❓ A WA parliamentary question examines the exclusion of a councillor from a planning scheme debate due to a conflict of interest arising from his business partner's property being considered for rezoning. The response details the legal basis for the exclusion and differentiates it from the treatment of other councillors with declared interests.
AnsweredQoN 24Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
SHIRE OF AUGUSTA-MARGARET RIVER - DRAFT DISTRICT PLANNING SCHEME 1
With regard to the recent decision by the Department of Local Government and Regional Development to exclude Augusta-Margaret River Shire Councillor Brian Middleton from participating in the entire debate on the draft district planning scheme 1, after he sought advice on a possible conflict of interest involving his business partner living in a street recommended for rezoning, I ask - (1) On what grounds was he excluded; that is, under what section of the act? (2) Why was the exclusion not confined to only that one item in draft district planning scheme 1? (3) Why was Councillor Middleton treated differently from several other councillors who declared conflicts of interest and who were barred from deliberating on the specific items, but were allowed to participate in all other aspects of the debate? Hon KIM CHANCE
With regard to the recent decision by the Department of Local Government and Regional Development to exclude Augusta-Margaret River Shire Councillor Brian Middleton from participating in the entire debate on the draft district planning scheme 1, after he sought advice on a possible conflict of interest involving his business partner living in a street recommended for rezoning, I ask - (1) On what grounds was he excluded; that is, under what section of the act? (2) Why was the exclusion not confined to only that one item in draft district planning scheme 1? (3) Why was Councillor Middleton treated differently from several other councillors who declared conflicts of interest and who were barred from deliberating on the specific items, but were allowed to participate in all other aspects of the debate? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
On behalf of the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development, I thank Hon Barry House for some notice of the question. The answer is quite lengthy. I table the answer and seek leave for its incorporation into Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 1330.] The following material was incorporated - 1. Councillor Middleton was one of five Councillors that declared an interest in DDTPS1. As there are seven positions of Councillor, the Council could not achieve a quorum to deal with the matter. The Chief Executive officer (CEO) requested approval, pursuant to section 5.69 of the Local Government Act 1995 (the Act) for the declaring Councillors to participate in the matter. Under Section 5.60 of the Act, a Councillor has an interest in a matter if either the Councillor or a person with whom the Councillor is closely associated has a direct or indirect interest in a matter or a proximity interest in the matter. Under section 5.62, Councillor Middleton’s business partner is deemed to be a “closely associated person”. It was proposed to rezone the property owned by Councillor Middleton’s business partner to R30/40 which would significantly increase the development potential of the land and thereby its value. Councillor Middleton was not granted an exemption to allow him to participate on the basis that he had a clear interest in the matter. 2. The Council held a Special meeting to discuss DDTPS1 which covers the whole district, ie discussions/decisions were not based on individual properties. Therefore, any discussion/voting on DDTPS1 would have included Councillor Middleton’s business partner’s property. 3. With respect to the four other declaring councillors, two were assessed to have a proximity interest, which was not considered significant. One Councillor was assessed to have no interest in the matter (or at least the interest was not clear). The fourth Councillor was assessed to have a property that was within the boundaries of the Witchcliffe Village Strategy (a guiding document referred to by DDTPS1). The CEO advised that it was not intended to discuss this Strategy at the Council meeting. Accordingly, conditional approval was given for this Councillor to participate, however, should the Witchcliffe Village Strategy be raised at the meeting, the approval was invalid and the Councillor was to leave the room.
(1) On what grounds was he excluded; that is, under what section of the act? (2) Why was the exclusion not confined to only that one item in draft district planning scheme 1? (3) Why was Councillor Middleton treated differently from several other councillors who declared conflicts of interest and who were barred from deliberating on the specific items, but were allowed to participate in all other aspects of the debate? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: On behalf of the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development, I thank Hon Barry House for some notice of the question. The answer is quite lengthy. I table the answer and seek leave for its incorporation into Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 1330.] The following material was incorporated - 1. Councillor Middleton was one of five Councillors that declared an interest in DDTPS1. As there are seven positions of Councillor, the Council could not achieve a quorum to deal with the matter. The Chief Executive officer (CEO) requested approval, pursuant to section 5.69 of the Local Government Act 1995 (the Act) for the declaring Councillors to participate in the matter. Under Section 5.60 of the Act, a Councillor has an interest in a matter if either the Councillor or a person with whom the Councillor is closely associated has a direct or indirect interest in a matter or a proximity interest in the matter. Under section 5.62, Councillor Middleton’s business partner is deemed to be a “closely associated person”. It was proposed to rezone the property owned by Councillor Middleton’s business partner to R30/40 which would significantly increase the development potential of the land and thereby its value. Councillor Middleton was not granted an exemption to allow him to participate on the basis that he had a clear interest in the matter. 2. The Council held a Special meeting to discuss DDTPS1 which covers the whole district, ie discussions/decisions were not based on individual properties. Therefore, any discussion/voting on DDTPS1 would have included Councillor Middleton’s business partner’s property. 3. With respect to the four other declaring councillors, two were assessed to have a proximity interest, which was not considered significant. One Councillor was assessed to have no interest in the matter (or at least the interest was not clear). The fourth Councillor was assessed to have a property that was within the boundaries of the Witchcliffe Village Strategy (a guiding document referred to by DDTPS1). The CEO advised that it was not intended to discuss this Strategy at the Council meeting. Accordingly, conditional approval was given for this Councillor to participate, however, should the Witchcliffe Village Strategy be raised at the meeting, the approval was invalid and the Councillor was to leave the room.
