❓ Question regarding a potential conflict of interest for the Minister for Planning concerning a development proposal near his property. The Minister denies any conflict, stating his decision was based on WA Planning Commission advice and broader planning objectives.
AnsweredQoN 91Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
MINISTER FOR PLANNING — CONFLICT OF
INTEREST — WARATAH AVENUE, DALKEITH
91. Mr J.N. HYDE to the Minister for Planning:
I refer to media reports on 10 March 2012 that the minister
owns a property in Waratah Avenue, Dalkeith, opposite the site of a development
proposal which was the subject of a decision whereby the minister overruled the
local government authority.
(1) Did the
minister seek advice from the Premier as to whether he should excuse himself
from this matter; and, if so, what was the Premier's advice?
(2) Did the
minister seek advice from any of his cabinet colleagues, including the Minister
for Local Government, as to whether he should excuse himself; and, if so, from
whom, and what advice was he given?
(3) Why did
the minister choose to ignore the obvious conflict of interest and perceived
conflict of interest of owning property that will be affected by the
development on which the minister was ruling?
INTEREST — WARATAH AVENUE, DALKEITH
91. Mr J.N. HYDE to the Minister for Planning:
I refer to media reports on 10 March 2012 that the minister
owns a property in Waratah Avenue, Dalkeith, opposite the site of a development
proposal which was the subject of a decision whereby the minister overruled the
local government authority.
(1) Did the
minister seek advice from the Premier as to whether he should excuse himself
from this matter; and, if so, what was the Premier's advice?
(2) Did the
minister seek advice from any of his cabinet colleagues, including the Minister
for Local Government, as to whether he should excuse himself; and, if so, from
whom, and what advice was he given?
(3) Why did
the minister choose to ignore the obvious conflict of interest and perceived
conflict of interest of owning property that will be affected by the
development on which the minister was ruling?
AnswerView source ↗
(1)–(3)
The basic premise of the member's question is correct in relation to
ownership of property. In relation to his premise about conflict of interest,
there is certainly no conflict of interest. In fact this issue and the
sentiment which the member has expressed are driven by people who do not accept
or do not appreciate the fact that the population of Perth is growing and that
the demographics of Perth are changing with an ageing population and with more
people wanting apartment-type accommodation and so on. There is a scheme
amendment that has now been finalised.
Mr J.N. Hyde : We
know that, minister. You're a beneficial neighbour.
The SPEAKER :
Member for Perth!
Mr
J.H.D. DAY : I think it has been finalised in Waratah Avenue. To suggest
that I am a beneficiary is certainly not the case. Indeed, if the arguments of
those who oppose my decision to accept the recommendation of the WA Planning
Commission to allow four storeys instead of three in this scheme amendment on
the other side of the road are accepted—which I do not—then
there is in fact a negative benefit. There is certainly no conflict of
interest. I have made my decision on the basis of advice from the WA Planning
Commission. I ensured that the Department of Planning officers who were
briefing me were aware of the property ownership.
Several members interjected.
The
SPEAKER : I observe there is only one person who has asked the question. It
is the member for Perth. I do not need interjections from other people. I am
sure the member for Perth does not need any assistance from anybody, nor does
the Minister for Planning.
Mr J.H.D. DAY : No,
the issue was not discussed with the Premier beforehand. I made my decision, as
I said, fully disclosing through normal parliamentary process my ownership of
property. Department of Planning officers were aware when they briefed me. The
WA Planning Commission made its recommendation not taking into account
ownership of property but simply following the planning framework that we have
for the Perth metropolitan area and the Peel region, Directions 2031, which
does reflect the fact that —
Mr J.N. Hyde interjected.
The SPEAKER :
Member for Perth!
Mr J.N. Hyde interjected.
The
SPEAKER : Member for Perth, if you wish to ask a supplementary
question, I am going to give you that opportunity. If you continue to interject
on the minister, I am going to close this question down.
Mr
J.H.D. DAY : Mr Speaker, the member for Perth is, unfortunately, aligning
himself—as he has done on other occasions on other issues—with
people in Perth who do not appreciate that the population of Perth is growing
substantially, that there is an ageing population, and that there is a need to
provide additional residential development across the Perth metropolitan area
with urban infill projects in appropriately located areas—and that
includes the western suburbs of Perth. There is therefore a planning scheme
amendment for the City of Nedlands. A whole local planning scheme for the Town
of Cottesloe is under consideration at the moment, about which the Premier and
member for Cottesloe has made comments in recent times. People in that part of
the world need to accept that as well as the fact that the world is changing.
