❓ A parliamentary question regarding the Gallop Government's plan to sell land surrounding the East Perth Power Station for residential development, focusing on community consultation and heritage concerns. The Minister's response defends the government's actions, citing the unworkability of previous arrangements with the National Trust and the need for difficult financial decisions.
AnsweredQoN 837Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the alarming revelation in The West Australian of 11 June 2003 that announced that the Gallop Government will sell the land surrounding the heritage-listed East Perth power station for residential development and that the future of this industrial heritage icon remains uncertain. (1) Have the local residents been surveyed about their views on the future of this part of the State’s heritage and what were the outcomes of that survey? (2) What consultation with the broader community took place before the proposal to sell the land was put to Cabinet? (3) Has the minister taken any action to address concerns expressed by the Chief Executive Officer of the National Trust of Australia (WA) that the Government’s plans will destroy the heritage of the site? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(3) I find this question extraordinary, particularly the reference to the lamentations of the Chief Executive Officer of the National Trust. The previous Government could not find anyone interested in taking over this site. Under a previous Minister for Planning, who became the Chairman of the East Perth Redevelopment Authority, the Government had instructed that it was not interested in doing anything to ensure that this important heritage site was conserved. Therefore, nothing happened. Western Power came up with this fabulous little deal that it would give the National Trust $5 million to take the building off its hands, to which the National Trust agreed. The National Trust had plans to develop a number of residential towers surrounding the East Perth power station and I am amazed that it is now saying, “Shock, horror!”, and that the Government should not develop the site. I have been working closely with the member for Perth to ensure that the local community is kept informed of what is going on. I attended a meeting on-site with the residents of that local area and set out, as I have set out time and again in this place and in the Press, this Government’s approach. We believe that the arrangement with the National Trust was simply unworkable and would leave the National Trust and, ultimately, the State with an enormous liability. The National Trust business case was out by about $11 million. We have to make a hard decision and determine how much money we can direct towards the conservation of this site from the consolidated fund. As we have explained, none of the development proposals for the surrounding land will recoup the entire cost of conserving the exterior of the building and remediating the site. Even with the best will in the world, the development opportunities are not sufficient to provide for the conservation. Mr C.J. Barnett: Western Power is taking responsibility for remediation. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Western Power will accept the responsibility for remediation, which will cost about $2 million. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I have been open about this in this place. I have said that the conservation project will require the expenditure of $10 million to $13 million from the consolidated fund, or some other source. The Government must make some serious decisions about whether this project is a priority it can manage. In the meantime, we are exploring a few other opportunities that have become available. We are optimistic that we may be able to find another solution to this problem. There is no point providing the community with details until we have some idea of the base case. If we decide to proceed with the redevelopment of this site through the East Perth Redevelopment Authority, we will go through the public consultation process. However, there is no point consulting people until we know the ground rules.
(1) Have the local residents been surveyed about their views on the future of this part of the State’s heritage and what were the outcomes of that survey? (2) What consultation with the broader community took place before the proposal to sell the land was put to Cabinet? (3) Has the minister taken any action to address concerns expressed by the Chief Executive Officer of the National Trust of Australia (WA) that the Government’s plans will destroy the heritage of the site? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(3) I find this question extraordinary, particularly the reference to the lamentations of the Chief Executive Officer of the National Trust. The previous Government could not find anyone interested in taking over this site. Under a previous Minister for Planning, who became the Chairman of the East Perth Redevelopment Authority, the Government had instructed that it was not interested in doing anything to ensure that this important heritage site was conserved. Therefore, nothing happened. Western Power came up with this fabulous little deal that it would give the National Trust $5 million to take the building off its hands, to which the National Trust agreed. The National Trust had plans to develop a number of residential towers surrounding the East Perth power station and I am amazed that it is now saying, “Shock, horror!”, and that the Government should not develop the site. I have been working closely with the member for Perth to ensure that the local community is kept informed of what is going on. I attended a meeting on-site with the residents of that local area and set out, as I have set out time and again in this place and in the Press, this Government’s approach. We believe that the arrangement with the National Trust was simply unworkable and would leave the National Trust and, ultimately, the State with an enormous liability. The National Trust business case was out by about $11 million. We have to make a hard decision and determine how much money we can direct towards the conservation of this site from the consolidated fund. As we have explained, none of the development proposals for the surrounding land will recoup the entire cost of conserving the exterior of the building and remediating the site. Even with the best will in the world, the development opportunities are not sufficient to provide for the conservation. Mr C.J. Barnett: Western Power is taking responsibility for remediation. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Western Power will accept the responsibility for remediation, which will cost about $2 million. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I have been open about this in this place. I have said that the conservation project will require the expenditure of $10 million to $13 million from the consolidated fund, or some other source. The Government must make some serious decisions about whether this project is a priority it can manage. In the meantime, we are exploring a few other opportunities that have become available. We are optimistic that we may be able to find another solution to this problem. There is no point providing the community with details until we have some idea of the base case. If we decide to proceed with the redevelopment of this site through the East Perth Redevelopment Authority, we will go through the public consultation process. However, there is no point consulting people until we know the ground rules.
