❓ Minister Kierath tables documents related to a planning appeal decision regarding a jetty in Mindarie Keys, defending his decision and contrasting it with the previous government's approach to planning issues.
AnsweredQoN 72Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
Yesterday the member for Armadale asked some questions about a planning appeal decision with regard to a fixed jetty in Mindarie Keys. Is the minister prepared to table the documents asked for yesterday, and do those documents answer the questions asked by the member yesterday? Mr KIERATH
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for asking the question. I must say at the outset that I think the member for Armadale asked yesterday whether I had received representations from the member for Wanneroo. Yes, I had, and he and one of the upper House members, Hon George Cash, wrote letters in support of the local residents. I cannot thank the member for Armadale enough for raising this issue. I have the full report of the committee that was delivered to me and on which we made our decision, and I am happy to table that for the benefit of members of the House. [See paper No 130.] Ms MacTiernan: Can we also have the notes of the committee? Mr KIERATH: The member has my letter of decision, which is the most important; she now has the report that has been put to me. I am grateful that the member raised this issue, because it highlights the difference between the way we on this side deal with planning issues and the way members opposite dealt with planning issues when they were in power; which I am sure they would do again if, heaven forbid, they ever got into government again. This was a difficult situation for me, because I had to make a decision; and some of my local members were really pushing for a particular point of view, but I had to uphold the points of law. The difference is that when faced with a choice between doing political favours for our mates or upholding the planning law, we uphold the planning law. When members opposite were in government, they did favours for their political mates; and they still do not understand that that is what separates us from their side of politics. We do the right thing. We abide by the law. Members opposite were always so hell-bent on doing favours for their mates that they would not even survive the oath of office. The oath of office is that we must make decisions without fear or favour; and when we are in a semi-judicial position and need to make a decision, we sometimes need to divorce that decision from some of the political considerations. The easiest thing for me, if I had been a member of the Labor Party, would have been to come down with a decision that was supported by the local members. As it turned out, I need to abide by the law - the town planning scheme of the day. Mr Court: Does it say people can have a boat in the harbour? Mr KIERATH: The fascinating thing is that not only does it say people can have a boat in the harbour, but also the Mindarie scheme says that any people who have blocks on the waterfront can have their own jetty and moor their boats. These two owners wanted to moor their boats. There were concerns about commercial use; and, on that basis, we put conditions on it; and if members read the report they will see that it says, “uphold the decision”. That is what the committee said. I did not go against what the committee recommended, but I endorsed what the investigator had put up and what the committee supported. Here we have Mindarie Keys as a harbour and as the base for substantial commercial fishing boats that manoeuvre within 20 metres of the houses and moor within 70 metres. These two people wanted to moor their boats at a jetty, and part of the condition is that there cannot be any commercial activities on the jetty. It is like the driver of a small truck parking his truck at his home at night. That is what they wanted to do; and, in that situation, the town planning scheme allowed it. The fascinating thing is even the advice of the professional officers was to support it, but the elected councillors went against. I can understand why; it was for political reasons. In the end, I am not here to hold up political reasons. I am here to hold up the planning law of this State. This House passed the planning legislation. Town planning scheme amendments are subsidiary to that legislation. I took an oath to uphold my office without fear or favour. That is what I have done, unlike members opposite; and if, heaven forbid, members opposite were ever in a position again of having to choose between doing what is lawful and what is not, they would choose to do political favours for their mates every time, even if it meant breaking the law.
Mr KIERATH replied: I thank the member for asking the question. I must say at the outset that I think the member for Armadale asked yesterday whether I had received representations from the member for Wanneroo. Yes, I had, and he and one of the upper House members, Hon George Cash, wrote letters in support of the local residents. I cannot thank the member for Armadale enough for raising this issue. I have the full report of the committee that was delivered to me and on which we made our decision, and I am happy to table that for the benefit of members of the House. [See paper No 130.] Ms MacTiernan: Can we also have the notes of the committee? Mr KIERATH: The member has my letter of decision, which is the most important; she now has the report that has been put to me. I am grateful that the member raised this issue, because it highlights the difference between the way we on this side deal with planning issues and the way members opposite dealt with planning issues when they were in power; which I am sure they would do again if, heaven forbid, they ever got into government again. This was a difficult situation for me, because I had to make a decision; and some of my local members were really pushing for a particular point of view, but I had to uphold the points of law. The difference is that when faced with a choice between doing political favours for our mates or upholding the planning law, we uphold the planning law. When members opposite were in government, they did favours for their political mates; and they still do not understand that that is what separates us from their side of politics. We do the right thing. We abide by the law. Members opposite were always so hell-bent on doing favours for their mates that they would not even survive the oath of office. The oath of office is that we must make decisions without fear or favour; and when we are in a semi-judicial position and need to make a decision, we sometimes need to divorce that decision from some of the political considerations. The easiest