❓ Mr. Snook questions the Minister's decision to rezone land in Guilderton, accusing her of disregarding property rights and engaging in a land grab. The Minister defends the decision, citing consistency with prior opposition and concerns about bad planning.
AnsweredQoN 707Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the minister’s blatant disregard for individual property rights as evidenced by the greater Bunbury region scheme, her legislation to resume land owned by the Town of Cambridge and her latest push to downzone land at Guilderton, near Moore River, from urban to rural. (1) How can the minister justify rezoning the land owned by Moore River Company in Guilderton from urban to rural when it has already spent many millions of dollars planning its urban development? (2) Is this not just another example of her government’s blatant land grab? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) I would be happy to help the member for Moore with his education about planning matters. We need to address these issues, particularly the greater Bunbury region scheme, the great Labor travesty! I hope my good friends from The West Australian are listening, because they have not been able to understand this matter. The legislation to enable the creation of region schemes outside Perth was, in fact, developed under Liberal minister Richard Lewis with the support of the Labor opposition at the time. Subsequently, under Mr Kierath, the proposal for the greater Bunbury region scheme took shape. All the landowners who are now complaining received notice of the possible rezoning and reservation of their land when Mr Kierath was minister in the former Liberal government. If anything, we have reduced the footprint of land that we believe is appropriate under the greater Bunbury region scheme; we have reduced the footprint proposed by the former Liberal government. Mr Speaker, that gives you some idea of the intellectual bankruptness of opposition members. Secondly, we had to take strong action with the Perry Lakes resumption. Indeed, we have had broad community support for that and we hope that, at the end of the day, we will get support for it in the Legislative Council. It was a step that had to be taken in order to deliver vital facilities for the community, for which it has waited some 10 years. I think we have broad community support for that. Of course, we are taking that through the Parliament in the form of legislation, just as we will take the greater Bunbury region scheme through the Parliament. The Guilderton land was acquired by the Plunkett family in the 1960s as rural land. In the mid-1990s it was approved for rezoning by the then minister, Richard Lewis. At that time it was the subject of a great deal of controversy, and the Labor Party went to the 2001 election with a very clear statement that it thought the decision made at the time by the then government was a wrong decision. Mr G. Snook : It was a legal decision. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : It was a very wrong decision and very bad planning. Quite frankly, it would have destroyed a landscape where hundreds and thousands of Western Australians recreate each year. In our view it was very clearly a bad planning decision. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas : You are so inconsistent. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : It was interesting to read the analysis by The West Australian that we have always had a set on this project. When we were in opposition we actually had an opinion. The present opposition is unlike us because we are consistent when we are in either opposition or government. The position that we take when in opposition is what we support in government. We supported the greater Bunbury region scheme when we were in opposition and we continue to support it in government. We did not support the Moore River proposal when we were in opposition and we do not support it in government. It is a consistency that the opposition is incapable of emulating. It is important to understand about Moore River that there is still a potential for development on that site of a far more limited nature. In the recommendation that has come before me it is clear that this can be used as a tourism site with some supplementary accommodation on that site. We have been very consistent; we will not support bad planning.