All the decisions I make, therefore, very much take into account the advice of
the Western Australian Planning Commission. Normally, those recommendations are
accepted. When they are modified, there is always very good reason to do so. In
this case no modification was made to the recommendation of the WA Planning
Commission. Indeed, if I had not accepted the advice of the planning commission
and had agreed with the City of Nedlands council and some of the local
residents who wanted the height maintained at three storeys —
Dr A.D. Buti interjected.
The SPEAKER : Take
a seat, minister. Member for Armadale, I think the member for Perth wants to
ask a supplementary question. I do not want you to deny him that. I am formally
going to call you to order for the first time today.
Mr J.H.D. DAY : To
conclude, if I had agreed with the City of Nedlands council and not accepted
the advice of the Western Australian Planning Commission, the member for Perth
would have a point.
Dr A.D. Buti interjected.
Mr J.H.D. DAY : I
would have then been demonstrating a conflict of interest and not acting with
impartiality.
Dr A.D. Buti interjected.
The SPEAKER :
Member for Armadale, I am formally going to call you to order for the second
time today.
The basic premise of the member's question is correct in relation to
ownership of property. In relation to his premise about conflict of interest,
there is certainly no conflict of interest. In fact this issue and the
sentiment which the member has expressed are driven by people who do not accept
or do not appreciate the fact that the population of Perth is growing and that
the demographics of Perth are changing with an ageing population and with more
people wanting apartment-type accommodation and so on. There is a scheme
amendment that has now been finalised.
Mr J.N. Hyde : We
know that, minister. You're a beneficial neighbour.
The SPEAKER :
Member for Perth!
Mr
J.H.D. DAY : I think it has been finalised in Waratah Avenue. To suggest
that I am a beneficiary is certainly not the case. Indeed, if the arguments of
those who oppose my decision to accept the recommendation of the WA Planning
Commission to allow four storeys instead of three in this scheme amendment on
the other side of the road are accepted—which I do not—then
there is in fact a negative benefit. There is certainly no conflict of
interest. I have made my decision on the basis of advice from the WA Planning
Commission. I ensured that the Department of Planning officers who were
briefing me were aware of the property ownership.
Several members interjected.
The
SPEAKER : I observe there is only one person who has asked the question. It
is the member for Perth. I do not need interjections from other people. I am
sure the member for Perth does not need any assistance from anybody, nor does
the Minister for Planning.
Mr J.H.D. DAY : No,
the issue was not discussed with the Premier beforehand. I made my decision, as
I said, fully disclosing through normal parliamentary process my ownership of
property. Department of Planning officers were aware when they briefed me. The
WA Planning Commission made its recommendation not taking into account
ownership of property but simply following the planning framework that we have
for the Perth metropolitan area and the Peel region, Directions 2031, which
does reflect the fact that —
Mr J.N. Hyde interjected.
The SPEAKER :
Member for Perth!
Mr J.N. Hyde interjected.
The
SPEAKER : Member for Perth, if you wish to ask a supplementary
question, I am going to give you that opportunity. If you continue to interject
on the minister, I am going to close this question down.
Mr
J.H.D. DAY : Mr Speaker, the member for Perth is, unfortunately, aligning
himself—as he has done on other occasions on other issues—with
people in Perth who do not appreciate that the population of Perth is growing
substantially, that there is an ageing population, and that there is a need to
provide additional residential development across the Perth metropolitan area
with urban infill projects in appropriately located areas—and that
includes the western suburbs of Perth. There is therefore a planning scheme
amendment for the City of Nedlands. A whole local planning scheme for the Town
of Cottesloe is under consideration at the moment, about which the Premier and
member for Cottesloe has made comments in recent times. People in that part of
the world need to accept that as well as the fact that the world is changing.
All the decisions I make, therefore, very much take into account the advice of
the Western Australian Planning Commission. Normally, those recommendations are
accepted. When they are modified, there is always very good reason to do so. In
this case no modification was made to the recommendation of the WA Planning
Commission. Indeed, if I had not accepted the advice of the planning commission
and had agreed with the City of Nedlands council and some of the local
residents who wanted the height maintained at three storeys —
Dr A.D. Buti interjected.
The SPEAKER : Take
a seat, minister. Member for Armadale, I think the member for Perth wants to
ask a supplementary question. I do not want you to deny him that. I am formally
going to call you to order for the first time today.
Mr J.H.D. DAY : To
conclude, if I had agreed with the City of Nedlands council and not accepted
the advice of the Western Australian Planning Commission, the member for Perth
would have a point.
Dr A.D. Buti interjected.
Mr J.H.D. DAY : I
would have then been demonstrating a conflict of interest and not acting with
impartiality.
Dr A.D. Buti interjected.
The SPEAKER :
Member for Armadale, I am formally going to call you to order for the second
time today.
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.