(2) Why was the exclusion not confined to only that one item in draft district planning scheme 1? (3) Why was Councillor Middleton treated differently from several other councillors who declared conflicts of interest and who were barred from deliberating on the specific items, but were allowed to participate in all other aspects of the debate? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: On behalf of the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development, I thank Hon Barry House for some notice of the question. The answer is quite lengthy. I table the answer and seek leave for its incorporation into Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 1330.] The following material was incorporated - 1. Councillor Middleton was one of five Councillors that declared an interest in DDTPS1. As there are seven positions of Councillor, the Council could not achieve a quorum to deal with the matter. The Chief Executive officer (CEO) requested approval, pursuant to section 5.69 of the Local Government Act 1995 (the Act) for the declaring Councillors to participate in the matter. Under Section 5.60 of the Act, a Councillor has an interest in a matter if either the Councillor or a person with whom the Councillor is closely associated has a direct or indirect interest in a matter or a proximity interest in the matter. Under section 5.62, Councillor Middleton’s business partner is deemed to be a “closely associated person”. It was proposed to rezone the property owned by Councillor Middleton’s business partner to R30/40 which would significantly increase the development potential of the land and thereby its value. Councillor Middleton was not granted an exemption to allow him to participate on the basis that he had a clear interest in the matter. 2. The Council held a Special meeting to discuss DDTPS1 which covers the whole district, ie discussions/decisions were not based on individual properties. Therefore, any discussion/voting on DDTPS1 would have included Councillor Middleton’s business partner’s property. 3. With respect to the four other declaring councillors, two were assessed to have a proximity interest, which was not considered significant. One Councillor was assessed to have no interest in the matter (or at least the interest was not clear). The fourth Councillor was assessed to have a property that was within the boundaries of the Witchcliffe Village Strategy (a guiding document referred to by DDTPS1). The CEO advised that it was not intended to discuss this Strategy at the Council meeting. Accordingly, conditional approval was given for this Councillor to participate, however, should the Witchcliffe Village Strategy be raised at the meeting, the approval was invalid and the Councillor was to leave the room.
(3) Why was Councillor Middleton treated differently from several other councillors who declared conflicts of interest and who were barred from deliberating on the specific items, but were allowed to participate in all other aspects of the debate? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: On behalf of the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development, I thank Hon Barry House for some notice of the question. The answer is quite lengthy. I table the answer and seek leave for its incorporation into Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 1330.] The following material was incorporated - 1. Councillor Middleton was one of five Councillors that declared an interest in DDTPS1. As there are seven positions of Councillor, the Council could not achieve a quorum to deal with the matter. The Chief Executive officer (CEO) requested approval, pursuant to section 5.69 of the Local Government Act 1995 (the Act) for the declaring Councillors to participate in the matter. Under Section 5.60 of the Act, a Councillor has an interest in a matter if either the Councillor or a person with whom the Councillor is closely associated has a direct or indirect interest in a matter or a proximity interest in the matter. Under section 5.62, Councillor Middleton’s business partner is deemed to be a “closely associated person”. It was proposed to rezone the property owned by Councillor Middleton’s business partner to R30/40 which would significantly increase the development potential of the land and thereby its value. Councillor Middleton was not granted an exemption to allow him to participate on the basis that he had a clear interest in the matter. 2. The Council held a Special meeting to discuss DDTPS1 which covers the whole district, ie discussions/decisions were not based on individual properties. Therefore, any discussion/voting on DDTPS1 would have included Councillor Middleton’s business partner’s property. 3. With respect to the four other declaring councillors, two were assessed to have a proximity interest, which was not considered significant. One Councillor was assessed to have no interest in the matter (or at least the interest was not clear). The fourth Councillor was assessed to have a property that was within the boundaries of the Witchcliffe Village Strategy (a guiding document referred to by DDTPS1). The CEO advised that it was not intended to discuss this Strategy at the Council meeting. Accordingly, conditional approval was given for this Councillor to participate, however, should the Witchcliffe Village Strategy be raised at the meeting, the approval was invalid and the Councillor was to leave the room.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: On behalf of the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development, I thank Hon Barry House for some notice of the question. The answer is quite lengthy. I table the answer and seek leave for its incorporation into Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 1330.] The following material was incorporated - 1. Councillor Middleton was one of five Councillors that declared an interest in DDTPS1. As there are seven positions of Councillor, the Council could not achieve a quorum to deal with the matter. The Chief Executive officer (CEO) requested approval, pursuant to section 5.69 of the Local Government Act 1995 (the Act) for the declaring Councillors to participate in the matter. Under Section 5.60 of the Act, a Councillor has an interest in a matter if either the Councillor or a person with whom the Councillor is closely associated has a direct or indirect interest in a matter or a proximity interest in the matter. Under section 5.62, Councillor Middleton’s business partner is deemed to be a “closely associated person”. It was proposed to rezone the property owned by Councillor Middleton’s business partner to R30/40 which would significantly increase the development potential of the land and thereby its value. Councillor Middleton was not granted an exemption to allow him to participate on the basis that he had a clear interest in the matter. 2. The Council held a Special meeting to discuss DDTPS1 which covers the whole district, ie discussions/decisions were not based on individual properties. Therefore, any discussion/voting on DDTPS1 would have included Councillor Middleton’s business partner’s property. 3. With respect to the four other declaring councillors, two were assessed to have a proximity interest, which was not considered significant. One Councillor was assessed to have no interest in the matter (or at least the interest was not clear). The fourth Councillor was assessed to have a property that was within the boundaries of the Witchcliffe Village Strategy (a guiding document referred to by DDTPS1). The CEO advised that it was not intended to discuss this Strategy at the Council meeting. Accordingly, conditional approval was given for this Councillor to participate, however, should the Witchcliffe Village Strategy be raised at the meeting, the approval was invalid and the Councillor was to leave the room.
