❓ Ferry terminal—Matilda Bay, Nedlands 647. Mr Jonathan Huston to the Minister for Transport: I refer the minister to her Facebook post on Sunday in which she stated that the Jojo's Cafe jetty option wa
AnsweredQoN 647Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
Ferry terminal—Matilda
Bay, Nedlands
647. Mr Jonathan Huston to the Minister for Transport:
I refer the minister
to her Facebook post on Sunday in which she stated that the Jojo's Cafe jetty
option was untenable due to its location, which is 300 metres from the Pelican
Point marine estuary park.
(1) If that is the case, why did the minister
include an option for a jetty at Pelican Point, which is within the state's estuary
marine park?
(2) Given the minister stated last week in The
West Australian that ferries will not come closer than 200 metres from the
beach at Matilda Bay, why does the development application have the jetty
spanning only 140 metres from the beach?
(3) What is the actual length of this jetty?
Bay, Nedlands
647. Mr Jonathan Huston to the Minister for Transport:
I refer the minister
to her Facebook post on Sunday in which she stated that the Jojo's Cafe jetty
option was untenable due to its location, which is 300 metres from the Pelican
Point marine estuary park.
(1) If that is the case, why did the minister
include an option for a jetty at Pelican Point, which is within the state's estuary
marine park?
(2) Given the minister stated last week in The
West Australian that ferries will not come closer than 200 metres from the
beach at Matilda Bay, why does the development application have the jetty
spanning only 140 metres from the beach?
(3) What is the actual length of this jetty?
AnswerView source ↗
(1)–(3) This is an incredible sight. The
Liberal Party is once again—not incredible; it is an everyday sight—opposing
public transport. Remember, members opposite opposed the Ellenbrook rail line.
They opposed the Byford extension. They have opposed everything.
In relation to the Facebook post
I put out on Sunday, it was the facts that were on a fact sheet that was
released many weeks before. The member is asking: Why did we have Jojo's as an
option? This is what we did. This is what we do. We took a policy to the
election. The policy was to have two ferry sites of Matilda Bay—at that
time, there was a Matilda Bay (North)—and Applecross. We won the
election, and this policy was really, really well endorsed. Do members know
what everyone has said for decades? We should use the river more. We should
expand the ferry system. In fact, it was the member for South Perth's
predecessor who basically said that we should have more ferries, and we have been
working on the ferry system forever.
We went out and we undertook a
multi-criteria analysis. In that multi-criteria analysis, we had five options: Jojo's,
Pelican Point, Matilda Bay (South), Matilda Bay (Central) and Matilda Bay (North).
Across all those different criteria, we determined the best option. We put them
all in the mix. The proposed location is going through the development
assessment process. Matilda Bay (Central) became the best option because it had
the least amount of environmental considerations—because there were environmental
concerns around Jojo's and Pelican Point.
I do not understand this. We did a multi-criteria
analysis—it is there—that determined as part of it which option
had the least environmental impact. We chose the one that had the least
environmental impact. Then of course the Environmental Protection Authority
chose not to assess, because the site had the least environmental impact. Everyone
was then going, "Why did the EPA not assess it?" Maybe it was because
we chose the one with the least environmental impact! We did the work initially
to get the best option. Then we had public transport connectivity.
The member for Nedlands might think it is okay that
people with disabilities have to walk 1.5 kilometres to go to University of
Western Australia, but we actually think that having public transport in close
proximity to where people want to go is a positive thing for everyone of all
abilities—for staff and for students. Then there is this whole idea
that somehow this whole area is pristine and has never seen any activity. There
are 34 boat moorings there! There are 34 private boat moorings. Maybe the
member knows those people who own those boats, and maybe the member thinks it
is far more important to put the interests of private boat owners over the
public transport system. Do members know what? I think that is where it is at.
The relocation of the 34 boat moorings—some of them might have been your
supporters, they might have been your donors; I do not know—
Withdrawal of remark
Mr Liam Staltari: Regarding reflections on the
character and intent of the member, I ask that the Treasurer withdraw that.
Several members
interjected.
The Speaker: Thank you, members! I will not uphold
that point of order.
Questions without notice resumed
Ms Rita Saffioti: As I said, the member may know them,
and they may be irritated that they have to relocate their licence. They might
be. But we won the election. We did a multi-criteria analysis; it was done by
experts. Waterways is the other key point. Another part of the criteria was
waterways and safety on the waterways and the relationship between ferries and
other water users. It was initially intended to be Matilda Bay (North), in
close proximity to the rowing shed. It was moved to Matilda Bay (South) as part
of those consultations. The other point is the
interaction of the windsurfers and the kite surfers in the Pelican Point area
and the uncontrolled interaction between that watercraft and ferries.
