❓ The Minister addresses third-party appeals, clarifying the government's position post-election, emphasizing stakeholder consultation and concerns about misuse, while deferring a firm commitment until the new Town Planning Appeal Tribunal's effectiveness is assessed.
AnsweredQoN 325Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I have a supplementary question. Will the minister address the issue of third-party appeals? Is the minister denying what was written in the newspaper; that is, that she is against high-density proposals? The SPEAKER: Perhaps the minister will answer the first part of that question. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN
AnswerView source ↗
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The position of third-party appeals is that when we went to the last election, we were very clear that, firstly, we would remove ministerial appeals, and we have done that. Secondly, we promised to allow third parties to be heard in the expanded Town Planning Appeal Tribunal. It was very clear that we did not commit ourselves to third-party appeals. We produced a paper on our position that we had developed in opposition a year prior to the election. We worked with all the industry, environmental and community groups. There was a general endorsement of the package we proposed. We have said that once the tribunal is up and running for a minimum of six months, we are prepared to talk to all the stakeholders about the prospect of third-party appeals. I made that clear in the debate and I am puzzled that the member is not aware of it. This is not a simple issue that can be given a yes or no answer. Much of the experience in the eastern States, for example, has been that commercial rivals will fund bogus community groups to lodge third-party appeals against particular developments. We are not prepared to allow that circumstance to occur. We have said that we would sit down with all the stakeholders and come up with a position on that matter on which we can move forward. We will do the same with the third-party appeals issue. However, we first want to see how well our new expanded and more flexible Town Planning Appeal Tribunal works.
The SPEAKER: Perhaps the minister will answer the first part of that question. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The position of third-party appeals is that when we went to the last election, we were very clear that, firstly, we would remove ministerial appeals, and we have done that. Secondly, we promised to allow third parties to be heard in the expanded Town Planning Appeal Tribunal. It was very clear that we did not commit ourselves to third-party appeals. We produced a paper on our position that we had developed in opposition a year prior to the election. We worked with all the industry, environmental and community groups. There was a general endorsement of the package we proposed. We have said that once the tribunal is up and running for a minimum of six months, we are prepared to talk to all the stakeholders about the prospect of third-party appeals. I made that clear in the debate and I am puzzled that the member is not aware of it. This is not a simple issue that can be given a yes or no answer. Much of the experience in the eastern States, for example, has been that commercial rivals will fund bogus community groups to lodge third-party appeals against particular developments. We are not prepared to allow that circumstance to occur. We have said that we would sit down with all the stakeholders and come up with a position on that matter on which we can move forward. We will do the same with the third-party appeals issue. However, we first want to see how well our new expanded and more flexible Town Planning Appeal Tribunal works.
Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The position of third-party appeals is that when we went to the last election, we were very clear that, firstly, we would remove ministerial appeals, and we have done that. Secondly, we promised to allow third parties to be heard in the expanded Town Planning Appeal Tribunal. It was very clear that we did not commit ourselves to third-party appeals. We produced a paper on our position that we had developed in opposition a year prior to the election. We worked with all the industry, environmental and community groups. There was a general endorsement of the package we proposed. We have said that once the tribunal is up and running for a minimum of six months, we are prepared to talk to all the stakeholders about the prospect of third-party appeals. I made that clear in the debate and I am puzzled that the member is not aware of it. This is not a simple issue that can be given a yes or no answer. Much of the experience in the eastern States, for example, has been that commercial rivals will fund bogus community groups to lodge third-party appeals against particular developments. We are not prepared to allow that circumstance to occur. We have said that we would sit down with all the stakeholders and come up with a position on that matter on which we can move forward. We will do the same with the third-party appeals issue. However, we first want to see how well our new expanded and more flexible Town Planning Appeal Tribunal works.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The position of third-party appeals is that when we went to the last election, we were very clear that, firstly, we would remove ministerial appeals, and we have done that. Secondly, we promised to allow third parties to be heard in the expanded Town Planning Appeal Tribunal. It was very clear that we did not commit ourselves to third-party appeals. We produced a paper on our position that we had developed in opposition a year prior to the election. We worked with all the industry, environmental and community groups. There was a general endorsement of the package we proposed. We have said that once the tribunal is up and running for a minimum of six months, we are prepared to talk to all the stakeholders about the prospect of third-party appeals. I made that clear in the debate and I am puzzled that the member is not aware of it. This is not a simple issue that can be given a yes or no answer. Much of the experience in the eastern States, for example, has been that commercial rivals will fund bogus community groups to lodge third-party appeals against particular developments. We are not prepared to allow that circumstance to occur. We have said that we would sit down with all the stakeholders and come up with a position on that matter on which we can move forward. We will do the same with the third-party appeals issue. However, we first want to see how well our new expanded and more flexible Town Planning Appeal Tribunal works.