(1) How can the minister justify rezoning the land owned by Moore River Company in Guilderton from urban to rural when it has already spent many millions of dollars planning its urban development? (2) Is this not just another example of her government’s blatant land grab? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) I would be happy to help the member for Moore with his education about planning matters. We need to address these issues, particularly the greater Bunbury region scheme, the great Labor travesty! I hope my good friends from The West Australian are listening, because they have not been able to understand this matter. The legislation to enable the creation of region schemes outside Perth was, in fact, developed under Liberal minister Richard Lewis with the support of the Labor opposition at the time. Subsequently, under Mr Kierath, the proposal for the greater Bunbury region scheme took shape. All the landowners who are now complaining received notice of the possible rezoning and reservation of their land when Mr Kierath was minister in the former Liberal government. If anything, we have reduced the footprint of land that we believe is appropriate under the greater Bunbury region scheme; we have reduced the footprint proposed by the former Liberal government. Mr Speaker, that gives you some idea of the intellectual bankruptness of opposition members. Secondly, we had to take strong action with the Perry Lakes resumption. Indeed, we have had broad community support for that and we hope that, at the end of the day, we will get support for it in the Legislative Council. It was a step that had to be taken in order to deliver vital facilities for the community, for which it has waited some 10 years. I think we have broad community support for that. Of course, we are taking that through the Parliament in the form of legislation, just as we will take the greater Bunbury region scheme through the Parliament. The Guilderton land was acquired by the Plunkett family in the 1960s as rural land. In the mid-1990s it was approved for rezoning by the then minister, Richard Lewis. At that time it was the subject of a great deal of controversy, and the Labor Party went to the 2001 election with a very clear statement that it thought the decision made at the time by the then government was a wrong decision. Mr G. Snook : It was a legal decision. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : It was a very wrong decision and very bad planning. Quite frankly, it would have destroyed a landscape where hundreds and thousands of Western Australians recreate each year. In our view it was very clearly a bad planning decision. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas : You are so inconsistent. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : It was interesting to read the analysis by The West Australian that we have always had a set on this project. When we were in opposition we actually had an opinion. The present opposition is unlike us because we are consistent when we are in either opposition or government. The position that we take when in opposition is what we support in government. We supported the greater Bunbury region scheme when we were in opposition and we continue to support it in government. We did not support the Moore River proposal when we were in opposition and we do not support it in government. It is a consistency that the opposition is incapable of emulating. It is important to understand about Moore River that there is still a potential for development on that site of a far more limited nature. In the recommendation that has come before me it is clear that this can be used as a tourism site with some supplementary accommodation on that site. We have been very consistent; we will not support bad planning.
(2) Is this not just another example of her government’s blatant land grab? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) I would be happy to help the member for Moore with his education about planning matters. We need to address these issues, particularly the greater Bunbury region scheme, the great Labor travesty! I hope my good friends from The West Australian are listening, because they have not been able to understand this matter. The legislation to enable the creation of region schemes outside Perth was, in fact, developed under Liberal minister Richard Lewis with the support of the Labor opposition at the time. Subsequently, under Mr Kierath, the proposal for the greater Bunbury region scheme took shape. All the landowners who are now complaining received notice of the possible rezoning and reservation of their land when Mr Kierath was minister in the former Liberal government. If anything, we have reduced the footprint of land that we believe is appropriate under the greater Bunbury region scheme; we have reduced the footprint proposed by the former Liberal government. Mr Speaker, that gives you some idea of the intellectual bankruptness of opposition members. Secondly, we had to take strong action with the Perry Lakes resumption. Indeed, we have had broad community support for that and we hope that, at the end of the day, we will get support for it in the Legislative Council. It was a step that had to be taken in order to deliver vital facilities for the community, for which it has waited some 10 years. I think we have broad community support for that. Of course, we are taking that through the Parliament in the form of legislation, just as we will take the greater Bunbury region scheme through the Parliament. The Guilderton land was acquired by the Plunkett family in the 1960s as rural land. In the mid-1990s it was approved for rezoning by the then minister, Richard Lewis. At that time it was the subject of a great deal of controversy, and the Labor Party went to the 2001 election with a very clear statement that it thought the decision made at the time by the then government was a wrong decision. Mr G. Snook : It was a legal decision. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : It was a very wrong decision and very bad planning. Quite frankly, it would have destroyed a landscape where hundreds and thousands of Western Australians recreate each year. In our view it was very clearly a bad planning decision. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas : You are so inconsistent. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : It was interesting to read the analysis by The West Australian that we have always had a set on this project. When we were in opposition we actually had an opinion. The present opposition is unlike us because we are consistent when we are in either opposition or government. The position that we take when in opposition is what we support in government. We supported the greater Bunbury region scheme when we were in opposition and we continue to support it in government. We did not support the Moore River proposal when we were in opposition and we do not support it in government. It is a consistency that the opposition is incapable of emulating. It is important to understand about Moore River that there is still a potential for development on that site of a far more limited nature. In the recommendation that has come before me it is clear that this can be used as a tourism site with some supplementary accommodation on that site. We have been very consistent; we will not support bad planning.
Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) I would be happy to help the member for Moore with his education about planning matters. We need to address these issues, particularly the greater Bunbury region scheme, the great Labor travesty! I hope my good friends from The West Australian are listening, because they have not been able to understand this matter. The legislation to enable the creation of region schemes outside Perth was, in fact, developed under Liberal minister Richard Lewis with the support of the Labor opposition at the time. Subsequently, under Mr Kierath, the proposal for the greater Bunbury region scheme took shape. All the landowners who are now complaining received notice of the possible rezoning and reservation of their land when Mr Kierath was minister in the former Liberal government. If anything, we have reduced the footprint of land that we believe is appropriate under the greater Bunbury region scheme; we have reduced the footprint proposed by the former Liberal government. Mr Speaker, that gives you some idea of the intellectual bankruptness of opposition members. Secondly, we had to take strong action with the Perry Lakes resumption. Indeed, we have had broad community support for that and we hope that, at the end of the day, we will get support for it in the Legislative Council. It was a step that had to be taken in order to deliver vital facilities for the community, for which it has waited some 10 years. I think we have broad community support for that. Of course, we are taking that through the Parliament in the form of legislation, just as we will take the greater Bunbury region scheme through the Parliament. The Guilderton land was acquired by the Plunkett family in the 1960s as rural land. In the mid-1990s it was approved for rezoning by the then minister, Richard Lewis. At that time it was the subject of a great deal of controversy, and the Labor Party went to the 2001 election with a very clear statement that it thought the decision made at the time by the then government was a wrong decision. Mr G. Snook : It was a legal decision. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : It was a very wrong decision and very bad planning. Quite frankly, it would have destroyed a landscape where hundreds and thousands of Western Australians recreate each year. In our view it was very clearly a bad planning decision. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas : You are so inconsistent. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : It was interesting to read the analysis by The West Australian that we have always had a set on this project. When we were in opposition we actually had an opinion. The present opposition is unlike us because we are consistent when we are in either opposition or government. The position that we take when in opposition is what we support in government. We supported the greater Bunbury region scheme when we were in opposition and we continue to support it in government. We did not support the Moore River proposal when we were in opposition and we do not support it in government. It is a consistency that the opposition is incapable of emulating. It is important to understand about Moore River that there is still a potential for development on that site of a far more limited nature. In the recommendation that has come before me it is clear that this can be used as a tourism site with some supplementary accommodation on that site. We have been very consistent; we will not support bad planning.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) I would be happy to help the member for Moore with his education about planning matters. We need to address these issues, particularly the greater Bunbury region scheme, the great Labor travesty! I hope my good friends from The West Australian are listening, because they have not been able to understand this matter. The legislation to enable the creation of region schemes outside Perth was, in fact, developed under Liberal minister Richard Lewis with the support of the Labor opposition at the time. Subsequently, under Mr Kierath, the proposal for the greater Bunbury region scheme took shape. All the landowners who are now complaining received notice of the possible rezoning and reservation of their land when Mr Kierath was minister in the former Liberal government. If anything, we have reduced the footprint of land that we believe is appropriate under the greater Bunbury region scheme; we have reduced the footprint proposed by the former Liberal government. Mr Speaker, that gives you some idea of the intellectual bankruptness of opposition members. Secondly, we had to take strong action with the Perry Lakes resumption. Indeed, we have had broad community support for that and we hope that, at the end of the day, we will get support for it in the Legislative Council. It was a step that had to be taken in order to deliver vital facilities for the community, for which it has waited some 10 years. I think we have broad community support for that. Of course, we are taking that through the Parliament in the form of legislation, just as we will take the greater Bunbury region scheme through the Parliament. The Guilderton land was acquired by the Plunkett family in the 1960s as rural land. In the mid-1990s it was approved for rezoning by the then minister, Richard Lewis. At that time it was the subject of a great deal of controversy, and the Labor Party went to the 2001 election with a very clear statement that it thought the decision made at the time by the then government was a wrong decision. Mr G. Snook : It was a legal decision. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : It was a very wrong decision and very bad planning. Quite frankly, it would have destroyed a landscape where hundreds and thousands of Western Australians recreate each year. In our view it was very clearly a bad planning decision. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas : You are so inconsistent. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : It was interesting to read the analysis by The West Australian that we have always had a set on this project. When we were in opposition we actually had an opinion. The present opposition is unlike us because we are consistent when we are in either opposition or government. The position that we take when in opposition is what we support in government. We supported the greater Bunbury region scheme when we were in opposition and we continue to support it in government. We did not support the Moore River proposal when we were in opposition and we do not support it in government. It is a consistency that the opposition is incapable of emulating. It is important to understand about Moore River that there is still a potential for development on that site of a far more limited nature. In the recommendation that has come before me it is clear that this can be used as a tourism site with some supplementary accommodation on that site. We have been very consistent; we will not support bad planning.