On behalf of the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development, I thank Hon Barry House for some notice of the question. The answer is quite lengthy. I table the answer and seek leave for its incorporation into Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 1330.] The following material was incorporated - 1. Councillor Middleton was one of five Councillors that declared an interest in DDTPS1. As there are seven positions of Councillor, the Council could not achieve a quorum to deal with the matter. The Chief Executive officer (CEO) requested approval, pursuant to section 5.69 of the Local Government Act 1995 (the Act) for the declaring Councillors to participate in the matter. Under Section 5.60 of the Act, a Councillor has an interest in a matter if either the Councillor or a person with whom the Councillor is closely associated has a direct or indirect interest in a matter or a proximity interest in the matter. Under section 5.62, Councillor Middleton’s business partner is deemed to be a “closely associated person”. It was proposed to rezone the property owned by Councillor Middleton’s business partner to R30/40 which would significantly increase the development potential of the land and thereby its value. Councillor Middleton was not granted an exemption to allow him to participate on the basis that he had a clear interest in the matter. 2. The Council held a Special meeting to discuss DDTPS1 which covers the whole district, ie discussions/decisions were not based on individual properties. Therefore, any discussion/voting on DDTPS1 would have included Councillor Middleton’s business partner’s property. 3. With respect to the four other declaring councillors, two were assessed to have a proximity interest, which was not considered significant. One Councillor was assessed to have no interest in the matter (or at least the interest was not clear). The fourth Councillor was assessed to have a property that was within the boundaries of the Witchcliffe Village Strategy (a guiding document referred to by DDTPS1). The CEO advised that it was not intended to discuss this Strategy at the Council meeting. Accordingly, conditional approval was given for this Councillor to participate, however, should the Witchcliffe Village Strategy be raised at the meeting, the approval was invalid and the Councillor was to leave the room.
Leave granted. [See paper 1330.] The following material was incorporated - 1. Councillor Middleton was one of five Councillors that declared an interest in DDTPS1. As there are seven positions of Councillor, the Council could not achieve a quorum to deal with the matter. The Chief Executive officer (CEO) requested approval, pursuant to section 5.69 of the Local Government Act 1995 (the Act) for the declaring Councillors to participate in the matter. Under Section 5.60 of the Act, a Councillor has an interest in a matter if either the Councillor or a person with whom the Councillor is closely associated has a direct or indirect interest in a matter or a proximity interest in the matter. Under section 5.62, Councillor Middleton’s business partner is deemed to be a “closely associated person”. It was proposed to rezone the property owned by Councillor Middleton’s business partner to R30/40 which would significantly increase the development potential of the land and thereby its value. Councillor Middleton was not granted an exemption to allow him to participate on the basis that he had a clear interest in the matter. 2. The Council held a Special meeting to discuss DDTPS1 which covers the whole district, ie discussions/decisions were not based on individual properties. Therefore, any discussion/voting on DDTPS1 would have included Councillor Middleton’s business partner’s property. 3. With respect to the four other declaring councillors, two were assessed to have a proximity interest, which was not considered significant. One Councillor was assessed to have no interest in the matter (or at least the interest was not clear). The fourth Councillor was assessed to have a property that was within the boundaries of the Witchcliffe Village Strategy (a guiding document referred to by DDTPS1). The CEO advised that it was not intended to discuss this Strategy at the Council meeting. Accordingly, conditional approval was given for this Councillor to participate, however, should the Witchcliffe Village Strategy be raised at the meeting, the approval was invalid and the Councillor was to leave the room.
[See paper 1330.] The following material was incorporated - 1. Councillor Middleton was one of five Councillors that declared an interest in DDTPS1. As there are seven positions of Councillor, the Council could not achieve a quorum to deal with the matter. The Chief Executive officer (CEO) requested approval, pursuant to section 5.69 of the Local Government Act 1995 (the Act) for the declaring Councillors to participate in the matter. Under Section 5.60 of the Act, a Councillor has an interest in a matter if either the Councillor or a person with whom the Councillor is closely associated has a direct or indirect interest in a matter or a proximity interest in the matter. Under section 5.62, Councillor Middleton’s business partner is deemed to be a “closely associated person”. It was proposed to rezone the property owned by Councillor Middleton’s business partner to R30/40 which would significantly increase the development potential of the land and thereby its value. Councillor Middleton was not granted an exemption to allow him to participate on the basis that he had a clear interest in the matter. 2. The Council held a Special meeting to discuss DDTPS1 which covers the whole district, ie discussions/decisions were not based on individual properties. Therefore, any discussion/voting on DDTPS1 would have included Councillor Middleton’s business partner’s property. 3. With respect to the four other declaring councillors, two were assessed to have a proximity interest, which was not considered significant. One Councillor was assessed to have no interest in the matter (or at least the interest was not clear). The fourth Councillor was assessed to have a property that was within the boundaries of the Witchcliffe Village Strategy (a guiding document referred to by DDTPS1). The CEO advised that it was not intended to discuss this Strategy at the Council meeting. Accordingly, conditional approval was given for this Councillor to participate, however, should the Witchcliffe Village Strategy be raised at the meeting, the approval was invalid and the Councillor was to leave the room.
The following material was incorporated - 1. Councillor Middleton was one of five Councillors that declared an interest in DDTPS1. As there are seven positions of Councillor, the Council could not achieve a quorum to deal with the matter. The Chief Executive officer (CEO) requested approval, pursuant to section 5.69 of the Local Government Act 1995 (the Act) for the declaring Councillors to participate in the matter. Under Section 5.60 of the Act, a Councillor has an interest in a matter if either the Councillor or a person with whom the Councillor is closely associated has a direct or indirect interest in a matter or a proximity interest in the matter. Under section 5.62, Councillor Middleton’s business partner is deemed to be a “closely associated person”. It was proposed to rezone the property owned by Councillor Middleton’s business partner to R30/40 which would significantly increase the development potential of the land and thereby its value. Councillor Middleton was not granted an exemption to allow him to participate on the basis that he had a clear interest in the matter. 2. The Council held a Special meeting to discuss DDTPS1 which covers the whole district, ie discussions/decisions were not based on individual properties. Therefore, any discussion/voting on DDTPS1 would have included Councillor Middleton’s business partner’s property. 3. With respect to the four other declaring councillors, two were assessed to have a proximity interest, which was not considered significant. One Councillor was assessed to have no interest in the matter (or at least the interest was not clear). The fourth Councillor was assessed to have a property that was within the boundaries of the Witchcliffe Village Strategy (a guiding document referred to by DDTPS1). The CEO advised that it was not intended to discuss this Strategy at the Council meeting. Accordingly, conditional approval was given for this Councillor to participate, however, should the Witchcliffe Village Strategy be raised at the meeting, the approval was invalid and the Councillor was to leave the room.
1. Councillor Middleton was one of five Councillors that declared an interest in DDTPS1. As there are seven positions of Councillor, the Council could not achieve a quorum to deal with the matter. The Chief Executive officer (CEO) requested approval, pursuant to section 5.69 of the Local Government Act 1995 (the Act) for the declaring Councillors to participate in the matter. Under Section 5.60 of the Act, a Councillor has an interest in a matter if either the Councillor or a person with whom the Councillor is closely associated has a direct or indirect interest in a matter or a proximity interest in the matter. Under section 5.62, Councillor Middleton’s business partner is deemed to be a “closely associated person”. It was proposed to rezone the property owned by Councillor Middleton’s business partner to R30/40 which would significantly increase the development potential of the land and thereby its value. Councillor Middleton was not granted an exemption to allow him to participate on the basis that he had a clear interest in the matter. 2. The Council held a Special meeting to discuss DDTPS1 which covers the whole district, ie discussions/decisions were not based on individual properties. Therefore, any discussion/voting on DDTPS1 would have included Councillor Middleton’s business partner’s property. 3. With respect to the four other declaring councillors, two were assessed to have a proximity interest, which was not considered significant. One Councillor was assessed to have no interest in the matter (or at least the interest was not clear). The fourth Councillor was assessed to have a property that was within the boundaries of the Witchcliffe Village Strategy (a guiding document referred to by DDTPS1). The CEO advised that it was not intended to discuss this Strategy at the Council meeting. Accordingly, conditional approval was given for this Councillor to participate, however, should the Witchcliffe Village Strategy be raised at the meeting, the approval was invalid and the Councillor was to leave the room.
1. Councillor Middleton was one of five Councillors that declared an interest in DDTPS1. As there are seven positions of Councillor, the Council could not achieve a quorum to deal with the matter. The Chief Executive officer (CEO) requested approval, pursuant to section 5.69 of the Local Government Act 1995 (the Act) for the declaring Councillors to participate in the matter. Under Section 5.60 of the Act, a Councillor has an interest in a matter if either the Councillor or a person with whom the Councillor is closely associated has a direct or indirect interest in a matter or a proximity interest in the matter. Under section 5.62, Councillor Middleton’s business partner is deemed to be a “closely associated person”. It was proposed to rezone the property owned by Councillor Middleton’s business partner to R30/40 which would significantly increase the development potential of the land and thereby its value. Councillor Middleton was not granted an exemption to allow him to participate on the basis that he had a clear interest in the matter. 2. The Council held a Special meeting to discuss DDTPS1 which covers the whole district, ie discussions/decisions were not based on individual properties. Therefore, any discussion/voting on DDTPS1 would have included Councillor Middleton’s business partner’s property. 3. With respect to the four other declaring councillors, two were assessed to have a proximity interest, which was not considered significant. One Councillor was assessed to have no interest in the matter (or at least the interest was not clear). The fourth Councillor was assessed to have a property that was within the boundaries of the Witchcliffe Village Strategy (a guiding document referred to by DDTPS1). The CEO advised that it was not intended to discuss this Strategy at the Council meeting. Accordingly, conditional approval was given for this Councillor to participate, however, should the Witchcliffe Village Strategy be raised at the meeting, the approval was invalid and the Councillor was to leave the room.
Under Section 5.60 of the Act, a Councillor has an interest in a matter if either the Councillor or a person with whom the Councillor is closely associated has a direct or indirect interest in a matter or a proximity interest in the matter. Under section 5.62, Councillor Middleton’s business partner is deemed to be a “closely associated person”. It was proposed to rezone the property owned by Councillor Middleton’s business partner to R30/40 which would significantly increase the development potential of the land and thereby its value. Councillor Middleton was not granted an exemption to allow him to participate on the basis that he had a clear interest in the matter. 2. The Council held a Special meeting to discuss DDTPS1 which covers the whole district, ie discussions/decisions were not based on individual properties. Therefore, any discussion/voting on DDTPS1 would have included Councillor Middleton’s business partner’s property. 3. With respect to the four other declaring councillors, two were assessed to have a proximity interest, which was not considered significant. One Councillor was assessed to have no interest in the matter (or at least the interest was not clear). The fourth Councillor was assessed to have a property that was within the boundaries of the Witchcliffe Village Strategy (a guiding document referred to by DDTPS1). The CEO advised that it was not intended to discuss this Strategy at the Council meeting. Accordingly, conditional approval was given for this Councillor to participate, however, should the Witchcliffe Village Strategy be raised at the meeting, the approval was invalid and the Councillor was to leave the room.
It was proposed to rezone the property owned by Councillor Middleton’s business partner to R30/40 which would significantly increase the development potential of the land and thereby its value. Councillor Middleton was not granted an exemption to allow him to participate on the basis that he had a clear interest in the matter. 2. The Council held a Special meeting to discuss DDTPS1 which covers the whole district, ie discussions/decisions were not based on individual properties. Therefore, any discussion/voting on DDTPS1 would have included Councillor Middleton’s business partner’s property. 3. With respect to the four other declaring councillors, two were assessed to have a proximity interest, which was not considered significant. One Councillor was assessed to have no interest in the matter (or at least the interest was not clear). The fourth Councillor was assessed to have a property that was within the boundaries of the Witchcliffe Village Strategy (a guiding document referred to by DDTPS1). The CEO advised that it was not intended to discuss this Strategy at the Council meeting. Accordingly, conditional approval was given for this Councillor to participate, however, should the Witchcliffe Village Strategy be raised at the meeting, the approval was invalid and the Councillor was to leave the room.
