HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-03-04 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

COPPER COAST DISTRICT COUNCIL

The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH (15:17): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for State/Local Government Relations a question about the District Council of the Copper Coast.

Leave granted.

The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH: Members would be aware that the District Council of the Copper Coast entered an agreement last year to sell land to Leasecorp and that members of the community, former councillors and other parties who sought to buy the land allege that Leasecorp received preferential treatment in the tender process.

In a ministerial statement, on Wednesday 18 February, minister Gago informed this council that an investigation by the Crown Solicitor's Office into whether the District Council of the Copper Coast has breached section 49 of the Local Government Act in selling land to Leasecorp had cleared the council of financial impropriety or improper personal relationships between the council and Leasecorp.

I have since been contacted by residents from the Copper Coast, who tell me that two key people were not contacted by the Crown Solicitor's Office in the course of its investigation. They are former councillor Tommy Tonkin, who initially supported the sale to Leasecorp, then became concerned about the process and became a leading critic of the process, and Mr Bob Soang, General Manger of Drake's Foodland, one of the competing parties in the purchase of the land, who also raised questions about the process of the sale to Leasecorp. My questions are:

1. Is it correct that the Crown Solicitor's Office did not speak to either former councillor Tommy Tonkin or Mr Bob Soang?

2. Did the Crown Solicitor's Office speak to other parties that expressed an interest in purchasing council land?

3. Did the Crown Solicitor's Office restrict its inquiries to the District Council of the Copper Coast and Leasecorp? If the Crown Solicitor's Office spoke only to the parties alleged to be guilty of impropriety (that is, just the defendants) and not any of the witnesses, why does the minister have confidence in its findings?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for State/Local Government Relations, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Minister for Government Enterprises, Minister Assisting the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Energy) (15:19): There have been numerous questions in this chamber about this matter. There is a great deal of background information already on record, so I do not intend to go back over that information in detail. However, an exhaustive investigation took place when the agency received complaints about the sale of the property referred to today, and that has been completed.

A range of initiatives has occurred in terms of seeking information as to whether an investigation under my powers was appropriate and needed to occur. The agency raised a number of questions with the council; it responded, and further questions were raised and then a further response was made.

Finally, the Crown Solicitor completed an inquiry into the matter and I advised the council, through a ministerial statement, of the outcome of that inquiry. The Crown Solicitor did not find evidence of financial impropriety on anyone's part, did not find evidence of a personal relationship between council members and council staff (or at least a relationship that might raise concerns), and did not find evidence of conduct that gives rise to any serious allegation of improper conduct. Upon that advice, it was my view that a formal investigation was not warranted at this time.

The issue of who the Crown Solicitor took evidence from was a matter for that office in relation to the complaints in question. They are the lawyers. I am not a trained lawyer. They sought the information they needed at the time to investigate the matters before them and to satisfy themselves that they had adequate information and detail to answer the charge being considered. So, it is a matter for them in terms of whom they believe they would need to interview or receive reports or information from; it is not a matter for me. I would obviously trust the Crown Solicitor's Office to do its job the way it sees fit and would not want to interfere with that: that would be most inappropriate.

If the honourable member is suggesting other members of the community might have additional information that could reflect on the outcome of this matter, I invite him to encourage those people to take that to the Ombudsman. That is the obvious independent authority to investigate any further matters or any further accusations. That provision has always been available to them. So, if they are not satisfied with my findings then I urge them to do that.

That is certainly not the end of the matter. There were some issues in terms of the council's policy arrangements relating to the tender process and expressions of interest process. I had some concerns about that and I put some steps in place to ensure that officers visit and ensure that those matters are addressed to my satisfaction. So, those issues are being dealt with, and the agency has also conducted a workshop with councillors to assist in the process of public consultation and information.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT