The Crime and Misconduct Commission today released a report on its investigation into an allegation that a retired former Deputy Premier improperly influenced a review process which changed the classification of certain land in the South East Queensland Regional Plan 2009.
The CMC has found that there is no evidence of official misconduct by the former Deputy Premier Terry Mackenroth or any other person involved in the decision-making process.
The allegation was referred to the CMC following a media report that implied an area of land at Elimbah East, north of Caboolture aerodrome, was included in the urban footprint of the 2009 SEQ plan after Mr Mackenroth lobbied the state government.
CMC investigators interviewed key departmental officers and examined all relevant records held by the Department of Infrastructure and Planning.
It is clear that Mr Mackenroth met with departmental officers during the review of the 2005 SEQ plan and he brought to their attention the issue of the possible inclusion of the Elimbah East land into the urban footprint. However, its inclusion was not a new idea.
A consultant to the former Caboolture Shire Council had identified development potential in the Elimbah East land in June 2006 and again in April 2007. Ultimately, the council adopted a local growth management strategy which called for the urban footprint to be extended to include the Elimbah East land.
According to the departmental officers with whom Mr Mackenroth met, the ultimate decision to recommend inclusion of the land was based on technical planning grounds. This is supported by a review of the departmental records.
The department received and assessed approximately 3500 submissions, including seven submissions concerning the Elimbah East land, before finalising the 2009 SEQ plan. Of those relating to the Elimbah East land all, except two, supported the inclusion of the land.
Cabinet’s decision to include the Elimbah East land in the reviewed plan was consistent with the officers’ recommendation.
While the debate about competing merits of future land use may continue, it falls a long way short of raising any reasonable suspicion that something untoward must have occurred during the process leading to the 2009 SEQ plan.
ENDS