2. The Council held a Special meeting to discuss DDTPS1 which covers the whole district, ie discussions/decisions were not based on individual properties. Therefore, any discussion/voting on DDTPS1 would have included Councillor Middleton’s business partner’s property. 3. With respect to the four other declaring councillors, two were assessed to have a proximity interest, which was not considered significant. One Councillor was assessed to have no interest in the matter (or at least the interest was not clear). The fourth Councillor was assessed to have a property that was within the boundaries of the Witchcliffe Village Strategy (a guiding document referred to by DDTPS1). The CEO advised that it was not intended to discuss this Strategy at the Council meeting. Accordingly, conditional approval was given for this Councillor to participate, however, should the Witchcliffe Village Strategy be raised at the meeting, the approval was invalid and the Councillor was to leave the room.
3. With respect to the four other declaring councillors, two were assessed to have a proximity interest, which was not considered significant. One Councillor was assessed to have no interest in the matter (or at least the interest was not clear). The fourth Councillor was assessed to have a property that was within the boundaries of the Witchcliffe Village Strategy (a guiding document referred to by DDTPS1). The CEO advised that it was not intended to discuss this Strategy at the Council meeting. Accordingly, conditional approval was given for this Councillor to participate, however, should the Witchcliffe Village Strategy be raised at the meeting, the approval was invalid and the Councillor was to leave the room.
(1) On what grounds was he excluded; that is, under what section of the act? (2) Why was the exclusion not confined to only that one item in draft district planning scheme 1? (3) Why was Councillor Middleton treated differently from several other councillors who declared conflicts of interest and who were barred from deliberating on the specific items, but were allowed to participate in all other aspects of the debate? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: On behalf of the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development, I thank Hon Barry House for some notice of the question. The answer is quite lengthy. I table the answer and seek leave for its incorporation into Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 1330.] The following material was incorporated - 1. Councillor Middleton was one of five Councillors that declared an interest in DDTPS1. As there are seven positions of Councillor, the Council could not achieve a quorum to deal with the matter. The Chief Executive officer (CEO) requested approval, pursuant to section 5.69 of the Local Government Act 1995 (the Act) for the declaring Councillors to participate in the matter. Under Section 5.60 of the Act, a Councillor has an interest in a matter if either the Councillor or a person with whom the Councillor is closely associated has a direct or indirect interest in a matter or a proximity interest in the matter. Under section 5.62, Councillor Middleton’s business partner is deemed to be a “closely associated person”. It was proposed to rezone the property owned by Councillor Middleton’s business partner to R30/40 which would significantly increase the development potential of the land and thereby its value. Councillor Middleton was not granted an exemption to allow him to participate on the basis that he had a clear interest in the matter. 2. The Council held a Special meeting to discuss DDTPS1 which covers the whole district, ie discussions/decisions were not based on individual properties. Therefore, any discussion/voting on DDTPS1 would have included Councillor Middleton’s business partner’s property. 3. With respect to the four other declaring councillors, two were assessed to have a proximity interest, which was not considered significant. One Councillor was assessed to have no interest in the matter (or at least the interest was not clear). The fourth Councillor was assessed to have a property that was within the boundaries of the Witchcliffe Village Strategy (a guiding document referred to by DDTPS1). The CEO advised that it was not intended to discuss this Strategy at the Council meeting. Accordingly, conditional approval was given for this Councillor to participate, however, should the Witchcliffe Village Strategy be raised at the meeting, the approval was invalid and the Councillor was to leave the room.
(2) Why was the exclusion not confined to only that one item in draft district planning scheme 1? (3) Why was Councillor Middleton treated differently from several other councillors who declared conflicts of interest and who were barred from deliberating on the specific items, but were allowed to participate in all other aspects of the debate? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: On behalf of the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development, I thank Hon Barry House for some notice of the question. The answer is quite lengthy. I table the answer and seek leave for its incorporation into Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 1330.] The following material was incorporated - 1. Councillor Middleton was one of five Councillors that declared an interest in DDTPS1. As there are seven positions of Councillor, the Council could not achieve a quorum to deal with the matter. The Chief Executive officer (CEO) requested approval, pursuant to section 5.69 of the Local Government Act 1995 (the Act) for the declaring Councillors to participate in the matter. Under Section 5.60 of the Act, a Councillor has an interest in a matter if either the Councillor or a person with whom the Councillor is closely associated has a direct or indirect interest in a matter or a proximity interest in the matter. Under section 5.62, Councillor Middleton’s business partner is deemed to be a “closely associated person”. It was proposed to rezone the property owned by Councillor Middleton’s business partner to R30/40 which would significantly increase the development potential of the land and thereby its value. Councillor Middleton was not granted an exemption to allow him to participate on the basis that he had a clear interest in the matter. 2. The Council held a Special meeting to discuss DDTPS1 which covers the whole district, ie discussions/decisions were not based on individual properties. Therefore, any discussion/voting on DDTPS1 would have included Councillor Middleton’s business partner’s property. 3. With respect to the four other declaring councillors, two were assessed to have a proximity interest, which was not considered significant. One Councillor was assessed to have no interest in the matter (or at least the interest was not clear). The fourth Councillor was assessed to have a property that was within the boundaries of the Witchcliffe Village Strategy (a guiding document referred to by DDTPS1). The CEO advised that it was not intended to discuss this Strategy at the Council meeting. Accordingly, conditional approval was given for this Councillor to participate, however, should the Witchcliffe Village Strategy be raised at the meeting, the approval was invalid and the Councillor was to leave the room.
