❓ Question regarding potential conflict of interest in a planning decision due to the Minister's prior relationship with an advising official. The Minister denies any impropriety, stating the decision was based on WAPC advice.
AnsweredQoN 180Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
MINISTER FOR
PLANNING — CONFLICT OF INTEREST — WARATAH AVENUE, DALKEITH
180. Mr J.N. HYDE to the Minister for Planning:
I refer to the minister's statement to the house
yesterday in relation to the Waratah Avenue—a street on which the
minister owns an investment property—rezoning decision, and to his
defence of conflict of interest claims; namely that he acted on recommendations
from the Western Australian Planning Commission.
(1) Was one of
the officials who advised the minister on this matter, Mr Neil Thomson, then
acting secretary, and now secretary, of the Western Australian Planning
Commission, and someone whom the minister has previously employed as his chief
of staff?
(2) Why did the
minister not disclose that the only advice or recommendation that he tabled in
Parliament on 27 March 2012 in defence of conflict of interest claims was in
fact signed off by Mr Thomson, the minister's former chief of staff?
(3) Did the
minister inform Mr Conran and the cabinet secretary of his direct relationship
with the Western Australian Planning Commission officer who wrote the letter of
advice to him—the only letter the minister offered up in his defence?
(4) Was Mr
Thomson present at any meeting when the minister was provided with advice in
relation to the Waratah Avenue rezoning matter?
PLANNING — CONFLICT OF INTEREST — WARATAH AVENUE, DALKEITH
180. Mr J.N. HYDE to the Minister for Planning:
I refer to the minister's statement to the house
yesterday in relation to the Waratah Avenue—a street on which the
minister owns an investment property—rezoning decision, and to his
defence of conflict of interest claims; namely that he acted on recommendations
from the Western Australian Planning Commission.
(1) Was one of
the officials who advised the minister on this matter, Mr Neil Thomson, then
acting secretary, and now secretary, of the Western Australian Planning
Commission, and someone whom the minister has previously employed as his chief
of staff?
(2) Why did the
minister not disclose that the only advice or recommendation that he tabled in
Parliament on 27 March 2012 in defence of conflict of interest claims was in
fact signed off by Mr Thomson, the minister's former chief of staff?
(3) Did the
minister inform Mr Conran and the cabinet secretary of his direct relationship
with the Western Australian Planning Commission officer who wrote the letter of
advice to him—the only letter the minister offered up in his defence?
(4) Was Mr
Thomson present at any meeting when the minister was provided with advice in
relation to the Waratah Avenue rezoning matter?
AnswerView source ↗
(1)–(4) I
know that the member for Perth is on a single-handed campaign to uncover what
he believes is some great scandal in relation to this issue, some great conspiracy
that has been in operation to inflict so-called high-rise—four-storey
development—on the people of Dalkeith in the City of Nedlands. Some
people are opposed to that, and that is what this issue is really all about.
Some people do not like the fact that there is going to be a four-storey
development instead of the three-storey development that was proposed by the
City of Nedlands. The member for Perth is out there with the council of the
City of Nedlands and is lined up with the view that this is a terrible state of
affairs, just as I presume he is supporting the council of the Town of
Cottesloe, which regards five storeys, and a small number of eight storeys, in
Cottesloe as being high-rise, and that the end of the world is about to come
and the sun will never shine again on Cottesloe Beach—all a load of
rubbish.
In relation to the specific issue,
there is no conspiracy. There is no scandal to uncover in relation to this
issue. The decision that was made by me was on the basis of the advice of the
Western Australian Planning Commission, after extensive consideration and
assessment of all the issues.
In relation to the particular
individual whom the member for Perth mentioned, Neil Thomson, indeed he is a
former chief of staff of mine. But he has had no role in this process at all,
except in his role as secretary of the Western Australian Planning Commission.
Mr
J.N. Hyde : He wrote the letter you said cleared yourself!
The
SPEAKER : Member for Perth!
Mr
J.H.D. DAY : He has not written a letter that said I have cleared myself at
all.