I have seen on
Facebook some of the personal abuse and vile attacks on this issue. . I have. Now
people are going to the lows of criticising the poor ferry captains, too,
saying that they are stupid and they do not know how to avoid people, but the
private boat craft are all very safe compared with a ferry captain! I have seen
the personal abuse and the complete hysteria around this.
We are on the side
of public transport. We are on the side of proper multi-criteria analysis to
ensure that we get the best outcome. When we look across all the key factors—waterway
safety, environment, transport connectivity—it is the best option. If you
want to oppose this, oppose it. But we are about the future. I do not like
using the word "nimbyism"—I cannot say it; maybe that is why
I do not use it!—but this is nimbyism at its worst. It is when people
think that no-one can share their part of the river; how dare people in the
suburbs go into Matilda Bay! Some of the attacks on this issue have been
absolutely disgraceful. I stand by the work we are doing. This is going to be
an asset that will be enjoyed for generations to come.
Liberal Party is once again—not incredible; it is an everyday sight—opposing
public transport. Remember, members opposite opposed the Ellenbrook rail line.
They opposed the Byford extension. They have opposed everything.
In relation to the Facebook post
I put out on Sunday, it was the facts that were on a fact sheet that was
released many weeks before. The member is asking: Why did we have Jojo's as an
option? This is what we did. This is what we do. We took a policy to the
election. The policy was to have two ferry sites of Matilda Bay—at that
time, there was a Matilda Bay (North)—and Applecross. We won the
election, and this policy was really, really well endorsed. Do members know
what everyone has said for decades? We should use the river more. We should
expand the ferry system. In fact, it was the member for South Perth's
predecessor who basically said that we should have more ferries, and we have been
working on the ferry system forever.
We went out and we undertook a
multi-criteria analysis. In that multi-criteria analysis, we had five options: Jojo's,
Pelican Point, Matilda Bay (South), Matilda Bay (Central) and Matilda Bay (North).
Across all those different criteria, we determined the best option. We put them
all in the mix. The proposed location is going through the development
assessment process. Matilda Bay (Central) became the best option because it had
the least amount of environmental considerations—because there were environmental
concerns around Jojo's and Pelican Point.
I do not understand this. We did a multi-criteria
analysis—it is there—that determined as part of it which option
had the least environmental impact. We chose the one that had the least
environmental impact. Then of course the Environmental Protection Authority
chose not to assess, because the site had the least environmental impact. Everyone
was then going, "Why did the EPA not assess it?" Maybe it was because
we chose the one with the least environmental impact! We did the work initially
to get the best option. Then we had public transport connectivity.
The member for Nedlands might think it is okay that
people with disabilities have to walk 1.5 kilometres to go to University of
Western Australia, but we actually think that having public transport in close
proximity to where people want to go is a positive thing for everyone of all
abilities—for staff and for students. Then there is this whole idea
that somehow this whole area is pristine and has never seen any activity. There
are 34 boat moorings there! There are 34 private boat moorings. Maybe the
member knows those people who own those boats, and maybe the member thinks it
is far more important to put the interests of private boat owners over the
public transport system. Do members know what? I think that is where it is at.
The relocation of the 34 boat moorings—some of them might have been your
supporters, they might have been your donors; I do not know—
Withdrawal of remark
Mr Liam Staltari: Regarding reflections on the
character and intent of the member, I ask that the Treasurer withdraw that.
Several members
interjected.
The Speaker: Thank you, members! I will not uphold
that point of order.
Questions without notice resumed
Ms Rita Saffioti: As I said, the member may know them,
and they may be irritated that they have to relocate their licence. They might
be. But we won the election. We did a multi-criteria analysis; it was done by
experts. Waterways is the other key point. Another part of the criteria was
waterways and safety on the waterways and the relationship between ferries and
other water users. It was initially intended to be Matilda Bay (North), in
close proximity to the rowing shed. It was moved to Matilda Bay (South) as part
of those consultations. The other point is the
interaction of the windsurfers and the kite surfers in the Pelican Point area
and the uncontrolled interaction between that watercraft and ferries.
I have seen on
Facebook some of the personal abuse and vile attacks on this issue. . I have. Now
people are going to the lows of criticising the poor ferry captains, too,
saying that they are stupid and they do not know how to avoid people, but the
private boat craft are all very safe compared with a ferry captain! I have seen
the personal abuse and the complete hysteria around this.
We are on the side
of public transport. We are on the side of proper multi-criteria analysis to
ensure that we get the best outcome. When we look across all the key factors—waterway
safety, environment, transport connectivity—it is the best option. If you
want to oppose this, oppose it. But we are about the future. I do not like
using the word "nimbyism"—I cannot say it; maybe that is why
I do not use it!—but this is nimbyism at its worst. It is when people
think that no-one can share their part of the river; how dare people in the
suburbs go into Matilda Bay! Some of the attacks on this issue have been
absolutely disgraceful. I stand by the work we are doing. This is going to be
an asset that will be enjoyed for generations to come.
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.