(3) Why was Councillor Middleton treated differently from several other councillors who declared conflicts of interest and who were barred from deliberating on the specific items, but were allowed to participate in all other aspects of the debate? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: On behalf of the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development, I thank Hon Barry House for some notice of the question. The answer is quite lengthy. I table the answer and seek leave for its incorporation into Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 1330.] The following material was incorporated - 1. Councillor Middleton was one of five Councillors that declared an interest in DDTPS1. As there are seven positions of Councillor, the Council could not achieve a quorum to deal with the matter. The Chief Executive officer (CEO) requested approval, pursuant to section 5.69 of the Local Government Act 1995 (the Act) for the declaring Councillors to participate in the matter. Under Section 5.60 of the Act, a Councillor has an interest in a matter if either the Councillor or a person with whom the Councillor is closely associated has a direct or indirect interest in a matter or a proximity interest in the matter. Under section 5.62, Councillor Middleton’s business partner is deemed to be a “closely associated person”. It was proposed to rezone the property owned by Councillor Middleton’s business partner to R30/40 which would significantly increase the development potential of the land and thereby its value. Councillor Middleton was not granted an exemption to allow him to participate on the basis that he had a clear interest in the matter. 2. The Council held a Special meeting to discuss DDTPS1 which covers the whole district, ie discussions/decisions were not based on individual properties. Therefore, any discussion/voting on DDTPS1 would have included Councillor Middleton’s business partner’s property. 3. With respect to the four other declaring councillors, two were assessed to have a proximity interest, which was not considered significant. One Councillor was assessed to have no interest in the matter (or at least the interest was not clear). The fourth Councillor was assessed to have a property that was within the boundaries of the Witchcliffe Village Strategy (a guiding document referred to by DDTPS1). The CEO advised that it was not intended to discuss this Strategy at the Council meeting. Accordingly, conditional approval was given for this Councillor to participate, however, should the Witchcliffe Village Strategy be raised at the meeting, the approval was invalid and the Councillor was to leave the room.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: On behalf of the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development, I thank Hon Barry House for some notice of the question. The answer is quite lengthy. I table the answer and seek leave for its incorporation into Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 1330.] The following material was incorporated - 1. Councillor Middleton was one of five Councillors that declared an interest in DDTPS1. As there are seven positions of Councillor, the Council could not achieve a quorum to deal with the matter. The Chief Executive officer (CEO) requested approval, pursuant to section 5.69 of the Local Government Act 1995 (the Act) for the declaring Councillors to participate in the matter. Under Section 5.60 of the Act, a Councillor has an interest in a matter if either the Councillor or a person with whom the Councillor is closely associated has a direct or indirect interest in a matter or a proximity interest in the matter. Under section 5.62, Councillor Middleton’s business partner is deemed to be a “closely associated person”. It was proposed to rezone the property owned by Councillor Middleton’s business partner to R30/40 which would significantly increase the development potential of the land and thereby its value. Councillor Middleton was not granted an exemption to allow him to participate on the basis that he had a clear interest in the matter. 2. The Council held a Special meeting to discuss DDTPS1 which covers the whole district, ie discussions/decisions were not based on individual properties. Therefore, any discussion/voting on DDTPS1 would have included Councillor Middleton’s business partner’s property. 3. With respect to the four other declaring councillors, two were assessed to have a proximity interest, which was not considered significant. One Councillor was assessed to have no interest in the matter (or at least the interest was not clear). The fourth Councillor was assessed to have a property that was within the boundaries of the Witchcliffe Village Strategy (a guiding document referred to by DDTPS1). The CEO advised that it was not intended to discuss this Strategy at the Council meeting. Accordingly, conditional approval was given for this Councillor to participate, however, should the Witchcliffe Village Strategy be raised at the meeting, the approval was invalid and the Councillor was to leave the room.
On behalf of the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development, I thank Hon Barry House for some notice of the question. The answer is quite lengthy. I table the answer and seek leave for its incorporation into Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 1330.] The following material was incorporated - 1. Councillor Middleton was one of five Councillors that declared an interest in DDTPS1. As there are seven positions of Councillor, the Council could not achieve a quorum to deal with the matter. The Chief Executive officer (CEO) requested approval, pursuant to section 5.69 of the Local Government Act 1995 (the Act) for the declaring Councillors to participate in the matter. Under Section 5.60 of the Act, a Councillor has an interest in a matter if either the Councillor or a person with whom the Councillor is closely associated has a direct or indirect interest in a matter or a proximity interest in the matter. Under section 5.62, Councillor Middleton’s business partner is deemed to be a “closely associated person”. It was proposed to rezone the property owned by Councillor Middleton’s business partner to R30/40 which would significantly increase the development potential of the land and thereby its value. Councillor Middleton was not granted an exemption to allow him to participate on the basis that he had a clear interest in the matter. 2. The Council held a Special meeting to discuss DDTPS1 which covers the whole district, ie discussions/decisions were not based on individual properties. Therefore, any discussion/voting on DDTPS1 would have included Councillor Middleton’s business partner’s property. 3. With respect to the four other declaring councillors, two were assessed to have a proximity interest, which was not considered significant. One Councillor was assessed to have no interest in the matter (or at least the interest was not clear). The fourth Councillor was assessed to have a property that was within the boundaries of the Witchcliffe Village Strategy (a guiding document referred to by DDTPS1). The CEO advised that it was not intended to discuss this Strategy at the Council meeting. Accordingly, conditional approval was given for this Councillor to participate, however, should the Witchcliffe Village Strategy be raised at the meeting, the approval was invalid and the Councillor was to leave the room.