(2) What consultation with the broader community took place before the proposal to sell the land was put to Cabinet? (3) Has the minister taken any action to address concerns expressed by the Chief Executive Officer of the National Trust of Australia (WA) that the Government’s plans will destroy the heritage of the site? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(3) I find this question extraordinary, particularly the reference to the lamentations of the Chief Executive Officer of the National Trust. The previous Government could not find anyone interested in taking over this site. Under a previous Minister for Planning, who became the Chairman of the East Perth Redevelopment Authority, the Government had instructed that it was not interested in doing anything to ensure that this important heritage site was conserved. Therefore, nothing happened. Western Power came up with this fabulous little deal that it would give the National Trust $5 million to take the building off its hands, to which the National Trust agreed. The National Trust had plans to develop a number of residential towers surrounding the East Perth power station and I am amazed that it is now saying, “Shock, horror!”, and that the Government should not develop the site. I have been working closely with the member for Perth to ensure that the local community is kept informed of what is going on. I attended a meeting on-site with the residents of that local area and set out, as I have set out time and again in this place and in the Press, this Government’s approach. We believe that the arrangement with the National Trust was simply unworkable and would leave the National Trust and, ultimately, the State with an enormous liability. The National Trust business case was out by about $11 million. We have to make a hard decision and determine how much money we can direct towards the conservation of this site from the consolidated fund. As we have explained, none of the development proposals for the surrounding land will recoup the entire cost of conserving the exterior of the building and remediating the site. Even with the best will in the world, the development opportunities are not sufficient to provide for the conservation. Mr C.J. Barnett: Western Power is taking responsibility for remediation. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Western Power will accept the responsibility for remediation, which will cost about $2 million. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I have been open about this in this place. I have said that the conservation project will require the expenditure of $10 million to $13 million from the consolidated fund, or some other source. The Government must make some serious decisions about whether this project is a priority it can manage. In the meantime, we are exploring a few other opportunities that have become available. We are optimistic that we may be able to find another solution to this problem. There is no point providing the community with details until we have some idea of the base case. If we decide to proceed with the redevelopment of this site through the East Perth Redevelopment Authority, we will go through the public consultation process. However, there is no point consulting people until we know the ground rules.
