❓ Question raises concerns about a potential conflict of interest involving an EPA member and the environmental assessment level for a GTL Resources PLC proposal on the Burrup Peninsula, questioning fairness and adherence to ethical standards.
⏳ Awaiting AnswerQoN 718Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
The Environmental Consultancy acting for GTL Resources PLC is URS Australia Pty Ltd, of which Mr Ian LeProvost is the Senior Principal. Mr LeProvost is one of the five members Environmental Protection Authority -
(1) Has Mr LeProvost declared an interest in the EPA minutes in relationship to his role as the Senior Principal of URS Australia Pty Ltd the consultant to GTL?
(2) Do EPA minutes show that Mr LeProvost removed himself from all discussions surrounding the possibility of this proposal being assessed as an Environmental Protection Statement?
(3) If Mr LeProvost failed to remove himself from discussions relating to the EPA’s setting of level of assessment for the GTL proposal, has he abused the EPA’s Code of Ethics in relation to conflicts of interest?
(4) In view of the fact that other proposals on the Burrup Peninsula have been set at the higher Public Environmental Review level of assessment, how can it be proven that GTL Resources PLC has not unfairly benefited from having URS Australia Pty Ltd act as its environmental consultants?
(5) Given that relative to other developments on the Burrup Peninsula this proposal is located further north the any other Burrup proposal, at the very heart of the Conservation and Heritage area, what will the Government do to correct the EPA’s expressed wish to assess this proposal as an Environmental Protection Statement?
(6) Will the Government act to ensure that the GTL Resources PLC methanol proposal is not given a lesser level of assessment than proposals located further south on the Peninsula?
Answered on
(1) Has Mr LeProvost declared an interest in the EPA minutes in relationship to his role as the Senior Principal of URS Australia Pty Ltd the consultant to GTL?
(2) Do EPA minutes show that Mr LeProvost removed himself from all discussions surrounding the possibility of this proposal being assessed as an Environmental Protection Statement?
(3) If Mr LeProvost failed to remove himself from discussions relating to the EPA’s setting of level of assessment for the GTL proposal, has he abused the EPA’s Code of Ethics in relation to conflicts of interest?
(4) In view of the fact that other proposals on the Burrup Peninsula have been set at the higher Public Environmental Review level of assessment, how can it be proven that GTL Resources PLC has not unfairly benefited from having URS Australia Pty Ltd act as its environmental consultants?
(5) Given that relative to other developments on the Burrup Peninsula this proposal is located further north the any other Burrup proposal, at the very heart of the Conservation and Heritage area, what will the Government do to correct the EPA’s expressed wish to assess this proposal as an Environmental Protection Statement?
(6) Will the Government act to ensure that the GTL Resources PLC methanol proposal is not given a lesser level of assessment than proposals located further south on the Peninsula?
Answered on
AnswerView source ↗
⏳
This question is awaiting a response from the Minister.
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.