❓ Mrs. Edwardes questions the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure regarding a report on a potential conflict of interest involving Alan Tingay and Associates. The Minister confirms receipt of the report, finds no conflict, and tables the Department's response.
AnsweredQoN 2557Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
(b) when was this report received; (c) if the report has not been received, what is the reason for the delay; (d) will the Minister table the report; and (e) if not, why not?
(c) if the report has not been received, what is the reason for the delay; (d) will the Minister table the report; and (e) if not, why not?
(d) will the Minister table the report; and (e) if not, why not?
(e) if not, why not?
(b) I received a report from the Department in September 2001 which concluded that it would be difficult to sustain an argument that Alan Tingay and Associates had any conflict of interest by way of involvement with Canal Rocks Pty Ltd at the same time as being involved with the Urban Settlements Study the subject of Parliamentary Question 383, for the following reasons: · The role played by Alan Tingay and Associates in the Urban Settlements Study was minor, involving only a quality check of the environmental work undertaken by Chamber & Galloway & Associates; and · In relation to Smiths Beach, the Appendices of the Urban Settlements Study included an assessment and recommendation for a number of settlements, including Smiths Beach. The section dealing with Smiths Beach showed a number of constraints to development, including visual impact. It suggested a limited development area significantly different from the CER prepared by Alan Tingay and Associates three years earlier. This tends to confirm the claim by Alan Tingay that his company had no involvement in the findings of the Urban Settlements Study in relation to Smiths Beach. (c) NA (d) Yes, I table the Departments response. (e) NA
· The role played by Alan Tingay and Associates in the Urban Settlements Study was minor, involving only a quality check of the environmental work undertaken by Chamber & Galloway & Associates; and · In relation to Smiths Beach, the Appendices of the Urban Settlements Study included an assessment and recommendation for a number of settlements, including Smiths Beach. The section dealing with Smiths Beach showed a number of constraints to development, including visual impact. It suggested a limited development area significantly different from the CER prepared by Alan Tingay and Associates three years earlier. This tends to confirm the claim by Alan Tingay that his company had no involvement in the findings of the Urban Settlements Study in relation to Smiths Beach. (c) NA (d) Yes, I table the Departments response. (e) NA
· In relation to Smiths Beach, the Appendices of the Urban Settlements Study included an assessment and recommendation for a number of settlements, including Smiths Beach. The section dealing with Smiths Beach showed a number of constraints to development, including visual impact. It suggested a limited development area significantly different from the CER prepared by Alan Tingay and Associates three years earlier. This tends to confirm the claim by Alan Tingay that his company had no involvement in the findings of the Urban Settlements Study in relation to Smiths Beach. (c) NA (d) Yes, I table the Departments response. (e) NA
(c) NA (d) Yes, I table the Departments response. (e) NA
(d) Yes, I table the Departments response. (e) NA
(e) NA
(c) if the report has not been received, what is the reason for the delay; (d) will the Minister table the report; and (e) if not, why not?
(d) will the Minister table the report; and (e) if not, why not?
(e) if not, why not?
(b) I received a report from the Department in September 2001 which concluded that it would be difficult to sustain an argument that Alan Tingay and Associates had any conflict of interest by way of involvement with Canal Rocks Pty Ltd at the same time as being involved with the Urban Settlements Study the subject of Parliamentary Question 383, for the following reasons: · The role played by Alan Tingay and Associates in the Urban Settlements Study was minor, involving only a quality check of the environmental work undertaken by Chamber & Galloway & Associates; and · In relation to Smiths Beach, the Appendices of the Urban Settlements Study included an assessment and recommendation for a number of settlements, including Smiths Beach. The section dealing with Smiths Beach showed a number of constraints to development, including visual impact. It suggested a limited development area significantly different from the CER prepared by Alan Tingay and Associates three years earlier. This tends to confirm the claim by Alan Tingay that his company had no involvement in the findings of the Urban Settlements Study in relation to Smiths Beach. (c) NA (d) Yes, I table the Departments response. (e) NA
· The role played by Alan Tingay and Associates in the Urban Settlements Study was minor, involving only a quality check of the environmental work undertaken by Chamber & Galloway & Associates; and · In relation to Smiths Beach, the Appendices of the Urban Settlements Study included an assessment and recommendation for a number of settlements, including Smiths Beach. The section dealing with Smiths Beach showed a number of constraints to development, including visual impact. It suggested a limited development area significantly different from the CER prepared by Alan Tingay and Associates three years earlier. This tends to confirm the claim by Alan Tingay that his company had no involvement in the findings of the Urban Settlements Study in relation to Smiths Beach. (c) NA (d) Yes, I table the Departments response. (e) NA
· In relation to Smiths Beach, the Appendices of the Urban Settlements Study included an assessment and recommendation for a number of settlements, including Smiths Beach. The section dealing with Smiths Beach showed a number of constraints to development, including visual impact. It suggested a limited development area significantly different from the CER prepared by Alan Tingay and Associates three years earlier. This tends to confirm the claim by Alan Tingay that his company had no involvement in the findings of the Urban Settlements Study in relation to Smiths Beach. (c) NA (d) Yes, I table the Departments response. (e) NA
(c) NA (d) Yes, I table the Departments response. (e) NA
(d) Yes, I table the Departments response. (e) NA
(e) NA
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
4 May 2004
Responded by
Minister for Planning and Infrastructure
Response time
63 days
(a) Yes
(b) I received a report from the Department in September 2001 which concluded that it would be difficult to sustain an argument that Alan Tingay and Associates had any conflict of interest by way of involvement with Canal Rocks Pty Ltd at the same time as being involved with the Urban Settlements Study the subject of Parliamentary Question 383, for the following reasons:
· The role played by Alan Tingay and Associates in the Urban Settlements Study was minor, involving only a quality check of the environmental work undertaken by Chamber & Galloway & Associates; and
· In relation to Smiths Beach, the Appendices of the Urban Settlements Study included an assessment and recommendation for a number of settlements, including Smiths Beach. The section dealing with Smiths Beach showed a number of constraints to development, including visual impact. It suggested a limited development area significantly different from the CER prepared by Alan Tingay and Associates three years earlier. This tends to confirm the claim by Alan Tingay that his company had no involvement in the findings of the Urban Settlements Study in relation to Smiths Beach.
(c) NA
(d) Yes, I table the Departments response.
(e) NA
(b) I received a report from the Department in September 2001 which concluded that it would be difficult to sustain an argument that Alan Tingay and Associates had any conflict of interest by way of involvement with Canal Rocks Pty Ltd at the same time as being involved with the Urban Settlements Study the subject of Parliamentary Question 383, for the following reasons:
· The role played by Alan Tingay and Associates in the Urban Settlements Study was minor, involving only a quality check of the environmental work undertaken by Chamber & Galloway & Associates; and
· In relation to Smiths Beach, the Appendices of the Urban Settlements Study included an assessment and recommendation for a number of settlements, including Smiths Beach. The section dealing with Smiths Beach showed a number of constraints to development, including visual impact. It suggested a limited development area significantly different from the CER prepared by Alan Tingay and Associates three years earlier. This tends to confirm the claim by Alan Tingay that his company had no involvement in the findings of the Urban Settlements Study in relation to Smiths Beach.
(c) NA
(d) Yes, I table the Departments response.
(e) NA
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.