(3) Has the minister taken any action to address concerns expressed by the Chief Executive Officer of the National Trust of Australia (WA) that the Government’s plans will destroy the heritage of the site? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(3) I find this question extraordinary, particularly the reference to the lamentations of the Chief Executive Officer of the National Trust. The previous Government could not find anyone interested in taking over this site. Under a previous Minister for Planning, who became the Chairman of the East Perth Redevelopment Authority, the Government had instructed that it was not interested in doing anything to ensure that this important heritage site was conserved. Therefore, nothing happened. Western Power came up with this fabulous little deal that it would give the National Trust $5 million to take the building off its hands, to which the National Trust agreed. The National Trust had plans to develop a number of residential towers surrounding the East Perth power station and I am amazed that it is now saying, “Shock, horror!”, and that the Government should not develop the site. I have been working closely with the member for Perth to ensure that the local community is kept informed of what is going on. I attended a meeting on-site with the residents of that local area and set out, as I have set out time and again in this place and in the Press, this Government’s approach. We believe that the arrangement with the National Trust was simply unworkable and would leave the National Trust and, ultimately, the State with an enormous liability. The National Trust business case was out by about $11 million. We have to make a hard decision and determine how much money we can direct towards the conservation of this site from the consolidated fund. As we have explained, none of the development proposals for the surrounding land will recoup the entire cost of conserving the exterior of the building and remediating the site. Even with the best will in the world, the development opportunities are not sufficient to provide for the conservation. Mr C.J. Barnett: Western Power is taking responsibility for remediation. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Western Power will accept the responsibility for remediation, which will cost about $2 million. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I have been open about this in this place. I have said that the conservation project will require the expenditure of $10 million to $13 million from the consolidated fund, or some other source. The Government must make some serious decisions about whether this project is a priority it can manage. In the meantime, we are exploring a few other opportunities that have become available. We are optimistic that we may be able to find another solution to this problem. There is no point providing the community with details until we have some idea of the base case. If we decide to proceed with the redevelopment of this site through the East Perth Redevelopment Authority, we will go through the public consultation process. However, there is no point consulting people until we know the ground rules.
Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(3) I find this question extraordinary, particularly the reference to the lamentations of the Chief Executive Officer of the National Trust. The previous Government could not find anyone interested in taking over this site. Under a previous Minister for Planning, who became the Chairman of the East Perth Redevelopment Authority, the Government had instructed that it was not interested in doing anything to ensure that this important heritage site was conserved. Therefore, nothing happened. Western Power came up with this fabulous little deal that it would give the National Trust $5 million to take the building off its hands, to which the National Trust agreed. The National Trust had plans to develop a number of residential towers surrounding the East Perth power station and I am amazed that it is now saying, “Shock, horror!”, and that the Government should not develop the site. I have been working closely with the member for Perth to ensure that the local community is kept informed of what is going on. I attended a meeting on-site with the residents of that local area and set out, as I have set out time and again in this place and in the Press, this Government’s approach. We believe that the arrangement with the National Trust was simply unworkable and would leave the National Trust and, ultimately, the State with an enormous liability. The National Trust business case was out by about $11 million. We have to make a hard decision and determine how much money we can direct towards the conservation of this site from the consolidated fund. As we have explained, none of the development proposals for the surrounding land will recoup the entire cost of conserving the exterior of the building and remediating the site. Even with the best will in the world, the development opportunities are not sufficient to provide for the conservation. Mr C.J. Barnett: Western Power is taking responsibility for remediation. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Western Power will accept the responsibility for remediation, which will cost about $2 million. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I have been open about this in this place. I have said that the conservation project will require the expenditure of $10 million to $13 million from the consolidated fund, or some other source. The Government must make some serious decisions about whether this project is a priority it can manage. In the meantime, we are exploring a few other opportunities that have become available. We are optimistic that we may be able to find another solution to this problem. There is no point providing the community with details until we have some idea of the base case. If we decide to proceed with the redevelopment of this site through the East Perth Redevelopment Authority, we will go through the public consultation process. However, there is no point consulting people until we know the ground rules.
(1)-(3) I find this question extraordinary, particularly the reference to the lamentations of the Chief Executive Officer of the National Trust. The previous Government could not find anyone interested in taking over this site. Under a previous Minister for Planning, who became the Chairman of the East Perth Redevelopment Authority, the Government had instructed that it was not interested in doing anything to ensure that this important heritage site was conserved. Therefore, nothing happened. Western Power came up with this fabulous little deal that it would give the National Trust $5 million to take the building off its hands, to which the National Trust agreed. The National Trust had plans to develop a number of residential towers surrounding the East Perth power station and I am amazed that it is now saying, “Shock, horror!”, and that the Government should not develop the site. I have been working closely with the member for Perth to ensure that the local community is kept informed of what is going on. I attended a meeting on-site with the residents of that local area and set out, as I have set out time and again in this place and in the Press, this Government’s approach. We believe that the arrangement with the National Trust was simply unworkable and would leave the National Trust and, ultimately, the State with an enormous liability. The National Trust business case was out by about $11 million. We have to make a hard decision and determine how much money we can direct towards the conservation of this site from the consolidated fund. As we have explained, none of the development proposals for the surrounding land will recoup the entire cost of conserving the exterior of the building and remediating the site. Even with the best will in the world, the development opportunities are not sufficient to provide for the conservation. Mr C.J. Barnett: Western Power is taking responsibility for remediation. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Western Power will accept the responsibility for remediation, which will cost about $2 million. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I have been open about this in this place. I have said that the conservation project will require the expenditure of $10 million to $13 million from the consolidated fund, or some other source. The Government must make some serious decisions about whether this project is a priority it can manage. In the meantime, we are exploring a few other opportunities that have become available. We are optimistic that we may be able to find another solution to this problem. There is no point providing the community with details until we have some idea of the base case. If we decide to proceed with the redevelopment of this site through the East Perth Redevelopment Authority, we will go through the public consultation process. However, there is no point consulting people until we know the ground rules.
Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Western Power will accept the responsibility for remediation, which will cost about $2 million. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I have been open about this in this place. I have said that the conservation project will require the expenditure of $10 million to $13 million from the consolidated fund, or some other source. The Government must make some serious decisions about whether this project is a priority it can manage. In the meantime, we are exploring a few other opportunities that have become available. We are optimistic that we may be able to find another solution to this problem. There is no point providing the community with details until we have some idea of the base case. If we decide to proceed with the redevelopment of this site through the East Perth Redevelopment Authority, we will go through the public consultation process. However, there is no point consulting people until we know the ground rules.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I have been open about this in this place. I have said that the conservation project will require the expenditure of $10 million to $13 million from the consolidated fund, or some other source. The Government must make some serious decisions about whether this project is a priority it can manage. In the meantime, we are exploring a few other opportunities that have become available. We are optimistic that we may be able to find another solution to this problem. There is no point providing the community with details until we have some idea of the base case. If we decide to proceed with the redevelopment of this site through the East Perth Redevelopment Authority, we will go through the public consultation process. However, there is no point consulting people until we know the ground rules.
The SPEAKER: Members! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I have been open about this in this place. I have said that the conservation project will require the expenditure of $10 million to $13 million from the consolidated fund, or some other source. The Government must make some serious decisions about whether this project is a priority it can manage. In the meantime, we are exploring a few other opportunities that have become available. We are optimistic that we may be able to find another solution to this problem. There is no point providing the community with details until we have some idea of the base case. If we decide to proceed with the redevelopment of this site through the East Perth Redevelopment Authority, we will go through the public consultation process. However, there is no point consulting people until we know the ground rules.
Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I have been open about this in this place. I have said that the conservation project will require the expenditure of $10 million to $13 million from the consolidated fund, or some other source. The Government must make some serious decisions about whether this project is a priority it can manage. In the meantime, we are exploring a few other opportunities that have become available. We are optimistic that we may be able to find another solution to this problem. There is no point providing the community with details until we have some idea of the base case. If we decide to proceed with the redevelopment of this site through the East Perth Redevelopment Authority, we will go through the public consultation process. However, there is no point consulting people until we know the ground rules.
In the meantime, we are exploring a few other opportunities that have become available. We are optimistic that we may be able to find another solution to this problem. There is no point providing the community with details until we have some idea of the base case. If we decide to proceed with the redevelopment of this site through the East Perth Redevelopment Authority, we will go through the public consultation process. However, there is no point consulting people until we know the ground rules.
