Mangles Bay Marina (MBM) proposal Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) Amendment Proposal 1280/41 Hands Off Point Peron Inc. (HOPP) 1 Presentation 8 June 2016 To WAPC committee comprising Steve Hiller (presiding officer , member of the Statutory Planning Committee), Henry Zelones (member of the WAPC), Barbara Pedersen (independent with coastal management expertise) and Anthony Muscara (from the Dept of Planning) in an advisory capacity Presentation of Hands Off Point Peron Inc. 8/06/2016
Introduction 2 • HOPP speakers today – Dawn Jecks and Ambrose Cummins • HOPP’s written submission: • Volume 1 – 250 pages • Volume 2 – 189 pages • Volume 3 – 161 pages • Consideration of HOPP’s written submission by the panel prior to today’s hearing? Presentation of Hands Off Point Peron Inc. 8/06/2016
Introduction ctd… 3 • This presentation is made without prejudice to HOPP’s challenge to the WAPC’s role in this matter, due to alleged conflict of interest, apprehension of bias and lack of due diligence as detailed in HOPP’s written submission. • HOPP has called for the abandonment of the MBM project, failing which the MRS amendment assessment process should be replaced by an independent and impartial evaluation at arm’s length from the government proponent Presentation of Hands Off PointPeron Inc. 8/06/2016
Insufficient presentation time 4 • Insufficient time has been allowed for HOPP’s oral presentation. We sought 4 hours. We then offered to reduce this to 2.5 hours, being the bare minimum required to address our 3 volume, 600 page submission. This request was rejected by the committee chair, Mr Hiller and we have been officially offered 1 hour, with the possibility of an additional half hour tacked on due to a timeslot vacancy. • The result is that we have been denied a fair and reasonable opportunity to present our submissions and you have been denied the opportunity to listen and give due and proper consideration to our submissions • Due to insufficent time being allowed, we have reluctantly decided not to attempt to address you today about many of substantive reasons why this MRS amendment proposal should be rejected. Presentation of Hands Off Point Peron Inc. 8/06/2016
HOPP’s written submission 5 • HOPP’s critique of the MRS amendment proposal is set out in detail in our written submission dated 13 November 2015, comprising 600 pages. HOPP’s analysis is supported by a wide range of expert evidence annexed to the submissions, including from, among others: • Dr Ron Chapman, historian • Dr Linley Lutton, architect and urban design expert • Dr Vic Semeniuk, scientist and leading expert in relation to Pt Peron coastal processes • Dr Leah Burns, tourism expert and environmental anthropologist • Adjunct Prof George Burns, health and wellbeing expert and clinical psychologist • Keren Geddes, clinical psychologist • Dr Mike van Keulen, biologist and coastal expert • Dr JN Dunlop, scientist Presentation of Hands Off Point Peron Inc. 8/06/2016
HOPP’s written submission ctd… 6 • The HOPP written submission is also supported by affidavit evidence and various other key documents including the Cape Peron Coastal Park Concept Plan and a compilation of published letters and newspaper articles demonstrating overwhelming public opposition to the MBM proposal • In the absence of contrary expert evidence, the WAPC must accept and act on the expert analysis and opinions contained in HOPP’s written submission. • We call upon the committee and the WAPC to give due and proper consideration to the HOPP written submission in its entirety, including all annexures. Presentation of Hands Off Point Peron Inc. 8/06/2016
Focus of this oral presentation 7 • We will spend our limited time today addressing you about some of the serious probity and process flaws that have allowed this proposal to get as far as it has, and which continue to infect the assessment and decision making about the proposed MRS amendment • The concern is that these failures are of such nature as to amount to breaches of the WAPC’s statutory and common law duties Presentation of Hands Off Point Peron Inc. 8/06/2016
Why are we here? How did 8 such a proposal get this far? • The proposed MRS amendment and the MBM development it is designed to facilitate are both in fundamental breach of the 1964 Point Peron Agreement between the Prime Minister and Premier for the future use of Point Peron, pursuant to which the land was sold cheaply to the State on condition that it remain in pubic hands and used only for recreation and parkland. • The proposed amendment therefore amounts to a blatant breach of trust and lack of integrity on the part of the WAPC and the other government agencies and politicians involved. Presentation of Hands Off Point Peron Inc. 8/06/2016
