❓ Hon Dee Margetts raises concerns about a potential conflict of interest and the Town Planning Appeal Tribunal hearing a case before the EPA's review process is complete, involving BGC. The Minister's answer focuses on the Supreme Court's clarification of the Tribunal's powers.
AnsweredQoN 1287Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the September 2003 edition of
The Greener Times
, the news magazine published by the Conservation Council of Western Australia, and the article that appears on page 5 ‘BGC Tests WA’s Environmental Approval Process’ -
(1) Is the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure aware that for the first time ever the Town Planning Appeal Tribunal, under new President Peter McGowan, has decided to hear planning and environmental matters before the EPA’s Public Environmental Review process has run its full course, and that the case relates to a proposal by Mr Len Buckeridge of BGC (Australia) Pty Ltd?
(2) Is the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure aware that former Planning Minister, now BGC employee, Graham Kierath diligently watched over his company’s progress in the Town Planning Appeal Tribunal, during several days of witness statements and cross examinations?
(3) Given that Graham Kierath was Planning Minister from January 9 1997 to February 10 2001, and Peter McGowan had served as an acting deputy chair of the tribunal since December 1997, does the Minister agree that there could be a perception that the preview working relationship between Peter McGowan and Graham Kierath could have influence Peter McGowan’s decision to hear the case
BGC (Australia) Pty Ltd v Shire of Northam and Brian Dibble and Simon Sorokine
, prior to the completion of the
Environmental Protection Act 1986
’
s
Part IV Environmental Impact Assessment process?
(4) Does the Minister continue to have confidence in the decision of Peter McGowan as President of the Town Planning Appeal Tribunal?
The Greener Times
, the news magazine published by the Conservation Council of Western Australia, and the article that appears on page 5 ‘BGC Tests WA’s Environmental Approval Process’ -
(1) Is the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure aware that for the first time ever the Town Planning Appeal Tribunal, under new President Peter McGowan, has decided to hear planning and environmental matters before the EPA’s Public Environmental Review process has run its full course, and that the case relates to a proposal by Mr Len Buckeridge of BGC (Australia) Pty Ltd?
(2) Is the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure aware that former Planning Minister, now BGC employee, Graham Kierath diligently watched over his company’s progress in the Town Planning Appeal Tribunal, during several days of witness statements and cross examinations?
(3) Given that Graham Kierath was Planning Minister from January 9 1997 to February 10 2001, and Peter McGowan had served as an acting deputy chair of the tribunal since December 1997, does the Minister agree that there could be a perception that the preview working relationship between Peter McGowan and Graham Kierath could have influence Peter McGowan’s decision to hear the case
BGC (Australia) Pty Ltd v Shire of Northam and Brian Dibble and Simon Sorokine
, prior to the completion of the
Environmental Protection Act 1986
’
s
Part IV Environmental Impact Assessment process?
(4) Does the Minister continue to have confidence in the decision of Peter McGowan as President of the Town Planning Appeal Tribunal?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
13 November 2003
Responded by
Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure
Response time
30 days
Arising from the Tribunal’s decision in this matter, the Full Court of the Supreme Court has considered an Application by the State Crown Solicitor for the Environmental Protection Authority for a Writ of Prohibition and Stay of Proceedings against the Tribunal. The Full Court found that the Town Planning Appeal Tribunal is a “State instrumentality” and hence bound by the Environmental Protection Act. Accordingly, the Court concluded that the Tribunal could hear the appeal but not make any decision that could have the effect of causing or allowing the proposal until the necessary authority was obtained under the Environmental Protection Act. In this case the Tribunal identified a possible ambiguity in the relevant legislation and its consideration of the matter has lead to clarification in the Supreme Court of the relevant provisions of the legislation.
In this case the Tribunal identified a possible ambiguity in the relevant legislation and its consideration of the matter has lead to clarification in the Supreme Court of the relevant provisions of the legislation.
In this case the Tribunal identified a possible ambiguity in the relevant legislation and its consideration of the matter has lead to clarification in the Supreme Court of the relevant provisions of the legislation.
In this case the Tribunal identified a possible ambiguity in the relevant legislation and its consideration of the matter has lead to clarification in the Supreme Court of the relevant provisions of the legislation.
In this case the Tribunal identified a possible ambiguity in the relevant legislation and its consideration of the matter has lead to clarification in the Supreme Court of the relevant provisions of the legislation.
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.