(1) Have the local residents been surveyed about their views on the future of this part of the State’s heritage and what were the outcomes of that survey? (2) What consultation with the broader community took place before the proposal to sell the land was put to Cabinet? (3) Has the minister taken any action to address concerns expressed by the Chief Executive Officer of the National Trust of Australia (WA) that the Government’s plans will destroy the heritage of the site? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(3) I find this question extraordinary, particularly the reference to the lamentations of the Chief Executive Officer of the National Trust. The previous Government could not find anyone interested in taking over this site. Under a previous Minister for Planning, who became the Chairman of the East Perth Redevelopment Authority, the Government had instructed that it was not interested in doing anything to ensure that this important heritage site was conserved. Therefore, nothing happened. Western Power came up with this fabulous little deal that it would give the National Trust $5 million to take the building off its hands, to which the National Trust agreed. The National Trust had plans to develop a number of residential towers surrounding the East Perth power station and I am amazed that it is now saying, “Shock, horror!”, and that the Government should not develop the site. I have been working closely with the member for Perth to ensure that the local community is kept informed of what is going on. I attended a meeting on-site with the residents of that local area and set out, as I have set out time and again in this place and in the Press, this Government’s approach. We believe that the arrangement with the National Trust was simply unworkable and would leave the National Trust and, ultimately, the State with an enormous liability. The National Trust business case was out by about $11 million. We have to make a hard decision and determine how much money we can direct towards the conservation of this site from the consolidated fund. As we have explained, none of the development proposals for the surrounding land will recoup the entire cost of conserving the exterior of the building and remediating the site. Even with the best will in the world, the development opportunities are not sufficient to provide for the conservation. Mr C.J. Barnett: Western Power is taking responsibility for remediation. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Western Power will accept the responsibility for remediation, which will cost about $2 million. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I have been open about this in this place. I have said that the conservation project will require the expenditure of $10 million to $13 million from the consolidated fund, or some other source. The Government must make some serious decisions about whether this project is a priority it can manage. In the meantime, we are exploring a few other opportunities that have become available. We are optimistic that we may be able to find another solution to this problem. There is no point providing the community with details until we have some idea of the base case. If we decide to proceed with the redevelopment of this site through the East Perth Redevelopment Authority, we will go through the public consultation process. However, there is no point consulting people until we know the ground rules.
(2) What consultation with the broader community took place before the proposal to sell the land was put to Cabinet? (3) Has the minister taken any action to address concerns expressed by the Chief Executive Officer of the National Trust of Australia (WA) that the Government’s plans will destroy the heritage of the site? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(3) I find this question extraordinary, particularly the reference to the lamentations of the Chief Executive Officer of the National Trust. The previous Government could not find anyone interested in taking over this site. Under a previous Minister for Planning, who became the Chairman of the East Perth Redevelopment Authority, the Government had instructed that it was not interested in doing anything to ensure that this important heritage site was conserved. Therefore, nothing happened. Western Power came up with this fabulous little deal that it would give the National Trust $5 million to take the building off its hands, to which the National Trust agreed. The National Trust had plans to develop a number of residential towers surrounding the East Perth power station and I am amazed that it is now saying, “Shock, horror!”, and that the Government should not develop the site. I have been working closely with the member for Perth to ensure that the local community is kept informed of what is going on. I attended a meeting on-site with the residents of that local area and set out, as I have set out time and again in this place and in the Press, this Government’s approach. We believe that the arrangement with the National Trust was simply unworkable and would leave the National Trust and, ultimately, the State with an enormous liability. The National Trust business case was out by about $11 million. We have to make a hard decision and determine how much money we can direct towards the conservation of this site from the consolidated fund. As we have explained, none of the development proposals for the surrounding land will recoup the entire cost of conserving the exterior of the building and remediating the site. Even with the best will in the world, the development opportunities are not sufficient to provide for the conservation. Mr C.J. Barnett: Western Power is taking responsibility for remediation. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Western Power will accept the responsibility for remediation, which will cost about $2 million. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I have been open about this in this place. I have said that the conservation project will require the expenditure of $10 million to $13 million from the consolidated fund, or some other source. The Government must make some serious decisions about whether this project is a priority it can manage. In the meantime, we are exploring a few other opportunities that have become available. We are optimistic that we may be able to find another solution to this problem. There is no point providing the community with details until we have some idea of the base case. If we decide to proceed with the redevelopment of this site through the East Perth Redevelopment Authority, we will go through the public consultation process. However, there is no point consulting people until we know the ground rules.
