❓ Hon Simon O'Brien asks about the delayed tabling of the City of South Perth inquiry report. Hon Tom Stephens explains the delay is due to references to an Anti-Corruption Commission complaint and the need to redact sensitive information to avoid legal issues.
AnsweredQoN 1274Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
CITY OF SOUTH PERTH, TABLING OF REPORT
(1) Is the minister approaching the time when he will table the report of the inquiry into the City of South Perth? (2) If so, when will he table that inquiry? (3) If not, why is the report still being held up? (4) Will the minister please note that the apparent delay in a resolution of this matter is adversely affecting many of the people whose lives are touched by the inquiry? Hon TOM STEPHENS
(1) Is the minister approaching the time when he will table the report of the inquiry into the City of South Perth? (2) If so, when will he table that inquiry? (3) If not, why is the report still being held up? (4) Will the minister please note that the apparent delay in a resolution of this matter is adversely affecting many of the people whose lives are touched by the inquiry? Hon TOM STEPHENS
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(4) I appreciate the final point made by Hon Simon O’Brien. I have been conscious of that. I was pleased that the inquiry finished its report on time. However, some delay has occurred in the handling of the report since then because reference was made in the report to a complaint to the Anti-Corruption Commission. The circulation of that report, as required by the Act, is effectively the publication of that report. The tabling of the report, and its subsequent publication by anyone else, could be construed as the publication of details about a complaint to the Anti-Corruption Commission. I have sought advice from the Crown Solicitor on how best to handle it, and I recently obtained a response. The member will appreciate the difficulties involved with handling information of that sort. We can talk about a complaint being made to the Anti-Corruption Commission, but the media are unable to report that such a complaint has been made. The effect will be that references that, in the view of the Crown Solicitor’s Office, are better not in the report will be deleted. When the report is tabled, there will be gaps in the report in reference to those issues. That is why this delay has occurred since I received the report. There is nothing wrong in a commission of inquiry making that information available to me and in my making that information available to the Parliament and to others to whom I am required to make the report available under the terms of the Local Government Act. The only problem that arises is for anyone else who chooses to pick up the report and then circulate that information. They are the difficulties that we have had. I have asked the suspended councillors to be available to receive the report next Tuesday afternoon. I have written to each of the suspended councillors to ask them to attend the council chambers at South Perth, and the Department of Local Government and Regional Development will make available a copy of the report of the inquiry. I intend to table the report. If it is convenient for the House, I hope to table the report at 4.30 pm next Tuesday. I will then give the suspended councillors the opportunity, in conformity with the Act, to respond to me in writing during the subsequent 35 days with any comments they have about the recommendations in the report.
(2) If so, when will he table that inquiry? (3) If not, why is the report still being held up? (4) Will the minister please note that the apparent delay in a resolution of this matter is adversely affecting many of the people whose lives are touched by the inquiry? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: (1)-(4) I appreciate the final point made by Hon Simon O’Brien. I have been conscious of that. I was pleased that the inquiry finished its report on time. However, some delay has occurred in the handling of the report since then because reference was made in the report to a complaint to the Anti-Corruption Commission. The circulation of that report, as required by the Act, is effectively the publication of that report. The tabling of the report, and its subsequent publication by anyone else, could be construed as the publication of details about a complaint to the Anti-Corruption Commission. I have sought advice from the Crown Solicitor on how best to handle it, and I recently obtained a response. The member will appreciate the difficulties involved with handling information of that sort. We can talk about a complaint being made to the Anti-Corruption Commission, but the media are unable to report that such a complaint has been made. The effect will be that references that, in the view of the Crown Solicitor’s Office, are better not in the report will be deleted. When the report is tabled, there will be gaps in the report in reference to those issues. That is why this delay has occurred since I received the report. There is nothing wrong in a commission of inquiry making that information available to me and in my making that information available to the Parliament and to others to whom I am required to make the report available under the terms of the Local Government Act. The only problem that arises is for anyone else who chooses to pick up the report and then circulate that information. They are the difficulties that we have had. I have asked the suspended councillors to be available to receive the report next Tuesday afternoon. I have written to each of the suspended councillors to ask them to attend the council chambers at South Perth, and the Department of Local Government and Regional Development will make available a copy of the report of the inquiry. I intend to table the report. If it is convenient for the House, I hope to table the report at 4.30 pm next Tuesday. I will then give the suspended councillors the opportunity, in conformity with the Act, to respond to me in writing during the subsequent 35 days with any comments they have about the recommendations in the report.