The SPEAKER: Perhaps the minister will answer the first part of that question. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The position of third-party appeals is that when we went to the last election, we were very clear that, firstly, we would remove ministerial appeals, and we have done that. Secondly, we promised to allow third parties to be heard in the expanded Town Planning Appeal Tribunal. It was very clear that we did not commit ourselves to third-party appeals. We produced a paper on our position that we had developed in opposition a year prior to the election. We worked with all the industry, environmental and community groups. There was a general endorsement of the package we proposed. We have said that once the tribunal is up and running for a minimum of six months, we are prepared to talk to all the stakeholders about the prospect of third-party appeals. I made that clear in the debate and I am puzzled that the member is not aware of it. This is not a simple issue that can be given a yes or no answer. Much of the experience in the eastern States, for example, has been that commercial rivals will fund bogus community groups to lodge third-party appeals against particular developments. We are not prepared to allow that circumstance to occur. We have said that we would sit down with all the stakeholders and come up with a position on that matter on which we can move forward. We will do the same with the third-party appeals issue. However, we first want to see how well our new expanded and more flexible Town Planning Appeal Tribunal works.
Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The position of third-party appeals is that when we went to the last election, we were very clear that, firstly, we would remove ministerial appeals, and we have done that. Secondly, we promised to allow third parties to be heard in the expanded Town Planning Appeal Tribunal. It was very clear that we did not commit ourselves to third-party appeals. We produced a paper on our position that we had developed in opposition a year prior to the election. We worked with all the industry, environmental and community groups. There was a general endorsement of the package we proposed. We have said that once the tribunal is up and running for a minimum of six months, we are prepared to talk to all the stakeholders about the prospect of third-party appeals. I made that clear in the debate and I am puzzled that the member is not aware of it. This is not a simple issue that can be given a yes or no answer. Much of the experience in the eastern States, for example, has been that commercial rivals will fund bogus community groups to lodge third-party appeals against particular developments. We are not prepared to allow that circumstance to occur. We have said that we would sit down with all the stakeholders and come up with a position on that matter on which we can move forward. We will do the same with the third-party appeals issue. However, we first want to see how well our new expanded and more flexible Town Planning Appeal Tribunal works.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The position of third-party appeals is that when we went to the last election, we were very clear that, firstly, we would remove ministerial appeals, and we have done that. Secondly, we promised to allow third parties to be heard in the expanded Town Planning Appeal Tribunal. It was very clear that we did not commit ourselves to third-party appeals. We produced a paper on our position that we had developed in opposition a year prior to the election. We worked with all the industry, environmental and community groups. There was a general endorsement of the package we proposed. We have said that once the tribunal is up and running for a minimum of six months, we are prepared to talk to all the stakeholders about the prospect of third-party appeals. I made that clear in the debate and I am puzzled that the member is not aware of it. This is not a simple issue that can be given a yes or no answer. Much of the experience in the eastern States, for example, has been that commercial rivals will fund bogus community groups to lodge third-party appeals against particular developments. We are not prepared to allow that circumstance to occur. We have said that we would sit down with all the stakeholders and come up with a position on that matter on which we can move forward. We will do the same with the third-party appeals issue. However, we first want to see how well our new expanded and more flexible Town Planning Appeal Tribunal works.
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.