(1)-(2) I would be happy to help the member for Moore with his education about planning matters. We need to address these issues, particularly the greater Bunbury region scheme, the great Labor travesty! I hope my good friends from The West Australian are listening, because they have not been able to understand this matter. The legislation to enable the creation of region schemes outside Perth was, in fact, developed under Liberal minister Richard Lewis with the support of the Labor opposition at the time. Subsequently, under Mr Kierath, the proposal for the greater Bunbury region scheme took shape. All the landowners who are now complaining received notice of the possible rezoning and reservation of their land when Mr Kierath was minister in the former Liberal government. If anything, we have reduced the footprint of land that we believe is appropriate under the greater Bunbury region scheme; we have reduced the footprint proposed by the former Liberal government. Mr Speaker, that gives you some idea of the intellectual bankruptness of opposition members. Secondly, we had to take strong action with the Perry Lakes resumption. Indeed, we have had broad community support for that and we hope that, at the end of the day, we will get support for it in the Legislative Council. It was a step that had to be taken in order to deliver vital facilities for the community, for which it has waited some 10 years. I think we have broad community support for that. Of course, we are taking that through the Parliament in the form of legislation, just as we will take the greater Bunbury region scheme through the Parliament. The Guilderton land was acquired by the Plunkett family in the 1960s as rural land. In the mid-1990s it was approved for rezoning by the then minister, Richard Lewis. At that time it was the subject of a great deal of controversy, and the Labor Party went to the 2001 election with a very clear statement that it thought the decision made at the time by the then government was a wrong decision. Mr G. Snook : It was a legal decision. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : It was a very wrong decision and very bad planning. Quite frankly, it would have destroyed a landscape where hundreds and thousands of Western Australians recreate each year. In our view it was very clearly a bad planning decision. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas : You are so inconsistent. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : It was interesting to read the analysis by The West Australian that we have always had a set on this project. When we were in opposition we actually had an opinion. The present opposition is unlike us because we are consistent when we are in either opposition or government. The position that we take when in opposition is what we support in government. We supported the greater Bunbury region scheme when we were in opposition and we continue to support it in government. We did not support the Moore River proposal when we were in opposition and we do not support it in government. It is a consistency that the opposition is incapable of emulating. It is important to understand about Moore River that there is still a potential for development on that site of a far more limited nature. In the recommendation that has come before me it is clear that this can be used as a tourism site with some supplementary accommodation on that site. We have been very consistent; we will not support bad planning.
The Guilderton land was acquired by the Plunkett family in the 1960s as rural land. In the mid-1990s it was approved for rezoning by the then minister, Richard Lewis. At that time it was the subject of a great deal of controversy, and the Labor Party went to the 2001 election with a very clear statement that it thought the decision made at the time by the then government was a wrong decision.
Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : It was a very wrong decision and very bad planning. Quite frankly, it would have destroyed a landscape where hundreds and thousands of Western Australians recreate each year. In our view it was very clearly a bad planning decision. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas : You are so inconsistent. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : It was interesting to read the analysis by The West Australian that we have always had a set on this project. When we were in opposition we actually had an opinion. The present opposition is unlike us because we are consistent when we are in either opposition or government. The position that we take when in opposition is what we support in government. We supported the greater Bunbury region scheme when we were in opposition and we continue to support it in government. We did not support the Moore River proposal when we were in opposition and we do not support it in government. It is a consistency that the opposition is incapable of emulating. It is important to understand about Moore River that there is still a potential for development on that site of a far more limited nature. In the recommendation that has come before me it is clear that this can be used as a tourism site with some supplementary accommodation on that site. We have been very consistent; we will not support bad planning.
Ms K. Hodson-Thomas : You are so inconsistent. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : It was interesting to read the analysis by The West Australian that we have always had a set on this project. When we were in opposition we actually had an opinion. The present opposition is unlike us because we are consistent when we are in either opposition or government. The position that we take when in opposition is what we support in government. We supported the greater Bunbury region scheme when we were in opposition and we continue to support it in government. We did not support the Moore River proposal when we were in opposition and we do not support it in government. It is a consistency that the opposition is incapable of emulating. It is important to understand about Moore River that there is still a potential for development on that site of a far more limited nature. In the recommendation that has come before me it is clear that this can be used as a tourism site with some supplementary accommodation on that site. We have been very consistent; we will not support bad planning.
Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : It was interesting to read the analysis by The West Australian that we have always had a set on this project. When we were in opposition we actually had an opinion. The present opposition is unlike us because we are consistent when we are in either opposition or government. The position that we take when in opposition is what we support in government. We supported the greater Bunbury region scheme when we were in opposition and we continue to support it in government. We did not support the Moore River proposal when we were in opposition and we do not support it in government. It is a consistency that the opposition is incapable of emulating. It is important to understand about Moore River that there is still a potential for development on that site of a far more limited nature. In the recommendation that has come before me it is clear that this can be used as a tourism site with some supplementary accommodation on that site. We have been very consistent; we will not support bad planning.
It is important to understand about Moore River that there is still a potential for development on that site of a far more limited nature. In the recommendation that has come before me it is clear that this can be used as a tourism site with some supplementary accommodation on that site. We have been very consistent; we will not support bad planning.
(1) How can the minister justify rezoning the land owned by Moore River Company in Guilderton from urban to rural when it has already spent many millions of dollars planning its urban development? (2) Is this not just another example of her government’s blatant land grab? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) I would be happy to help the member for Moore with his education about planning matters. We need to address these issues, particularly the greater Bunbury region scheme, the great Labor travesty! I hope my good friends from The West Australian are listening, because they have not been able to understand this matter. The legislation to enable the creation of region schemes outside Perth was, in fact, developed under Liberal minister Richard Lewis with the support of the Labor opposition at the time. Subsequently, under Mr Kierath, the proposal for the greater Bunbury region scheme took shape. All the landowners who are now complaining received notice of the possible rezoning and reservation of their land when Mr Kierath was minister in the former Liberal government. If anything, we have reduced the footprint of land that we believe is appropriate under the greater Bunbury region scheme; we have reduced the footprint proposed by the former Liberal government. Mr Speaker, that gives you some idea of the intellectual bankruptness of opposition members. Secondly, we had to take strong action with the Perry Lakes resumption. Indeed, we have had broad community support for that and we hope that, at the end of the day, we will get support for it in the Legislative Council. It was a step that had to be taken in order to deliver vital facilities for the community, for which it has waited some 10 years. I think we have broad community support for that. Of course, we are taking that through the Parliament in the form of legislation, just as we will take the greater Bunbury region scheme through the Parliament. The Guilderton land was acquired by the Plunkett family in the 1960s as rural land. In the mid-1990s it was approved for rezoning by the then minister, Richard Lewis. At that time it was the subject of a great deal of controversy, and the Labor Party went to the 2001 election with a very clear statement that it thought the decision made at the time by the then government was a wrong decision. Mr G. Snook : It was a legal decision. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : It was a very wrong decision and very bad planning. Quite frankly, it would have destroyed a landscape where hundreds and thousands of Western Australians recreate each year. In our view it was very clearly a bad planning decision. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas : You are so inconsistent. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : It was interesting to read the analysis by The West Australian that we have always had a set on this project. When we were in opposition we actually had an opinion. The present opposition is unlike us because we are consistent when we are in either opposition or government. The position that we take when in opposition is what we support in government. We supported the greater Bunbury region scheme when we were in opposition and we continue to support it in government. We did not support the Moore River proposal when we were in opposition and we do not support it in government. It is a consistency that the opposition is incapable of emulating. It is important to understand about Moore River that there is still a potential for development on that site of a far more limited nature. In the recommendation that has come before me it is clear that this can be used as a tourism site with some supplementary accommodation on that site. We have been very consistent; we will not support bad planning.