Mr
J.N. Hyde : Yes! Who signed the letter you tabled in Parliament—the
only letter you have tabled?
Mr
J.H.D. DAY : That is a recommendation to me, if I recall correctly; and the
letter is then sent from the Western Australian Planning Commission to the City
of Nedlands, which is the usual process in relation to informing local
governments about planning scheme amendments.
Mr
J.N. Hyde : Your former chief of staff made the decision! This is the only
document you have tabled!
The
SPEAKER : Member for Perth, if you wish an opportunity to ask a
supplementary, get to your feet and ask that. Member for Girrawheen, I will
formally call you to order for the second time today. I will not say anything
about the reasons why; I think you understand.
Mr
J.H.D. DAY : I tabled, actually, quite an extensive amount of information
yesterday, including the reports from the Western Australian Planning
Commission to me.
Mr
J.N. Hyde : Not yesterday. It was when you were defending the conflict
issue.
The
SPEAKER : Member for Perth, I have indicated to you that I will give you a
chance to get to your feet and ask a supplementary question. I indicate to you
at this point that I am formally calling you to order for the first time today.
Mr
J.H.D. DAY : Mr Thomson is now a senior officer in the Department of
Planning, appointed through the usual and proper appointment process for senior
staff in the public service; and the imputations behind the member for Perth's
questions I find quite offensive in relation to Mr Thomson.
To answer the specific question—is
Mr Thomson the officer involved in relation to the planning scheme amendment
itself?—the answer is no. He is acting in his role as secretary.
Mr
J.N. Hyde : Did he sign the letter?
Mr J.H.D. DAY : If
the member says he signed the letter, he no doubt did. But that is acting in
his role as secretary of the Western Australian Planning Commission, in an
administrative role, not as a planning officer. So what I suggest the member
for Perth should do, if he wants to understand the actual reasons for the
outcome of this amendment, is read all the information that I tabled yesterday,
particularly the reports from the planning commission to me. If he finds
difficulty in understanding the rationale that is expressed quite clearly in
those reports, I will arrange a briefing for him, or I will personally explain
it to him. I also suggest that to understand the wider context of what is
happening in Perth, and the framework under which planning decisions are made
in relation to the Perth and Peel regions, that he actually gets a copy of ''Directions
2031 and Beyond'' and reads it, including statements like this on page 7
—
It is inevitable that our
population will increase over the next 20 years. These increases are
significant but they are not unexpected. A key planning challenge is to
influence the growth of the city in such a way that a critical threshold of
activities are delivered in locations —
Mr J.N. Hyde : What
a whitewash!
The
SPEAKER : Member for Perth, I formally call you to order for the
second and third time today.
Mr J.H.D. DAY : I
have nearly finished, but it is important to give the member for Perth a lesson
in planning for Perth. To complete this extract —
Dr A.D. Buti interjected.
The SPEAKER :
Member for Armadale, if you wish to ask a question, there is a process that you
know very well. I formally call you to order for the second time today.
Minister for Planning, I hope you are close to the end of the answer.
Mr J.H.D. DAY : I
am, Mr Speaker. At page 7 of ''Directions 2031'' it states —
A key planning challenge is to
influence the growth of the city in such a way that a critical threshold of
activities are delivered in locations that are accessible to the growing
population, while at the same —
Time —
protecting those areas that are
valued and give our city its distinctive character.
Read the planning framework.
know that the member for Perth is on a single-handed campaign to uncover what
he believes is some great scandal in relation to this issue, some great conspiracy
that has been in operation to inflict so-called high-rise—four-storey
development—on the people of Dalkeith in the City of Nedlands. Some
people are opposed to that, and that is what this issue is really all about.
Some people do not like the fact that there is going to be a four-storey
development instead of the three-storey development that was proposed by the
City of Nedlands. The member for Perth is out there with the council of the
City of Nedlands and is lined up with the view that this is a terrible state of
affairs, just as I presume he is supporting the council of the Town of
Cottesloe, which regards five storeys, and a small number of eight storeys, in
Cottesloe as being high-rise, and that the end of the world is about to come
and the sun will never shine again on Cottesloe Beach—all a load of
rubbish.