Leave granted. [See paper 1330.] The following material was incorporated - 1. Councillor Middleton was one of five Councillors that declared an interest in DDTPS1. As there are seven positions of Councillor, the Council could not achieve a quorum to deal with the matter. The Chief Executive officer (CEO) requested approval, pursuant to section 5.69 of the Local Government Act 1995 (the Act) for the declaring Councillors to participate in the matter. Under Section 5.60 of the Act, a Councillor has an interest in a matter if either the Councillor or a person with whom the Councillor is closely associated has a direct or indirect interest in a matter or a proximity interest in the matter. Under section 5.62, Councillor Middleton’s business partner is deemed to be a “closely associated person”. It was proposed to rezone the property owned by Councillor Middleton’s business partner to R30/40 which would significantly increase the development potential of the land and thereby its value. Councillor Middleton was not granted an exemption to allow him to participate on the basis that he had a clear interest in the matter. 2. The Council held a Special meeting to discuss DDTPS1 which covers the whole district, ie discussions/decisions were not based on individual properties. Therefore, any discussion/voting on DDTPS1 would have included Councillor Middleton’s business partner’s property. 3. With respect to the four other declaring councillors, two were assessed to have a proximity interest, which was not considered significant. One Councillor was assessed to have no interest in the matter (or at least the interest was not clear). The fourth Councillor was assessed to have a property that was within the boundaries of the Witchcliffe Village Strategy (a guiding document referred to by DDTPS1). The CEO advised that it was not intended to discuss this Strategy at the Council meeting. Accordingly, conditional approval was given for this Councillor to participate, however, should the Witchcliffe Village Strategy be raised at the meeting, the approval was invalid and the Councillor was to leave the room.
[See paper 1330.] The following material was incorporated - 1. Councillor Middleton was one of five Councillors that declared an interest in DDTPS1. As there are seven positions of Councillor, the Council could not achieve a quorum to deal with the matter. The Chief Executive officer (CEO) requested approval, pursuant to section 5.69 of the Local Government Act 1995 (the Act) for the declaring Councillors to participate in the matter. Under Section 5.60 of the Act, a Councillor has an interest in a matter if either the Councillor or a person with whom the Councillor is closely associated has a direct or indirect interest in a matter or a proximity interest in the matter. Under section 5.62, Councillor Middleton’s business partner is deemed to be a “closely associated person”. It was proposed to rezone the property owned by Councillor Middleton’s business partner to R30/40 which would significantly increase the development potential of the land and thereby its value. Councillor Middleton was not granted an exemption to allow him to participate on the basis that he had a clear interest in the matter. 2. The Council held a Special meeting to discuss DDTPS1 which covers the whole district, ie discussions/decisions were not based on individual properties. Therefore, any discussion/voting on DDTPS1 would have included Councillor Middleton’s business partner’s property. 3. With respect to the four other declaring councillors, two were assessed to have a proximity interest, which was not considered significant. One Councillor was assessed to have no interest in the matter (or at least the interest was not clear). The fourth Councillor was assessed to have a property that was within the boundaries of the Witchcliffe Village Strategy (a guiding document referred to by DDTPS1). The CEO advised that it was not intended to discuss this Strategy at the Council meeting. Accordingly, conditional approval was given for this Councillor to participate, however, should the Witchcliffe Village Strategy be raised at the meeting, the approval was invalid and the Councillor was to leave the room.
The following material was incorporated - 1. Councillor Middleton was one of five Councillors that declared an interest in DDTPS1. As there are seven positions of Councillor, the Council could not achieve a quorum to deal with the matter. The Chief Executive officer (CEO) requested approval, pursuant to section 5.69 of the Local Government Act 1995 (the Act) for the declaring Councillors to participate in the matter. Under Section 5.60 of the Act, a Councillor has an interest in a matter if either the Councillor or a person with whom the Councillor is closely associated has a direct or indirect interest in a matter or a proximity interest in the matter. Under section 5.62, Councillor Middleton’s business partner is deemed to be a “closely associated person”. It was proposed to rezone the property owned by Councillor Middleton’s business partner to R30/40 which would significantly increase the development potential of the land and thereby its value. Councillor Middleton was not granted an exemption to allow him to participate on the basis that he had a clear interest in the matter. 2. The Council held a Special meeting to discuss DDTPS1 which covers the whole district, ie discussions/decisions were not based on individual properties. Therefore, any discussion/voting on DDTPS1 would have included Councillor Middleton’s business partner’s property. 3. With respect to the four other declaring councillors, two were assessed to have a proximity interest, which was not considered significant. One Councillor was assessed to have no interest in the matter (or at least the interest was not clear). The fourth Councillor was assessed to have a property that was within the boundaries of the Witchcliffe Village Strategy (a guiding document referred to by DDTPS1). The CEO advised that it was not intended to discuss this Strategy at the Council meeting. Accordingly, conditional approval was given for this Councillor to participate, however, should the Witchcliffe Village Strategy be raised at the meeting, the approval was invalid and the Councillor was to leave the room.
1. Councillor Middleton was one of five Councillors that declared an interest in DDTPS1. As there are seven positions of Councillor, the Council could not achieve a quorum to deal with the matter. The Chief Executive officer (CEO) requested approval, pursuant to section 5.69 of the Local Government Act 1995 (the Act) for the declaring Councillors to participate in the matter. Under Section 5.60 of the Act, a Councillor has an interest in a matter if either the Councillor or a person with whom the Councillor is closely associated has a direct or indirect interest in a matter or a proximity interest in the matter. Under section 5.62, Councillor Middleton’s business partner is deemed to be a “closely associated person”. It was proposed to rezone the property owned by Councillor Middleton’s business partner to R30/40 which would significantly increase the development potential of the land and thereby its value. Councillor Middleton was not granted an exemption to allow him to participate on the basis that he had a clear interest in the matter. 2. The Council held a Special meeting to discuss DDTPS1 which covers the whole district, ie discussions/decisions were not based on individual properties. Therefore, any discussion/voting on DDTPS1 would have included Councillor Middleton’s business partner’s property. 3. With respect to the four other declaring councillors, two were assessed to have a proximity interest, which was not considered significant. One Councillor was assessed to have no interest in the matter (or at least the interest was not clear). The fourth Councillor was assessed to have a property that was within the boundaries of the Witchcliffe Village Strategy (a guiding document referred to by DDTPS1). The CEO advised that it was not intended to discuss this Strategy at the Council meeting. Accordingly, conditional approval was given for this Councillor to participate, however, should the Witchcliffe Village Strategy be raised at the meeting, the approval was invalid and the Councillor was to leave the room.