Why are we here? ctd… 9 • It is a proposal that is bad for the economy, bad for the environment and bad for the community. • It is a proposal that is highly unpopular and which faces vehement community opposition • The implementation of the MRS amendment would pave the way for state sponsored vandalism of this wonderful and irreplaceable natural asset that previous generations of political leaders set aside in perpetuity for current and future generations to enjoy. • It is a proposal that would destroy the golden opportunity for a world class coastal park at Cape Peron, a concept that is infinitely superior on every count. Presentation of Hands Off Point Peron Inc. 8/06/2016
Why are we here? Ctd… 10 • So why are we here? How could such a fundamentally flawed proposed have got to this point? There are only two plausible explanations, or some combination of both: • (1) The kindest explanation is that this is a proposal put forward by people within government who, through ignorance, thought it was a good idea and who, through arrogance, have used their power and resources to push it through to this point, in the face of overwhelming planning reasons to abandon it. • (2) The more sinister explanation is that this proposal has been driven by WA Inc. methods and is tainted with deception, secret deals with favoured private sector operators, lack of due diligence, conflict of interest and manipulation of regulatory process Presentation of Hands Off Point Peron Inc. 8/06/2016
Why are we here? ctd… 11 • The fact that this proposal has got this far demonstrates systemic failure on the part of WA’s planning regime and brings WA planning professionals and agencies into disrepute. • HOPP is calling for a Royal Commission into the conduct of various parties involved, including LandCorp and the WAPC, with the power to call witnesses, inspect documents and make findings and recommendations. This is not just about Point Peron, it is about the honesty, transparency and integrity of the government and government agencies. Presentation of Hands Off PointPeron Inc. 8/06/2016
“Look Mum, the Emperor has no clothes!” 12 • There is a well known parable about an Emperor’s subjects not having the courage or honesty to tell the emperor the truth (that he is naked), until finally an innocent child states the obvious. • The question now is this: Will you, as members of this panel, have the courage and honesty to “tell the Emperor the truth” without fear or favour? • We call upon you not to succumb to the subtle pressures on you to approve this ill conceived MRS amendment being promoted by the “Emperor” Presentation of Hands Off Point Peron Inc. 8/06/2016
The WAPC’s inherent conflict of interest 13 • The heart of the problem is that the WAPC is tasked with two inherently conflicting roles – (a) planning and (b) objectively assessing public submissions about its own planning proposals • This problem is all the more pronounced when the WAPC’s planning has been conducted at the behest of the Premier and Cabinet to facilitate a state government driven project. It is a case of “Caesar judging Caesar”. • The WAPC cannot possibly be seen as a credible and objective adjudicator or adviser to the government in this situation. Presentation of Hands Off Point Peron Inc. 8/06/2016
MURKY MONEY & 14 CONFLICTS OF INTEREST • There are many unanswered questions about the finances of the MBM development proposal. This includes questions relating to the WAPC itself. • There are also many conflict of interest issues swirling around the project and the MRS amendment process. • The following slides address some (but not all) of these issues. Presentation of Hands Off Point Peron Inc. 8/06/2016
MURKY MONEY & 15 CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ctd… Documents obtained under FOI show: • On 4 December 2003 the then Minister for Planning Allanah MacTiernan wrote to Mark McGowan MLA (now Leader of the Opposition) committing $250,000 of WAPC funds for a study into the proposed Mangles Bay Marina, before the WAPC had even considered the request! • On 16 December 2003 the WAPC Executive, Finance and Property Committee resolved to ‘ consider ’ contributing $250,000, subject to various conditions including the requirement that “should the project proponent achieve planning and environmental approvals to conclude the feasibility of the Cape Peron Marina Implementation as a commercial venture, then the amount contributed by WAPC will be repaid by the proponent” Presentation of Hands Off Point Peron Inc. 8/06/2016
Recommend
More recommend