(3) If not, why is the report still being held up? (4) Will the minister please note that the apparent delay in a resolution of this matter is adversely affecting many of the people whose lives are touched by the inquiry? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: (1)-(4) I appreciate the final point made by Hon Simon O’Brien. I have been conscious of that. I was pleased that the inquiry finished its report on time. However, some delay has occurred in the handling of the report since then because reference was made in the report to a complaint to the Anti-Corruption Commission. The circulation of that report, as required by the Act, is effectively the publication of that report. The tabling of the report, and its subsequent publication by anyone else, could be construed as the publication of details about a complaint to the Anti-Corruption Commission. I have sought advice from the Crown Solicitor on how best to handle it, and I recently obtained a response. The member will appreciate the difficulties involved with handling information of that sort. We can talk about a complaint being made to the Anti-Corruption Commission, but the media are unable to report that such a complaint has been made. The effect will be that references that, in the view of the Crown Solicitor’s Office, are better not in the report will be deleted. When the report is tabled, there will be gaps in the report in reference to those issues. That is why this delay has occurred since I received the report. There is nothing wrong in a commission of inquiry making that information available to me and in my making that information available to the Parliament and to others to whom I am required to make the report available under the terms of the Local Government Act. The only problem that arises is for anyone else who chooses to pick up the report and then circulate that information. They are the difficulties that we have had. I have asked the suspended councillors to be available to receive the report next Tuesday afternoon. I have written to each of the suspended councillors to ask them to attend the council chambers at South Perth, and the Department of Local Government and Regional Development will make available a copy of the report of the inquiry. I intend to table the report. If it is convenient for the House, I hope to table the report at 4.30 pm next Tuesday. I will then give the suspended councillors the opportunity, in conformity with the Act, to respond to me in writing during the subsequent 35 days with any comments they have about the recommendations in the report.
(4) Will the minister please note that the apparent delay in a resolution of this matter is adversely affecting many of the people whose lives are touched by the inquiry? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: (1)-(4) I appreciate the final point made by Hon Simon O’Brien. I have been conscious of that. I was pleased that the inquiry finished its report on time. However, some delay has occurred in the handling of the report since then because reference was made in the report to a complaint to the Anti-Corruption Commission. The circulation of that report, as required by the Act, is effectively the publication of that report. The tabling of the report, and its subsequent publication by anyone else, could be construed as the publication of details about a complaint to the Anti-Corruption Commission. I have sought advice from the Crown Solicitor on how best to handle it, and I recently obtained a response. The member will appreciate the difficulties involved with handling information of that sort. We can talk about a complaint being made to the Anti-Corruption Commission, but the media are unable to report that such a complaint has been made. The effect will be that references that, in the view of the Crown Solicitor’s Office, are better not in the report will be deleted. When the report is tabled, there will be gaps in the report in reference to those issues. That is why this delay has occurred since I received the report. There is nothing wrong in a commission of inquiry making that information available to me and in my making that information available to the Parliament and to others to whom I am required to make the report available under the terms of the Local Government Act. The only problem that arises is for anyone else who chooses to pick up the report and then circulate that information. They are the difficulties that we have had. I have asked the suspended councillors to be available to receive the report next Tuesday afternoon. I have written to each of the suspended councillors to ask them to attend the council chambers at South Perth, and the Department of Local Government and Regional Development will make available a copy of the report of the inquiry. I intend to table the report. If it is convenient for the House, I hope to table the report at 4.30 pm next Tuesday. I will then give the suspended councillors the opportunity, in conformity with the Act, to respond to me in writing during the subsequent 35 days with any comments they have about the recommendations in the report.
Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: (1)-(4) I appreciate the final point made by Hon Simon O’Brien. I have been conscious of that. I was pleased that the inquiry finished its report on time. However, some delay has occurred in the handling of the report since then because reference was made in the report to a complaint to the Anti-Corruption Commission. The circulation of that report, as required by the Act, is effectively the publication of that report. The tabling of the report, and its subsequent publication by anyone else, could be construed as the publication of details about a complaint to the Anti-Corruption Commission. I have sought advice from the Crown Solicitor on how best to handle it, and I recently obtained a response. The member will appreciate the difficulties involved with handling information of that sort. We can talk about a complaint being made to the Anti-Corruption Commission, but the media are unable to report that such a complaint has been made. The effect will be that references that, in the view of the Crown Solicitor’s Office, are better not in the report will be deleted. When the report is tabled, there will be gaps in the report in reference to those issues. That is why this delay has occurred since I received the report. There is nothing wrong in a commission of inquiry making that information available to me and in my making that information available to the Parliament and to others to whom I am required to make the report available under the terms of the Local Government Act. The only problem that arises is for anyone else who chooses to pick up the report and then circulate that information. They are the difficulties that we have had. I have asked the suspended councillors to be available to receive the report next Tuesday afternoon. I have written to each of the suspended councillors to ask them to attend the council chambers at South Perth, and the Department of Local Government and Regional Development will make available a copy of the report of the inquiry. I intend to table the report. If it is convenient for the House, I hope to table the report at 4.30 pm next Tuesday. I will then give the suspended councillors the opportunity, in conformity with the Act, to respond to me in writing during the subsequent 35 days with any comments they have about the recommendations in the report.
(1)-(4) I appreciate the final point made by Hon Simon O’Brien. I have been conscious of that. I was pleased that the inquiry finished its report on time. However, some delay has occurred in the handling of the report since then because reference was made in the report to a complaint to the Anti-Corruption Commission. The circulation of that report, as required by the Act, is effectively the publication of that report. The tabling of the report, and its subsequent publication by anyone else, could be construed as the publication of details about a complaint to the Anti-Corruption Commission. I have sought advice from the Crown Solicitor on how best to handle it, and I recently obtained a response. The member will appreciate the difficulties involved with handling information of that sort. We can talk about a complaint being made to the Anti-Corruption Commission, but the media are unable to report that such a complaint has been made. The effect will be that references that, in the view of the Crown Solicitor’s Office, are better not in the report will be deleted. When the report is tabled, there will be gaps in the report in reference to those issues. That is why this delay has occurred since I received the report. There is nothing wrong in a commission of inquiry making that information available to me and in my making that information available to the Parliament and to others to whom I am required to make the report available under the terms of the Local Government Act. The only problem that arises is for anyone else who chooses to pick up the report and then circulate that information. They are the difficulties that we have had. I have asked the suspended councillors to be available to receive the report next Tuesday afternoon. I have written to each of the suspended councillors to ask them to attend the council chambers at South Perth, and the Department of Local Government and Regional Development will make available a copy of the report of the inquiry. I intend to table the report. If it is convenient for the House, I hope to table the report at 4.30 pm next Tuesday. I will then give the suspended councillors the opportunity, in conformity with the Act, to respond to me in writing during the subsequent 35 days with any comments they have about the recommendations in the report.
There is nothing wrong in a commission of inquiry making that information available to me and in my making that information available to the Parliament and to others to whom I am required to make the report available under the terms of the Local Government Act. The only problem that arises is for anyone else who chooses to pick up the report and then circulate that information. They are the difficulties that we have had. I have asked the suspended councillors to be available to receive the report next Tuesday afternoon. I have written to each of the suspended councillors to ask them to attend the council chambers at South Perth, and the Department of Local Government and Regional Development will make available a copy of the report of the inquiry. I intend to table the report. If it is convenient for the House, I hope to table the report at 4.30 pm next Tuesday. I will then give the suspended councillors the opportunity, in conformity with the Act, to respond to me in writing during the subsequent 35 days with any comments they have about the recommendations in the report.
I have asked the suspended councillors to be available to receive the report next Tuesday afternoon. I have written to each of the suspended councillors to ask them to attend the council chambers at South Perth, and the Department of Local Government and Regional Development will make available a copy of the report of the inquiry. I intend to table the report. If it is convenient for the House, I hope to table the report at 4.30 pm next Tuesday. I will then give the suspended councillors the opportunity, in conformity with the Act, to respond to me in writing during the subsequent 35 days with any comments they have about the recommendations in the report.
(2) If so, when will he table that inquiry? (3) If not, why is the report still being held up? (4) Will the minister please note that the apparent delay in a resolution of this matter is adversely affecting many of the people whose lives are touched by the inquiry? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: (1)-(4) I appreciate the final point made by Hon Simon O’Brien. I have been conscious of that. I was pleased that the inquiry finished its report on time. However, some delay has occurred in the handling of the report since then because reference was made in the report to a complaint to the Anti-Corruption Commission. The circulation of that report, as required by the Act, is effectively the publication of that report. The tabling of the report, and its subsequent publication by anyone else, could be construed as the publication of details about a complaint to the Anti-Corruption Commission. I have sought advice from the Crown Solicitor on how best to handle it, and I recently obtained a response. The member will appreciate the difficulties involved with handling information of that sort. We can talk about a complaint being made to the Anti-Corruption Commission, but the media are unable to report that such a complaint has been made. The effect will be that references that, in the view of the Crown Solicitor’s Office, are better not in the report will be deleted. When the report is tabled, there will be gaps in the report in reference to those issues. That is why this delay has occurred since I received the report. There is nothing wrong in a commission of inquiry making that information available to me and in my making that information available to the Parliament and to others to whom I am required to make the report available under the terms of the Local Government Act. The only problem that arises is for anyone else who chooses to pick up the report and then circulate that information. They are the difficulties that we have had. I have asked the suspended councillors to be available to receive the report next Tuesday afternoon. I have written to each of the suspended councillors to ask them to attend the council chambers at South Perth, and the Department of Local Government and Regional Development will make available a copy of the report of the inquiry. I intend to table the report. If it is convenient for the House, I hope to table the report at 4.30 pm next Tuesday. I will then give the suspended councillors the opportunity, in conformity with the Act, to respond to me in writing during the subsequent 35 days with any comments they have about the recommendations in the report.