(3) Has the minister taken any action to address concerns expressed by the Chief Executive Officer of the National Trust of Australia (WA) that the Government’s plans will destroy the heritage of the site? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(3) I find this question extraordinary, particularly the reference to the lamentations of the Chief Executive Officer of the National Trust. The previous Government could not find anyone interested in taking over this site. Under a previous Minister for Planning, who became the Chairman of the East Perth Redevelopment Authority, the Government had instructed that it was not interested in doing anything to ensure that this important heritage site was conserved. Therefore, nothing happened. Western Power came up with this fabulous little deal that it would give the National Trust $5 million to take the building off its hands, to which the National Trust agreed. The National Trust had plans to develop a number of residential towers surrounding the East Perth power station and I am amazed that it is now saying, “Shock, horror!”, and that the Government should not develop the site. I have been working closely with the member for Perth to ensure that the local community is kept informed of what is going on. I attended a meeting on-site with the residents of that local area and set out, as I have set out time and again in this place and in the Press, this Government’s approach. We believe that the arrangement with the National Trust was simply unworkable and would leave the National Trust and, ultimately, the State with an enormous liability. The National Trust business case was out by about $11 million. We have to make a hard decision and determine how much money we can direct towards the conservation of this site from the consolidated fund. As we have explained, none of the development proposals for the surrounding land will recoup the entire cost of conserving the exterior of the building and remediating the site. Even with the best will in the world, the development opportunities are not sufficient to provide for the conservation. Mr C.J. Barnett: Western Power is taking responsibility for remediation. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Western Power will accept the responsibility for remediation, which will cost about $2 million. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I have been open about this in this place. I have said that the conservation project will require the expenditure of $10 million to $13 million from the consolidated fund, or some other source. The Government must make some serious decisions about whether this project is a priority it can manage. In the meantime, we are exploring a few other opportunities that have become available. We are optimistic that we may be able to find another solution to this problem. There is no point providing the community with details until we have some idea of the base case. If we decide to proceed with the redevelopment of this site through the East Perth Redevelopment Authority, we will go through the public consultation process. However, there is no point consulting people until we know the ground rules.
Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(3) I find this question extraordinary, particularly the reference to the lamentations of the Chief Executive Officer of the National Trust. The previous Government could not find anyone interested in taking over this site. Under a previous Minister for Planning, who became the Chairman of the East Perth Redevelopment Authority, the Government had instructed that it was not interested in doing anything to ensure that this important heritage site was conserved. Therefore, nothing happened. Western Power came up with this fabulous little deal that it would give the National Trust $5 million to take the building off its hands, to which the National Trust agreed. The National Trust had plans to develop a number of residential towers surrounding the East Perth power station and I am amazed that it is now saying, “Shock, horror!”, and that the Government should not develop the site. I have been working closely with the member for Perth to ensure that the local community is kept informed of what is going on. I attended a meeting on-site with the residents of that local area and set out, as I have set out time and again in this place and in the Press, this Government’s approach. We believe that the arrangement with the National Trust was simply unworkable and would leave the National Trust and, ultimately, the State with an enormous liability. The National Trust business case was out by about $11 million. We have to make a hard decision and determine how much money we can direct towards the conservation of this site from the consolidated fund. As we have explained, none of the development proposals for the surrounding land will recoup the entire cost of conserving the exterior of the building and remediating the site. Even with the best will in the world, the development opportunities are not sufficient to provide for the conservation. Mr C.J. Barnett: Western Power is taking responsibility for remediation. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Western Power will accept the responsibility for remediation, which will cost about $2 million. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I have been open about this in this place. I have said that the conservation project will require the expenditure of $10 million to $13 million from the consolidated fund, or some other source. The Government must make some serious decisions about whether this project is a priority it can manage. In the meantime, we are exploring a few other opportunities that have become available. We are optimistic that we may be able to find another solution to this problem. There is no point providing the community with details until we have some idea of the base case. If we decide to proceed with the redevelopment of this site through the East Perth Redevelopment Authority, we will go through the public consultation process. However, there is no point consulting people until we know the ground rules.