In relation to the specific issue,
there is no conspiracy. There is no scandal to uncover in relation to this
issue. The decision that was made by me was on the basis of the advice of the
Western Australian Planning Commission, after extensive consideration and
assessment of all the issues.
In relation to the particular
individual whom the member for Perth mentioned, Neil Thomson, indeed he is a
former chief of staff of mine. But he has had no role in this process at all,
except in his role as secretary of the Western Australian Planning Commission.
Mr
J.N. Hyde : He wrote the letter you said cleared yourself!
The
SPEAKER : Member for Perth!
Mr
J.H.D. DAY : He has not written a letter that said I have cleared myself at
all.
Mr
J.N. Hyde : Yes! Who signed the letter you tabled in Parliament—the
only letter you have tabled?
Mr
J.H.D. DAY : That is a recommendation to me, if I recall correctly; and the
letter is then sent from the Western Australian Planning Commission to the City
of Nedlands, which is the usual process in relation to informing local
governments about planning scheme amendments.
Mr
J.N. Hyde : Your former chief of staff made the decision! This is the only
document you have tabled!
The
SPEAKER : Member for Perth, if you wish an opportunity to ask a
supplementary, get to your feet and ask that. Member for Girrawheen, I will
formally call you to order for the second time today. I will not say anything
about the reasons why; I think you understand.
Mr
J.H.D. DAY : I tabled, actually, quite an extensive amount of information
yesterday, including the reports from the Western Australian Planning
Commission to me.
Mr
J.N. Hyde : Not yesterday. It was when you were defending the conflict
issue.
The
SPEAKER : Member for Perth, I have indicated to you that I will give you a
chance to get to your feet and ask a supplementary question. I indicate to you
at this point that I am formally calling you to order for the first time today.
Mr
J.H.D. DAY : Mr Thomson is now a senior officer in the Department of
Planning, appointed through the usual and proper appointment process for senior
staff in the public service; and the imputations behind the member for Perth's
questions I find quite offensive in relation to Mr Thomson.
To answer the specific question—is
Mr Thomson the officer involved in relation to the planning scheme amendment
itself?—the answer is no. He is acting in his role as secretary.
Mr
J.N. Hyde : Did he sign the letter?
Mr J.H.D. DAY : If
the member says he signed the letter, he no doubt did. But that is acting in
his role as secretary of the Western Australian Planning Commission, in an
administrative role, not as a planning officer. So what I suggest the member
for Perth should do, if he wants to understand the actual reasons for the
outcome of this amendment, is read all the information that I tabled yesterday,
particularly the reports from the planning commission to me. If he finds
difficulty in understanding the rationale that is expressed quite clearly in
those reports, I will arrange a briefing for him, or I will personally explain
it to him. I also suggest that to understand the wider context of what is
happening in Perth, and the framework under which planning decisions are made
in relation to the Perth and Peel regions, that he actually gets a copy of ''Directions
2031 and Beyond'' and reads it, including statements like this on page 7
—
It is inevitable that our
population will increase over the next 20 years. These increases are
significant but they are not unexpected. A key planning challenge is to
influence the growth of the city in such a way that a critical threshold of
activities are delivered in locations —
Mr J.N. Hyde : What
a whitewash!
The
SPEAKER : Member for Perth, I formally call you to order for the
second and third time today.
Mr J.H.D. DAY : I
have nearly finished, but it is important to give the member for Perth a lesson
in planning for Perth. To complete this extract —
Dr A.D. Buti interjected.
The SPEAKER :
Member for Armadale, if you wish to ask a question, there is a process that you
know very well. I formally call you to order for the second time today.
Minister for Planning, I hope you are close to the end of the answer.
Mr J.H.D. DAY : I
am, Mr Speaker. At page 7 of ''Directions 2031'' it states —
A key planning challenge is to
influence the growth of the city in such a way that a critical threshold of
activities are delivered in locations that are accessible to the growing
population, while at the same —
Time —
protecting those areas that are
valued and give our city its distinctive character.
Read the planning framework.
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.