would not be in the public interest to pursue prosecution. I do not consider that this constitutes in any way an affront to the Belmont inquiry officers or Belmont ratepayers.
The department’s decision to not take legal action reflects advice received from the State Solicitor’s Office that identified and considered a number of mitigating factors. In keeping with recommendation 10 of the Belmont inquiry report, the department considered taking action against Mr Evans. A brief was sent to the State Solicitor’s Office for advice on prosecution. On the basis of the advice received, the department concluded that it would not be in the public interest to pursue prosecution. I do not consider that this constitutes in any way an affront to the Belmont inquiry officers or Belmont ratepayers.
(1) With reference to recommendation 10 of the City of Belmont inquiry, what action has been taken against the principal of Urban Focus for breaching the financial provisions of the Local Government Act? (2) Given that the Act specifies that financial interest must be disclosed or a fine or imprisonment will be imposed, if neither the Department of Local Government and Regional Development nor the State Solicitor’s office propose to take action against the principal of Urban Focus for failing to disclose an interest, what reasons have been given for this inaction? (3) If no action has been taken or is to be taken, does the minister concede that the failure to fully implement the recommendations of the inquiry is an affront to those who prepared the report and the ratepayers of the City of Belmont? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: (1)-(3) I am advised that the Department of Local Government and Regional Development has decided not to take prosecution action against Mr Colin Evans of Urban Focus. The department has written to Mr Evans to inform him that, although prima facie evidence of breaches of the financial interest provisions of the Local Government Act 1995 may exist, in consideration of all relevant factors it was decided not to take any further action on his alleged failure to disclose interest under the Act. Mr Evans has been reminded to give careful consideration to the requirements of the financial provisions of the Act and how they may affect him in future. The department’s decision to not take legal action reflects advice received from the State Solicitor’s Office that identified and considered a number of mitigating factors. In keeping with recommendation 10 of the Belmont inquiry report, the department considered taking action against Mr Evans. A brief was sent to the State Solicitor’s Office for advice on prosecution. On the basis of the advice received, the department concluded that it would not be in the public interest to pursue prosecution. I do not consider that this constitutes in any way an affront to the Belmont inquiry officers or Belmont ratepayers.
(2) Given that the Act specifies that financial interest must be disclosed or a fine or imprisonment will be imposed, if neither the Department of Local Government and Regional Development nor the State Solicitor’s office propose to take action against the principal of Urban Focus for failing to disclose an interest, what reasons have been given for this inaction? (3) If no action has been taken or is to be taken, does the minister concede that the failure to fully implement the recommendations of the inquiry is an affront to those who prepared the report and the ratepayers of the City of Belmont? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: (1)-(3) I am advised that the Department of Local Government and Regional Development has decided not to take prosecution action against Mr Colin Evans of Urban Focus. The department has written to Mr Evans to inform him that, although prima facie evidence of breaches of the financial interest provisions of the Local Government Act 1995 may exist, in consideration of all relevant factors it was decided not to take any further action on his alleged failure to disclose interest under the Act. Mr Evans has been reminded to give careful consideration to the requirements of the financial provisions of the Act and how they may affect him in future. The department’s decision to not take legal action reflects advice received from the State Solicitor’s Office that identified and considered a number of mitigating factors. In keeping with recommendation 10 of the Belmont inquiry report, the department considered taking action against Mr Evans. A brief was sent to the State Solicitor’s Office for advice on prosecution. On the basis of the advice received, the department concluded that it would not be in the public interest to pursue prosecution. I do not consider that this constitutes in any way an affront to the Belmont inquiry officers or Belmont ratepayers.
(3) If no action has been taken or is to be taken, does the minister concede that the failure to fully implement the recommendations of the inquiry is an affront to those who prepared the report and the ratepayers of the City of Belmont? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: (1)-(3) I am advised that the Department of Local Government and Regional Development has decided not to take prosecution action against Mr Colin Evans of Urban Focus. The department has written to Mr Evans to inform him that, although prima facie evidence of breaches of the financial interest provisions of the Local Government Act 1995 may exist, in consideration of all relevant factors it was decided not to take any further action on his alleged failure to disclose interest under the Act. Mr Evans has been reminded to give careful consideration to the requirements of the financial provisions of the Act and how they may affect him in future. The department’s decision to not take legal action reflects advice received from the State Solicitor’s Office that identified and considered a number of mitigating factors. In keeping with recommendation 10 of the Belmont inquiry report, the department considered taking action against Mr Evans. A brief was sent to the State Solicitor’s Office for advice on prosecution. On the basis of the advice received, the department concluded that it would not be in the public interest to pursue prosecution. I do not consider that this constitutes in any way an affront to the Belmont inquiry officers or Belmont ratepayers.
Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: (1)-(3) I am advised that the Department of Local Government and Regional Development has decided not to take prosecution action against Mr Colin Evans of Urban Focus. The department has written to Mr Evans to inform him that, although prima facie evidence of breaches of the financial interest provisions of the Local Government Act 1995 may exist, in consideration of all relevant factors it was decided not to take any further action on his alleged failure to disclose interest under the Act. Mr Evans has been reminded to give careful consideration to the requirements of the financial provisions of the Act and how they may affect him in future. The department’s decision to not take legal action reflects advice received from the State Solicitor’s Office that identified and considered a number of mitigating factors. In keeping with recommendation 10 of the Belmont inquiry report, the department considered taking action against Mr Evans. A brief was sent to the State Solicitor’s Office for advice on prosecution. On the basis of the advice received, the department concluded that it would not be in the public interest to pursue prosecution. I do not consider that this constitutes in any way an affront to the Belmont inquiry officers or Belmont ratepayers.
(1)-(3) I am advised that the Department of Local Government and Regional Development has decided not to take prosecution action against Mr Colin Evans of Urban Focus. The department has written to Mr Evans to inform him that, although prima facie evidence of breaches of the financial interest provisions of the Local Government Act 1995 may exist, in consideration of all relevant factors it was decided not to take any further action on his alleged failure to disclose interest under the Act. Mr Evans has been reminded to give careful consideration to the requirements of the financial provisions of the Act and how they may affect him in future. The department’s decision to not take legal action reflects advice received from the State Solicitor’s Office that identified and considered a number of mitigating factors. In keeping with recommendation 10 of the Belmont inquiry report, the department considered taking action against Mr Evans. A brief was sent to the State Solicitor’s Office for advice on prosecution. On the basis of the advice received, the department concluded that it would not be in the public interest to pursue prosecution. I do not consider that this constitutes in any way an affront to the Belmont inquiry officers or Belmont ratepayers.
The department’s decision to not take legal action reflects advice received from the State Solicitor’s Office that identified and considered a number of mitigating factors. In keeping with recommendation 10 of the Belmont inquiry report, the department considered taking action against Mr Evans. A brief was sent to the State Solicitor’s Office for advice on prosecution. On the basis of the advice received, the department concluded that it would not be in the public interest to pursue prosecution. I do not consider that this constitutes in any way an affront to the Belmont inquiry officers or Belmont ratepayers.
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.