(1)-(3) I find this question extraordinary, particularly the reference to the lamentations of the Chief Executive Officer of the National Trust. The previous Government could not find anyone interested in taking over this site. Under a previous Minister for Planning, who became the Chairman of the East Perth Redevelopment Authority, the Government had instructed that it was not interested in doing anything to ensure that this important heritage site was conserved. Therefore, nothing happened. Western Power came up with this fabulous little deal that it would give the National Trust $5 million to take the building off its hands, to which the National Trust agreed. The National Trust had plans to develop a number of residential towers surrounding the East Perth power station and I am amazed that it is now saying, “Shock, horror!”, and that the Government should not develop the site. I have been working closely with the member for Perth to ensure that the local community is kept informed of what is going on. I attended a meeting on-site with the residents of that local area and set out, as I have set out time and again in this place and in the Press, this Government’s approach. We believe that the arrangement with the National Trust was simply unworkable and would leave the National Trust and, ultimately, the State with an enormous liability. The National Trust business case was out by about $11 million. We have to make a hard decision and determine how much money we can direct towards the conservation of this site from the consolidated fund. As we have explained, none of the development proposals for the surrounding land will recoup the entire cost of conserving the exterior of the building and remediating the site. Even with the best will in the world, the development opportunities are not sufficient to provide for the conservation. Mr C.J. Barnett: Western Power is taking responsibility for remediation. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Western Power will accept the responsibility for remediation, which will cost about $2 million. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I have been open about this in this place. I have said that the conservation project will require the expenditure of $10 million to $13 million from the consolidated fund, or some other source. The Government must make some serious decisions about whether this project is a priority it can manage. In the meantime, we are exploring a few other opportunities that have become available. We are optimistic that we may be able to find another solution to this problem. There is no point providing the community with details until we have some idea of the base case. If we decide to proceed with the redevelopment of this site through the East Perth Redevelopment Authority, we will go through the public consultation process. However, there is no point consulting people until we know the ground rules.
Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Western Power will accept the responsibility for remediation, which will cost about $2 million. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I have been open about this in this place. I have said that the conservation project will require the expenditure of $10 million to $13 million from the consolidated fund, or some other source. The Government must make some serious decisions about whether this project is a priority it can manage. In the meantime, we are exploring a few other opportunities that have become available. We are optimistic that we may be able to find another solution to this problem. There is no point providing the community with details until we have some idea of the base case. If we decide to proceed with the redevelopment of this site through the East Perth Redevelopment Authority, we will go through the public consultation process. However, there is no point consulting people until we know the ground rules.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I have been open about this in this place. I have said that the conservation project will require the expenditure of $10 million to $13 million from the consolidated fund, or some other source. The Government must make some serious decisions about whether this project is a priority it can manage. In the meantime, we are exploring a few other opportunities that have become available. We are optimistic that we may be able to find another solution to this problem. There is no point providing the community with details until we have some idea of the base case. If we decide to proceed with the redevelopment of this site through the East Perth Redevelopment Authority, we will go through the public consultation process. However, there is no point consulting people until we know the ground rules.
The SPEAKER: Members! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I have been open about this in this place. I have said that the conservation project will require the expenditure of $10 million to $13 million from the consolidated fund, or some other source. The Government must make some serious decisions about whether this project is a priority it can manage. In the meantime, we are exploring a few other opportunities that have become available. We are optimistic that we may be able to find another solution to this problem. There is no point providing the community with details until we have some idea of the base case. If we decide to proceed with the redevelopment of this site through the East Perth Redevelopment Authority, we will go through the public consultation process. However, there is no point consulting people until we know the ground rules.
Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I have been open about this in this place. I have said that the conservation project will require the expenditure of $10 million to $13 million from the consolidated fund, or some other source. The Government must make some serious decisions about whether this project is a priority it can manage. In the meantime, we are exploring a few other opportunities that have become available. We are optimistic that we may be able to find another solution to this problem. There is no point providing the community with details until we have some idea of the base case. If we decide to proceed with the redevelopment of this site through the East Perth Redevelopment Authority, we will go through the public consultation process. However, there is no point consulting people until we know the ground rules.
In the meantime, we are exploring a few other opportunities that have become available. We are optimistic that we may be able to find another solution to this problem. There is no point providing the community with details until we have some idea of the base case. If we decide to proceed with the redevelopment of this site through the East Perth Redevelopment Authority, we will go through the public consultation process. However, there is no point consulting people until we know the ground rules.
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.