OLG reply to Creighton Report

2
Separately, councillors must make and lodge a return in the appropriate form,
disclosing the councillor’s interests as specified. Again, the Code (and formerly the
Act) stipulates the information to be provided.
Clr Kendall’s returns over the period from 1 July 2009 onwards, as annexed to the
Report, have been reviewed. All were lodged within the time permitted. All contain
comprehensive disclosures, including many not required including property owned
by spouse and son. Discretionary disclosures include interests of trust and the
relinquishing of an interest his son had in an engineering business. The returns
ascribe the principal objects of relevant companies. I note that the return for 1 July
2017 – 30 June 2018 contains an error regarding the years covered by the return.
However, it was lodged on time on 11 September 2018 and was clearly intended to
be made for the period 2017/2018. I do not regard this as having any consequence.
The Report alleges that Clr Kendall has mischaracterised the descriptions of
Boorooma Estate Pty Lts (Boorooma) and Horedav Pty Ltd (Horedav).
Insofar as Boorooma is concerned, Clr Kendall was neither a director nor a
shareholder in this company and, accordingly, had no disclosable interest. Any
description in any of Clr Kendall’s returns could not give rise to a complaint regarding
its correctness or otherwise of the disclosure.
The Report suggests that the principal object of Horedav should be property
development, rather than property investment. This is based solely on its interest in
Boorooma, and because Boorooma is said to have a principal object of property
development. I do not accept that the basis for reaching this conclusion as outlined
in the Report is correct.
The Report also alleges that Clr Kendall failed to properly declare either a pecuniary
interest or a non-pecuniary conflict of interest when Council considered matters
relating to The Mill Development, a development application for a hangar at Wagga
Wagga Airport by Douglas Aerospace, a development application relating to
6-8 Barlow Street Wagga Wagga and a development application relating to
60 Crampton Street Wagga Wagga.
In relation to The Mill Development, I do not regard the mere proximity of a property
owned by a company that Clr Kendall was a director of, on its own, gave rise to a
pecuniary interest. It is acknowledged that in some cases proximity of property to a
rezoning or development may give rise to a pecuniary interest. However, in this case
the discrete nature of the development and the distance between the development
and the land in question is not regarded as giving rise to a reasonable expectation
or likelihood of an appreciable financial gain or loss. Nor do I regard a prior
declaration of a pecuniary interest (based on the likelihood of future work associated
with the development) in 2011 as indicative of a pecuniary interest.
Likewise, regarding the Douglas Aerospace matter, I do not regard the fact that the
registered office and principal place of business of a company that Clr Kendall was
a director of, gave rise to a pecuniary interest. Most importantly, there is no evidence
as to how Wagga Wagga Air Hangar could benefit or lose from the Douglas
Aerospace development.