(2) Is this not just another example of her government’s blatant land grab? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) I would be happy to help the member for Moore with his education about planning matters. We need to address these issues, particularly the greater Bunbury region scheme, the great Labor travesty! I hope my good friends from The West Australian are listening, because they have not been able to understand this matter. The legislation to enable the creation of region schemes outside Perth was, in fact, developed under Liberal minister Richard Lewis with the support of the Labor opposition at the time. Subsequently, under Mr Kierath, the proposal for the greater Bunbury region scheme took shape. All the landowners who are now complaining received notice of the possible rezoning and reservation of their land when Mr Kierath was minister in the former Liberal government. If anything, we have reduced the footprint of land that we believe is appropriate under the greater Bunbury region scheme; we have reduced the footprint proposed by the former Liberal government. Mr Speaker, that gives you some idea of the intellectual bankruptness of opposition members. Secondly, we had to take strong action with the Perry Lakes resumption. Indeed, we have had broad community support for that and we hope that, at the end of the day, we will get support for it in the Legislative Council. It was a step that had to be taken in order to deliver vital facilities for the community, for which it has waited some 10 years. I think we have broad community support for that. Of course, we are taking that through the Parliament in the form of legislation, just as we will take the greater Bunbury region scheme through the Parliament. The Guilderton land was acquired by the Plunkett family in the 1960s as rural land. In the mid-1990s it was approved for rezoning by the then minister, Richard Lewis. At that time it was the subject of a great deal of controversy, and the Labor Party went to the 2001 election with a very clear statement that it thought the decision made at the time by the then government was a wrong decision. Mr G. Snook : It was a legal decision. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : It was a very wrong decision and very bad planning. Quite frankly, it would have destroyed a landscape where hundreds and thousands of Western Australians recreate each year. In our view it was very clearly a bad planning decision. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas : You are so inconsistent. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : It was interesting to read the analysis by The West Australian that we have always had a set on this project. When we were in opposition we actually had an opinion. The present opposition is unlike us because we are consistent when we are in either opposition or government. The position that we take when in opposition is what we support in government. We supported the greater Bunbury region scheme when we were in opposition and we continue to support it in government. We did not support the Moore River proposal when we were in opposition and we do not support it in government. It is a consistency that the opposition is incapable of emulating. It is important to understand about Moore River that there is still a potential for development on that site of a far more limited nature. In the recommendation that has come before me it is clear that this can be used as a tourism site with some supplementary accommodation on that site. We have been very consistent; we will not support bad planning.
Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) I would be happy to help the member for Moore with his education about planning matters. We need to address these issues, particularly the greater Bunbury region scheme, the great Labor travesty! I hope my good friends from The West Australian are listening, because they have not been able to understand this matter. The legislation to enable the creation of region schemes outside Perth was, in fact, developed under Liberal minister Richard Lewis with the support of the Labor opposition at the time. Subsequently, under Mr Kierath, the proposal for the greater Bunbury region scheme took shape. All the landowners who are now complaining received notice of the possible rezoning and reservation of their land when Mr Kierath was minister in the former Liberal government. If anything, we have reduced the footprint of land that we believe is appropriate under the greater Bunbury region scheme; we have reduced the footprint proposed by the former Liberal government. Mr Speaker, that gives you some idea of the intellectual bankruptness of opposition members. Secondly, we had to take strong action with the Perry Lakes resumption. Indeed, we have had broad community support for that and we hope that, at the end of the day, we will get support for it in the Legislative Council. It was a step that had to be taken in order to deliver vital facilities for the community, for which it has waited some 10 years. I think we have broad community support for that. Of course, we are taking that through the Parliament in the form of legislation, just as we will take the greater Bunbury region scheme through the Parliament. The Guilderton land was acquired by the Plunkett family in the 1960s as rural land. In the mid-1990s it was approved for rezoning by the then minister, Richard Lewis. At that time it was the subject of a great deal of controversy, and the Labor Party went to the 2001 election with a very clear statement that it thought the decision made at the time by the then government was a wrong decision. Mr G. Snook : It was a legal decision. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : It was a very wrong decision and very bad planning. Quite frankly, it would have destroyed a landscape where hundreds and thousands of Western Australians recreate each year. In our view it was very clearly a bad planning decision. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas : You are so inconsistent. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : It was interesting to read the analysis by The West Australian that we have always had a set on this project. When we were in opposition we actually had an opinion. The present opposition is unlike us because we are consistent when we are in either opposition or government. The position that we take when in opposition is what we support in government. We supported the greater Bunbury region scheme when we were in opposition and we continue to support it in government. We did not support the Moore River proposal when we were in opposition and we do not support it in government. It is a consistency that the opposition is incapable of emulating. It is important to understand about Moore River that there is still a potential for development on that site of a far more limited nature. In the recommendation that has come before me it is clear that this can be used as a tourism site with some supplementary accommodation on that site. We have been very consistent; we will not support bad planning.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) I would be happy to help the member for Moore with his education about planning matters. We need to address these issues, particularly the greater Bunbury region scheme, the great Labor travesty! I hope my good friends from The West Australian are listening, because they have not been able to understand this matter. The legislation to enable the creation of region schemes outside Perth was, in fact, developed under Liberal minister Richard Lewis with the support of the Labor opposition at the time. Subsequently, under Mr Kierath, the proposal for the greater Bunbury region scheme took shape. All the landowners who are now complaining received notice of the possible rezoning and reservation of their land when Mr Kierath was minister in the former Liberal government. If anything, we have reduced the footprint of land that we believe is appropriate under the greater Bunbury region scheme; we have reduced the footprint proposed by the former Liberal government. Mr Speaker, that gives you some idea of the intellectual bankruptness of opposition members. Secondly, we had to take strong action with the Perry Lakes resumption. Indeed, we have had broad community support for that and we hope that, at the end of the day, we will get support for it in the Legislative Council. It was a step that had to be taken in order to deliver vital facilities for the community, for which it has waited some 10 years. I think we have broad community support for that. Of course, we are taking that through the Parliament in the form of legislation, just as we will take the greater Bunbury region scheme through the Parliament. The Guilderton land was acquired by the Plunkett family in the 1960s as rural land. In the mid-1990s it was approved for rezoning by the then minister, Richard Lewis. At that time it was the subject of a great deal of controversy, and the Labor Party went to the 2001 election with a very clear statement that it thought the decision made at the time by the then government was a wrong decision. Mr G. Snook : It was a legal decision. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : It was a very wrong decision and very bad planning. Quite frankly, it would have destroyed a landscape where hundreds and thousands of Western Australians recreate each year. In our view it was very clearly a bad planning decision. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas : You are so inconsistent. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : It was interesting to read the analysis by The West Australian that we have always had a set on this project. When we were in opposition we actually had an opinion. The present opposition is unlike us because we are consistent when we are in either opposition or government. The position that we take when in opposition is what we support in government. We supported the greater Bunbury region scheme when we were in opposition and we continue to support it in government. We did not support the Moore River proposal when we were in opposition and we do not support it in government. It is a consistency that the opposition is incapable of emulating. It is important to understand about Moore River that there is still a potential for development on that site of a far more limited nature. In the recommendation that has come before me it is clear that this can be used as a tourism site with some supplementary accommodation on that site. We have been very consistent; we will not support bad planning.
(1)-(2) I would be happy to help the member for Moore with his education about planning matters. We need to address these issues, particularly the greater Bunbury region scheme, the great Labor travesty! I hope my good friends from The West Australian are listening, because they have not been able to understand this matter. The legislation to enable the creation of region schemes outside Perth was, in fact, developed under Liberal minister Richard Lewis with the support of the Labor opposition at the time. Subsequently, under Mr Kierath, the proposal for the greater Bunbury region scheme took shape. All the landowners who are now complaining received notice of the possible rezoning and reservation of their land when Mr Kierath was minister in the former Liberal government. If anything, we have reduced the footprint of land that we believe is appropriate under the greater Bunbury region scheme; we have reduced the footprint proposed by the former Liberal government. Mr Speaker, that gives you some idea of the intellectual bankruptness of opposition members. Secondly, we had to take strong action with the Perry Lakes resumption. Indeed, we have had broad community support for that and we hope that, at the end of the day, we will get support for it in the Legislative Council. It was a step that had to be taken in order to deliver vital facilities for the community, for which it has waited some 10 years. I think we have broad community support for that. Of course, we are taking that through the Parliament in the form of legislation, just as we will take the greater Bunbury region scheme through the Parliament. The Guilderton land was acquired by the Plunkett family in the 1960s as rural land. In the mid-1990s it was approved for rezoning by the then minister, Richard Lewis. At that time it was the subject of a great deal of controversy, and the Labor Party went to the 2001 election with a very clear statement that it thought the decision made at the time by the then government was a wrong decision. Mr G. Snook : It was a legal decision. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : It was a very wrong decision and very bad planning. Quite frankly, it would have destroyed a landscape where hundreds and thousands of Western Australians recreate each year. In our view it was very clearly a bad planning decision. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas : You are so inconsistent. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : It was interesting to read the analysis by The West Australian that we have always had a set on this project. When we were in opposition we actually had an opinion. The present opposition is unlike us because we are consistent when we are in either opposition or government. The position that we take when in opposition is what we support in government. We supported the greater Bunbury region scheme when we were in opposition and we continue to support it in government. We did not support the Moore River proposal when we were in opposition and we do not support it in government. It is a consistency that the opposition is incapable of emulating. It is important to understand about Moore River that there is still a potential for development on that site of a far more limited nature. In the recommendation that has come before me it is clear that this can be used as a tourism site with some supplementary accommodation on that site. We have been very consistent; we will not support bad planning.
The Guilderton land was acquired by the Plunkett family in the 1960s as rural land. In the mid-1990s it was approved for rezoning by the then minister, Richard Lewis. At that time it was the subject of a great deal of controversy, and the Labor Party went to the 2001 election with a very clear statement that it thought the decision made at the time by the then government was a wrong decision.
Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : It was a very wrong decision and very bad planning. Quite frankly, it would have destroyed a landscape where hundreds and thousands of Western Australians recreate each year. In our view it was very clearly a bad planning decision. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas : You are so inconsistent. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : It was interesting to read the analysis by The West Australian that we have always had a set on this project. When we were in opposition we actually had an opinion. The present opposition is unlike us because we are consistent when we are in either opposition or government. The position that we take when in opposition is what we support in government. We supported the greater Bunbury region scheme when we were in opposition and we continue to support it in government. We did not support the Moore River proposal when we were in opposition and we do not support it in government. It is a consistency that the opposition is incapable of emulating. It is important to understand about Moore River that there is still a potential for development on that site of a far more limited nature. In the recommendation that has come before me it is clear that this can be used as a tourism site with some supplementary accommodation on that site. We have been very consistent; we will not support bad planning.
Ms K. Hodson-Thomas : You are so inconsistent. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : It was interesting to read the analysis by The West Australian that we have always had a set on this project. When we were in opposition we actually had an opinion. The present opposition is unlike us because we are consistent when we are in either opposition or government. The position that we take when in opposition is what we support in government. We supported the greater Bunbury region scheme when we were in opposition and we continue to support it in government. We did not support the Moore River proposal when we were in opposition and we do not support it in government. It is a consistency that the opposition is incapable of emulating. It is important to understand about Moore River that there is still a potential for development on that site of a far more limited nature. In the recommendation that has come before me it is clear that this can be used as a tourism site with some supplementary accommodation on that site. We have been very consistent; we will not support bad planning.
Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : It was interesting to read the analysis by The West Australian that we have always had a set on this project. When we were in opposition we actually had an opinion. The present opposition is unlike us because we are consistent when we are in either opposition or government. The position that we take when in opposition is what we support in government. We supported the greater Bunbury region scheme when we were in opposition and we continue to support it in government. We did not support the Moore River proposal when we were in opposition and we do not support it in government. It is a consistency that the opposition is incapable of emulating. It is important to understand about Moore River that there is still a potential for development on that site of a far more limited nature. In the recommendation that has come before me it is clear that this can be used as a tourism site with some supplementary accommodation on that site. We have been very consistent; we will not support bad planning.
It is important to understand about Moore River that there is still a potential for development on that site of a far more limited nature. In the recommendation that has come before me it is clear that this can be used as a tourism site with some supplementary accommodation on that site. We have been very consistent; we will not support bad planning.
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.