❓ Mr Templeman asks about the status of BGC's appeals regarding a Hazelmere industrial site, following previous government delays. Ms MacTiernan details irregularities in the appeal process, BGC's attempt to disqualify her, and their subsequent withdrawal of appeals, highlighting flaws in the ministerial appeals system.
AnsweredQoN 68Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
BGC (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD, HAZELMERE SITE 68. Mr TEMPLEMAN to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure: The minister, when in opposition, raised concerns in this place about the previous Government’s delay in dealing with appeals lodged by BGC (Australia) Pty Ltd against the decisions of the City of Swan with regard to the controversial developments at an industrial site in Hazelmere. Have these appeals now been dealt with properly? Ms MacTIERNAN
AnswerView source ↗
I was concerned to notice, after some months of hearing appeals, that many of the appeals that were coming to me postdated the BGC appeals with regard to this controversial Hazelmere development. Therefore, I made inquiries about these appeals, and I was very surprised when I was told, firstly, that no grounds for appeal have been given, notwithstanding the fact that the regulations make it clear that no appeal can be lodged unless grounds for appeal are given. I was told, secondly, that when these purported appeals were lodged, the consultants for the company requested that the appeals committee not proceed to deal with them but hold them in abeyance indefinitely. Indeed, in one instance Mr Buckeridge had withdrawn the appeal; however, his consultants had later thought better of it and sought to have that appeal reinstated. All these things are in contravention of the regulations. I then advised the appeals committee that these practices were not acceptable to me, and instructed it to correspond with all appellants with appeals in this category, advising them that they had two weeks to provide grounds for appeal so that the matters could be heard and determined after some nine months. I then received correspondence, interestingly, from BGC’s solicitors asking me to disqualify myself from hearing these appeals on the ground that I would be biased. No basis was given for this presumption and, regrettably, with a heavy heart, I had to advise BGC’s lawyers that Crown Law had advised that I could not delegate these appeals. I advised the solicitors, quite rightly, that all appeals would be heard without fear or favour. Notwithstanding this assurance, BGC then withdrew the appeals. This highlights the way in which I think the ministerial appeals process has been used in many instances to hold a sword of Damocles over local authorities, without there necessarily being any real grounds for appeal or intention to proceed with the appeal. I am pleased to advise that we are well on the way towards getting rid of this antiquated and feudal system of ministerial appeals.
BGC (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD, HAZELMERE SITE
The minister, when in opposition, raised concerns in this place about the previous Government’s delay in dealing with appeals lodged by BGC (Australia) Pty Ltd against the decisions of the City of Swan with regard to the controversial developments at an industrial site in Hazelmere. Have these appeals now been dealt with properly? Ms MacTIERNAN replied: I was concerned to notice, after some months of hearing appeals, that many of the appeals that were coming to me postdated the BGC appeals with regard to this controversial Hazelmere development. Therefore, I made inquiries about these appeals, and I was very surprised when I was told, firstly, that no grounds for appeal have been given, notwithstanding the fact that the regulations make it clear that no appeal can be lodged unless grounds for appeal are given. I was told, secondly, that when these purported appeals were lodged, the consultants for the company requested that the appeals committee not proceed to deal with them but hold them in abeyance indefinitely. Indeed, in one instance Mr Buckeridge had withdrawn the appeal; however, his consultants had later thought better of it and sought to have that appeal reinstated. All these things are in contravention of the regulations. I then advised the appeals committee that these practices were not acceptable to me, and instructed it to correspond with all appellants with appeals in this category, advising them that they had two weeks to provide grounds for appeal so that the matters could be heard and determined after some nine months. I then received correspondence, interestingly, from BGC’s solicitors asking me to disqualify myself from hearing these appeals on the ground that I would be biased. No basis was given for this presumption and, regrettably, with a heavy heart, I had to advise BGC’s lawyers that Crown Law had advised that I could not delegate these appeals. I advised the solicitors, quite rightly, that all appeals would be heard without fear or favour. Notwithstanding this assurance, BGC then withdrew the appeals. This highlights the way in which I think the ministerial appeals process has been used in many instances to hold a sword of Damocles over local authorities, without there necessarily being any real grounds for appeal or intention to proceed with the appeal. I am pleased to advise that we are well on the way towards getting rid of this antiquated and feudal system of ministerial appeals.
Ms MacTIERNAN replied: I was concerned to notice, after some months of hearing appeals, that many of the appeals that were coming to me postdated the BGC appeals with regard to this controversial Hazelmere development. Therefore, I made inquiries about these appeals, and I was very surprised when I was told, firstly, that no grounds for appeal have been given, notwithstanding the fact that the regulations make it clear that no appeal can be lodged unless grounds for appeal are given. I was told, secondly, that when these purported appeals were lodged, the consultants for the company requested that the appeals committee not proceed to deal with them but hold them in abeyance indefinitely. Indeed, in one instance Mr Buckeridge had withdrawn the appeal; however, his consultants had later thought better of it and sought to have that appeal reinstated. All these things are in contravention of the regulations. I then advised the appeals committee that these practices were not acceptable to me, and instructed it to correspond with all appellants with appeals in this category, advising them that they had two weeks to provide grounds for appeal so that the matters could be heard and determined after some nine months. I then received correspondence, interestingly, from BGC’s solicitors asking me to disqualify myself from hearing these appeals on the ground that I would be biased. No basis was given for this presumption and, regrettably, with a heavy heart, I had to advise BGC’s lawyers that Crown Law had advised that I could not delegate these appeals. I advised the solicitors, quite rightly, that all appeals would be heard without fear or favour. Notwithstanding this assurance, BGC then withdrew the appeals. This highlights the way in which I think the ministerial appeals process has been used in many instances to hold a sword of Damocles over local authorities, without there necessarily being any real grounds for appeal or intention to proceed with the appeal. I am pleased to advise that we are well on the way towards getting rid of this antiquated and feudal system of ministerial appeals.
I was concerned to notice, after some months of hearing appeals, that many of the appeals that were coming to me postdated the BGC appeals with regard to this controversial Hazelmere development. Therefore, I made inquiries about these appeals, and I was very surprised when I was told, firstly, that no grounds for appeal have been given, notwithstanding the fact that the regulations make it clear that no appeal can be lodged unless grounds for appeal are given. I was told, secondly, that when these purported appeals were lodged, the consultants for the company requested that the appeals committee not proceed to deal with them but hold them in abeyance indefinitely. Indeed, in one instance Mr Buckeridge had withdrawn the appeal; however, his consultants had later thought better of it and sought to have that appeal reinstated. All these things are in contravention of the regulations. I then advised the appeals committee that these practices were not acceptable to me, and instructed it to correspond with all appellants with appeals in this category, advising them that they had two weeks to provide grounds for appeal so that the matters could be heard and determined after some nine months. I then received correspondence, interestingly, from BGC’s solicitors asking me to disqualify myself from hearing these appeals on the ground that I would be biased. No basis was given for this presumption and, regrettably, with a heavy heart, I had to advise BGC’s lawyers that Crown Law had advised that I could not delegate these appeals. I advised the solicitors, quite rightly, that all appeals would be heard without fear or favour. Notwithstanding this assurance, BGC then withdrew the appeals. This highlights the way in which I think the ministerial appeals process has been used in many instances to hold a sword of Damocles over local authorities, without there necessarily being any real grounds for appeal or intention to proceed with the appeal. I am pleased to advise that we are well on the way towards getting rid of this antiquated and feudal system of ministerial appeals.
I then received correspondence, interestingly, from BGC’s solicitors asking me to disqualify myself from hearing these appeals on the ground that I would be biased. No basis was given for this presumption and, regrettably, with a heavy heart, I had to advise BGC’s lawyers that Crown Law had advised that I could not delegate these appeals. I advised the solicitors, quite rightly, that all appeals would be heard without fear or favour. Notwithstanding this assurance, BGC then withdrew the appeals. This highlights the way in which I think the ministerial appeals process has been used in many instances to hold a sword of Damocles over local authorities, without there necessarily being any real grounds for appeal or intention to proceed with the appeal. I am pleased to advise that we are well on the way towards getting rid of this antiquated and feudal system of ministerial appeals.
This highlights the way in which I think the ministerial appeals process has been used in many instances to hold a sword of Damocles over local authorities, without there necessarily being any real grounds for appeal or intention to proceed with the appeal. I am pleased to advise that we are well on the way towards getting rid of this antiquated and feudal system of ministerial appeals.
BGC (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD, HAZELMERE SITE
The minister, when in opposition, raised concerns in this place about the previous Government’s delay in dealing with appeals lodged by BGC (Australia) Pty Ltd against the decisions of the City of Swan with regard to the controversial developments at an industrial site in Hazelmere. Have these appeals now been dealt with properly? Ms MacTIERNAN replied: I was concerned to notice, after some months of hearing appeals, that many of the appeals that were coming to me postdated the BGC appeals with regard to this controversial Hazelmere development. Therefore, I made inquiries about these appeals, and I was very surprised when I was told, firstly, that no grounds for appeal have been given, notwithstanding the fact that the regulations make it clear that no appeal can be lodged unless grounds for appeal are given. I was told, secondly, that when these purported appeals were lodged, the consultants for the company requested that the appeals committee not proceed to deal with them but hold them in abeyance indefinitely. Indeed, in one instance Mr Buckeridge had withdrawn the appeal; however, his consultants had later thought better of it and sought to have that appeal reinstated. All these things are in contravention of the regulations. I then advised the appeals committee that these practices were not acceptable to me, and instructed it to correspond with all appellants with appeals in this category, advising them that they had two weeks to provide grounds for appeal so that the matters could be heard and determined after some nine months. I then received correspondence, interestingly, from BGC’s solicitors asking me to disqualify myself from hearing these appeals on the ground that I would be biased. No basis was given for this presumption and, regrettably, with a heavy heart, I had to advise BGC’s lawyers that Crown Law had advised that I could not delegate these appeals. I advised the solicitors, quite rightly, that all appeals would be heard without fear or favour. Notwithstanding this assurance, BGC then withdrew the appeals. This highlights the way in which I think the ministerial appeals process has been used in many instances to hold a sword of Damocles over local authorities, without there necessarily being any real grounds for appeal or intention to proceed with the appeal. I am pleased to advise that we are well on the way towards getting rid of this antiquated and feudal system of ministerial appeals.