1. Councillor Middleton was one of five Councillors that declared an interest in DDTPS1. As there are seven positions of Councillor, the Council could not achieve a quorum to deal with the matter. The Chief Executive officer (CEO) requested approval, pursuant to section 5.69 of the Local Government Act 1995 (the Act) for the declaring Councillors to participate in the matter. Under Section 5.60 of the Act, a Councillor has an interest in a matter if either the Councillor or a person with whom the Councillor is closely associated has a direct or indirect interest in a matter or a proximity interest in the matter. Under section 5.62, Councillor Middleton’s business partner is deemed to be a “closely associated person”. It was proposed to rezone the property owned by Councillor Middleton’s business partner to R30/40 which would significantly increase the development potential of the land and thereby its value. Councillor Middleton was not granted an exemption to allow him to participate on the basis that he had a clear interest in the matter. 2. The Council held a Special meeting to discuss DDTPS1 which covers the whole district, ie discussions/decisions were not based on individual properties. Therefore, any discussion/voting on DDTPS1 would have included Councillor Middleton’s business partner’s property. 3. With respect to the four other declaring councillors, two were assessed to have a proximity interest, which was not considered significant. One Councillor was assessed to have no interest in the matter (or at least the interest was not clear). The fourth Councillor was assessed to have a property that was within the boundaries of the Witchcliffe Village Strategy (a guiding document referred to by DDTPS1). The CEO advised that it was not intended to discuss this Strategy at the Council meeting. Accordingly, conditional approval was given for this Councillor to participate, however, should the Witchcliffe Village Strategy be raised at the meeting, the approval was invalid and the Councillor was to leave the room.
Under Section 5.60 of the Act, a Councillor has an interest in a matter if either the Councillor or a person with whom the Councillor is closely associated has a direct or indirect interest in a matter or a proximity interest in the matter. Under section 5.62, Councillor Middleton’s business partner is deemed to be a “closely associated person”. It was proposed to rezone the property owned by Councillor Middleton’s business partner to R30/40 which would significantly increase the development potential of the land and thereby its value. Councillor Middleton was not granted an exemption to allow him to participate on the basis that he had a clear interest in the matter. 2. The Council held a Special meeting to discuss DDTPS1 which covers the whole district, ie discussions/decisions were not based on individual properties. Therefore, any discussion/voting on DDTPS1 would have included Councillor Middleton’s business partner’s property. 3. With respect to the four other declaring councillors, two were assessed to have a proximity interest, which was not considered significant. One Councillor was assessed to have no interest in the matter (or at least the interest was not clear). The fourth Councillor was assessed to have a property that was within the boundaries of the Witchcliffe Village Strategy (a guiding document referred to by DDTPS1). The CEO advised that it was not intended to discuss this Strategy at the Council meeting. Accordingly, conditional approval was given for this Councillor to participate, however, should the Witchcliffe Village Strategy be raised at the meeting, the approval was invalid and the Councillor was to leave the room.
It was proposed to rezone the property owned by Councillor Middleton’s business partner to R30/40 which would significantly increase the development potential of the land and thereby its value. Councillor Middleton was not granted an exemption to allow him to participate on the basis that he had a clear interest in the matter. 2. The Council held a Special meeting to discuss DDTPS1 which covers the whole district, ie discussions/decisions were not based on individual properties. Therefore, any discussion/voting on DDTPS1 would have included Councillor Middleton’s business partner’s property. 3. With respect to the four other declaring councillors, two were assessed to have a proximity interest, which was not considered significant. One Councillor was assessed to have no interest in the matter (or at least the interest was not clear). The fourth Councillor was assessed to have a property that was within the boundaries of the Witchcliffe Village Strategy (a guiding document referred to by DDTPS1). The CEO advised that it was not intended to discuss this Strategy at the Council meeting. Accordingly, conditional approval was given for this Councillor to participate, however, should the Witchcliffe Village Strategy be raised at the meeting, the approval was invalid and the Councillor was to leave the room.
2. The Council held a Special meeting to discuss DDTPS1 which covers the whole district, ie discussions/decisions were not based on individual properties. Therefore, any discussion/voting on DDTPS1 would have included Councillor Middleton’s business partner’s property. 3. With respect to the four other declaring councillors, two were assessed to have a proximity interest, which was not considered significant. One Councillor was assessed to have no interest in the matter (or at least the interest was not clear). The fourth Councillor was assessed to have a property that was within the boundaries of the Witchcliffe Village Strategy (a guiding document referred to by DDTPS1). The CEO advised that it was not intended to discuss this Strategy at the Council meeting. Accordingly, conditional approval was given for this Councillor to participate, however, should the Witchcliffe Village Strategy be raised at the meeting, the approval was invalid and the Councillor was to leave the room.
3. With respect to the four other declaring councillors, two were assessed to have a proximity interest, which was not considered significant. One Councillor was assessed to have no interest in the matter (or at least the interest was not clear). The fourth Councillor was assessed to have a property that was within the boundaries of the Witchcliffe Village Strategy (a guiding document referred to by DDTPS1). The CEO advised that it was not intended to discuss this Strategy at the Council meeting. Accordingly, conditional approval was given for this Councillor to participate, however, should the Witchcliffe Village Strategy be raised at the meeting, the approval was invalid and the Councillor was to leave the room.
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.