(3) If not, why is the report still being held up? (4) Will the minister please note that the apparent delay in a resolution of this matter is adversely affecting many of the people whose lives are touched by the inquiry? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: (1)-(4) I appreciate the final point made by Hon Simon O’Brien. I have been conscious of that. I was pleased that the inquiry finished its report on time. However, some delay has occurred in the handling of the report since then because reference was made in the report to a complaint to the Anti-Corruption Commission. The circulation of that report, as required by the Act, is effectively the publication of that report. The tabling of the report, and its subsequent publication by anyone else, could be construed as the publication of details about a complaint to the Anti-Corruption Commission. I have sought advice from the Crown Solicitor on how best to handle it, and I recently obtained a response. The member will appreciate the difficulties involved with handling information of that sort. We can talk about a complaint being made to the Anti-Corruption Commission, but the media are unable to report that such a complaint has been made. The effect will be that references that, in the view of the Crown Solicitor’s Office, are better not in the report will be deleted. When the report is tabled, there will be gaps in the report in reference to those issues. That is why this delay has occurred since I received the report. There is nothing wrong in a commission of inquiry making that information available to me and in my making that information available to the Parliament and to others to whom I am required to make the report available under the terms of the Local Government Act. The only problem that arises is for anyone else who chooses to pick up the report and then circulate that information. They are the difficulties that we have had. I have asked the suspended councillors to be available to receive the report next Tuesday afternoon. I have written to each of the suspended councillors to ask them to attend the council chambers at South Perth, and the Department of Local Government and Regional Development will make available a copy of the report of the inquiry. I intend to table the report. If it is convenient for the House, I hope to table the report at 4.30 pm next Tuesday. I will then give the suspended councillors the opportunity, in conformity with the Act, to respond to me in writing during the subsequent 35 days with any comments they have about the recommendations in the report.
(4) Will the minister please note that the apparent delay in a resolution of this matter is adversely affecting many of the people whose lives are touched by the inquiry? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: (1)-(4) I appreciate the final point made by Hon Simon O’Brien. I have been conscious of that. I was pleased that the inquiry finished its report on time. However, some delay has occurred in the handling of the report since then because reference was made in the report to a complaint to the Anti-Corruption Commission. The circulation of that report, as required by the Act, is effectively the publication of that report. The tabling of the report, and its subsequent publication by anyone else, could be construed as the publication of details about a complaint to the Anti-Corruption Commission. I have sought advice from the Crown Solicitor on how best to handle it, and I recently obtained a response. The member will appreciate the difficulties involved with handling information of that sort. We can talk about a complaint being made to the Anti-Corruption Commission, but the media are unable to report that such a complaint has been made. The effect will be that references that, in the view of the Crown Solicitor’s Office, are better not in the report will be deleted. When the report is tabled, there will be gaps in the report in reference to those issues. That is why this delay has occurred since I received the report. There is nothing wrong in a commission of inquiry making that information available to me and in my making that information available to the Parliament and to others to whom I am required to make the report available under the terms of the Local Government Act. The only problem that arises is for anyone else who chooses to pick up the report and then circulate that information. They are the difficulties that we have had. I have asked the suspended councillors to be available to receive the report next Tuesday afternoon. I have written to each of the suspended councillors to ask them to attend the council chambers at South Perth, and the Department of Local Government and Regional Development will make available a copy of the report of the inquiry. I intend to table the report. If it is convenient for the House, I hope to table the report at 4.30 pm next Tuesday. I will then give the suspended councillors the opportunity, in conformity with the Act, to respond to me in writing during the subsequent 35 days with any comments they have about the recommendations in the report.
Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: (1)-(4) I appreciate the final point made by Hon Simon O’Brien. I have been conscious of that. I was pleased that the inquiry finished its report on time. However, some delay has occurred in the handling of the report since then because reference was made in the report to a complaint to the Anti-Corruption Commission. The circulation of that report, as required by the Act, is effectively the publication of that report. The tabling of the report, and its subsequent publication by anyone else, could be construed as the publication of details about a complaint to the Anti-Corruption Commission. I have sought advice from the Crown Solicitor on how best to handle it, and I recently obtained a response. The member will appreciate the difficulties involved with handling information of that sort. We can talk about a complaint being made to the Anti-Corruption Commission, but the media are unable to report that such a complaint has been made. The effect will be that references that, in the view of the Crown Solicitor’s Office, are better not in the report will be deleted. When the report is tabled, there will be gaps in the report in reference to those issues. That is why this delay has occurred since I received the report. There is nothing wrong in a commission of inquiry making that information available to me and in my making that information available to the Parliament and to others to whom I am required to make the report available under the terms of the Local Government Act. The only problem that arises is for anyone else who chooses to pick up the report and then circulate that information. They are the difficulties that we have had. I have asked the suspended councillors to be available to receive the report next Tuesday afternoon. I have written to each of the suspended councillors to ask them to attend the council chambers at South Perth, and the Department of Local Government and Regional Development will make available a copy of the report of the inquiry. I intend to table the report. If it is convenient for the House, I hope to table the report at 4.30 pm next Tuesday. I will then give the suspended councillors the opportunity, in conformity with the Act, to respond to me in writing during the subsequent 35 days with any comments they have about the recommendations in the report.
(1)-(4) I appreciate the final point made by Hon Simon O’Brien. I have been conscious of that. I was pleased that the inquiry finished its report on time. However, some delay has occurred in the handling of the report since then because reference was made in the report to a complaint to the Anti-Corruption Commission. The circulation of that report, as required by the Act, is effectively the publication of that report. The tabling of the report, and its subsequent publication by anyone else, could be construed as the publication of details about a complaint to the Anti-Corruption Commission. I have sought advice from the Crown Solicitor on how best to handle it, and I recently obtained a response. The member will appreciate the difficulties involved with handling information of that sort. We can talk about a complaint being made to the Anti-Corruption Commission, but the media are unable to report that such a complaint has been made. The effect will be that references that, in the view of the Crown Solicitor’s Office, are better not in the report will be deleted. When the report is tabled, there will be gaps in the report in reference to those issues. That is why this delay has occurred since I received the report. There is nothing wrong in a commission of inquiry making that information available to me and in my making that information available to the Parliament and to others to whom I am required to make the report available under the terms of the Local Government Act. The only problem that arises is for anyone else who chooses to pick up the report and then circulate that information. They are the difficulties that we have had. I have asked the suspended councillors to be available to receive the report next Tuesday afternoon. I have written to each of the suspended councillors to ask them to attend the council chambers at South Perth, and the Department of Local Government and Regional Development will make available a copy of the report of the inquiry. I intend to table the report. If it is convenient for the House, I hope to table the report at 4.30 pm next Tuesday. I will then give the suspended councillors the opportunity, in conformity with the Act, to respond to me in writing during the subsequent 35 days with any comments they have about the recommendations in the report.
There is nothing wrong in a commission of inquiry making that information available to me and in my making that information available to the Parliament and to others to whom I am required to make the report available under the terms of the Local Government Act. The only problem that arises is for anyone else who chooses to pick up the report and then circulate that information. They are the difficulties that we have had. I have asked the suspended councillors to be available to receive the report next Tuesday afternoon. I have written to each of the suspended councillors to ask them to attend the council chambers at South Perth, and the Department of Local Government and Regional Development will make available a copy of the report of the inquiry. I intend to table the report. If it is convenient for the House, I hope to table the report at 4.30 pm next Tuesday. I will then give the suspended councillors the opportunity, in conformity with the Act, to respond to me in writing during the subsequent 35 days with any comments they have about the recommendations in the report.
I have asked the suspended councillors to be available to receive the report next Tuesday afternoon. I have written to each of the suspended councillors to ask them to attend the council chambers at South Perth, and the Department of Local Government and Regional Development will make available a copy of the report of the inquiry. I intend to table the report. If it is convenient for the House, I hope to table the report at 4.30 pm next Tuesday. I will then give the suspended councillors the opportunity, in conformity with the Act, to respond to me in writing during the subsequent 35 days with any comments they have about the recommendations in the report.
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.