Ms MacTIERNAN replied: I was concerned to notice, after some months of hearing appeals, that many of the appeals that were coming to me postdated the BGC appeals with regard to this controversial Hazelmere development. Therefore, I made inquiries about these appeals, and I was very surprised when I was told, firstly, that no grounds for appeal have been given, notwithstanding the fact that the regulations make it clear that no appeal can be lodged unless grounds for appeal are given. I was told, secondly, that when these purported appeals were lodged, the consultants for the company requested that the appeals committee not proceed to deal with them but hold them in abeyance indefinitely. Indeed, in one instance Mr Buckeridge had withdrawn the appeal; however, his consultants had later thought better of it and sought to have that appeal reinstated. All these things are in contravention of the regulations. I then advised the appeals committee that these practices were not acceptable to me, and instructed it to correspond with all appellants with appeals in this category, advising them that they had two weeks to provide grounds for appeal so that the matters could be heard and determined after some nine months. I then received correspondence, interestingly, from BGC’s solicitors asking me to disqualify myself from hearing these appeals on the ground that I would be biased. No basis was given for this presumption and, regrettably, with a heavy heart, I had to advise BGC’s lawyers that Crown Law had advised that I could not delegate these appeals. I advised the solicitors, quite rightly, that all appeals would be heard without fear or favour. Notwithstanding this assurance, BGC then withdrew the appeals. This highlights the way in which I think the ministerial appeals process has been used in many instances to hold a sword of Damocles over local authorities, without there necessarily being any real grounds for appeal or intention to proceed with the appeal. I am pleased to advise that we are well on the way towards getting rid of this antiquated and feudal system of ministerial appeals.
I was concerned to notice, after some months of hearing appeals, that many of the appeals that were coming to me postdated the BGC appeals with regard to this controversial Hazelmere development. Therefore, I made inquiries about these appeals, and I was very surprised when I was told, firstly, that no grounds for appeal have been given, notwithstanding the fact that the regulations make it clear that no appeal can be lodged unless grounds for appeal are given. I was told, secondly, that when these purported appeals were lodged, the consultants for the company requested that the appeals committee not proceed to deal with them but hold them in abeyance indefinitely. Indeed, in one instance Mr Buckeridge had withdrawn the appeal; however, his consultants had later thought better of it and sought to have that appeal reinstated. All these things are in contravention of the regulations. I then advised the appeals committee that these practices were not acceptable to me, and instructed it to correspond with all appellants with appeals in this category, advising them that they had two weeks to provide grounds for appeal so that the matters could be heard and determined after some nine months. I then received correspondence, interestingly, from BGC’s solicitors asking me to disqualify myself from hearing these appeals on the ground that I would be biased. No basis was given for this presumption and, regrettably, with a heavy heart, I had to advise BGC’s lawyers that Crown Law had advised that I could not delegate these appeals. I advised the solicitors, quite rightly, that all appeals would be heard without fear or favour. Notwithstanding this assurance, BGC then withdrew the appeals. This highlights the way in which I think the ministerial appeals process has been used in many instances to hold a sword of Damocles over local authorities, without there necessarily being any real grounds for appeal or intention to proceed with the appeal. I am pleased to advise that we are well on the way towards getting rid of this antiquated and feudal system of ministerial appeals.
I then received correspondence, interestingly, from BGC’s solicitors asking me to disqualify myself from hearing these appeals on the ground that I would be biased. No basis was given for this presumption and, regrettably, with a heavy heart, I had to advise BGC’s lawyers that Crown Law had advised that I could not delegate these appeals. I advised the solicitors, quite rightly, that all appeals would be heard without fear or favour. Notwithstanding this assurance, BGC then withdrew the appeals. This highlights the way in which I think the ministerial appeals process has been used in many instances to hold a sword of Damocles over local authorities, without there necessarily being any real grounds for appeal or intention to proceed with the appeal. I am pleased to advise that we are well on the way towards getting rid of this antiquated and feudal system of ministerial appeals.
This highlights the way in which I think the ministerial appeals process has been used in many instances to hold a sword of Damocles over local authorities, without there necessarily being any real grounds for appeal or intention to proceed with the appeal. I am pleased to advise that we are well on the way towards getting rid of this antiquated and feudal system of ministerial appeals.
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.