thing for me, if I had been a member of the Labor Party, would have been to come down with a decision that was supported by the local members. As it turned out, I need to abide by the law - the town planning scheme of the day. Mr Court: Does it say people can have a boat in the harbour? Mr KIERATH: The fascinating thing is that not only does it say people can have a boat in the harbour, but also the Mindarie scheme says that any people who have blocks on the waterfront can have their own jetty and moor their boats. These two owners wanted to moor their boats. There were concerns about commercial use; and, on that basis, we put conditions on it; and if members read the report they will see that it says, “uphold the decision”. That is what the committee said. I did not go against what the committee recommended, but I endorsed what the investigator had put up and what the committee supported. Here we have Mindarie Keys as a harbour and as the base for substantial commercial fishing boats that manoeuvre within 20 metres of the houses and moor within 70 metres. These two people wanted to moor their boats at a jetty, and part of the condition is that there cannot be any commercial activities on the jetty. It is like the driver of a small truck parking his truck at his home at night. That is what they wanted to do; and, in that situation, the town planning scheme allowed it. The fascinating thing is even the advice of the professional officers was to support it, but the elected councillors went against. I can understand why; it was for political reasons. In the end, I am not here to hold up political reasons. I am here to hold up the planning law of this State. This House passed the planning legislation. Town planning scheme amendments are subsidiary to that legislation. I took an oath to uphold my office without fear or favour. That is what I have done, unlike members opposite; and if, heaven forbid, members opposite were ever in a position again of having to choose between doing what is lawful and what is not, they would choose to do political favours for their mates every time, even if it meant breaking the law.
I thank the member for asking the question. I must say at the outset that I think the member for Armadale asked yesterday whether I had received representations from the member for Wanneroo. Yes, I had, and he and one of the upper House members, Hon George Cash, wrote letters in support of the local residents. I cannot thank the member for Armadale enough for raising this issue. I have the full report of the committee that was delivered to me and on which we made our decision, and I am happy to table that for the benefit of members of the House. [See paper No 130.] Ms MacTiernan: Can we also have the notes of the committee? Mr KIERATH: The member has my letter of decision, which is the most important; she now has the report that has been put to me. I am grateful that the member raised this issue, because it highlights the difference between the way we on this side deal with planning issues and the way members opposite dealt with planning issues when they were in power; which I am sure they would do again if, heaven forbid, they ever got into government again. This was a difficult situation for me, because I had to make a decision; and some of my local members were really pushing for a particular point of view, but I had to uphold the points of law. The difference is that when faced with a choice between doing political favours for our mates or upholding the planning law, we uphold the planning law. When members opposite were in government, they did favours for their political mates; and they still do not understand that that is what separates us from their side of politics. We do the right thing. We abide by the law. Members opposite were always so hell-bent on doing favours for their mates that they would not even survive the oath of office. The oath of office is that we must make decisions without fear or favour; and when we are in a semi-judicial position and need to make a decision, we sometimes need to divorce that decision from some of the political considerations. The easiest thing for me, if I had been a member of the Labor Party, would have been to come down with a decision that was supported by the local members. As it turned out, I need to abide by the law - the town planning scheme of the day. Mr Court: Does it say people can have a boat in the harbour? Mr KIERATH: The fascinating thing is that not only does it say people can have a boat in the harbour, but also the Mindarie scheme says that any people who have blocks on the waterfront can have their own jetty and moor their boats. These two owners wanted to moor their boats. There were concerns about commercial use; and, on that basis, we put conditions on it; and if members read the report they will see that it says, “uphold the decision”. That is what the committee said. I did not go against what the committee recommended, but I endorsed what the investigator had put up and what the committee supported. Here we have Mindarie Keys as a harbour and as the base for substantial commercial fishing boats that manoeuvre within 20 metres of the houses and moor within 70 metres. These two people wanted to moor their boats at a jetty, and part of the condition is that there cannot be any commercial activities on the jetty. It is like the driver of a small truck parking his truck at his home at night. That is what they wanted to do; and, in that situation, the town planning scheme allowed it. The fascinating thing is even the advice of the professional officers was to support it, but the elected councillors went against. I can understand why; it was for political reasons. In the end, I am not here to hold up political reasons. I am here to hold up the planning law of this State. This House passed the planning legislation. Town planning scheme amendments are subsidiary to that legislation. I took an oath to uphold my office without fear or favour. That is what I have done, unlike members opposite; and if, heaven forbid, members opposite were ever in a position again of having to choose between doing what is lawful and what is not, they would choose to do political favours for their mates every time, even if it meant breaking the law.
[See paper No 130.] Ms MacTiernan: Can we also have the notes of the committee? Mr KIERATH: The member has my letter of decision, which is the most important; she now has the report that has been put to me. I am grateful that the member raised this issue, because it highlights the difference between the way we on this side deal with planning issues and the way members opposite dealt with planning issues when they were in power; which I am sure they would do again if, heaven forbid, they ever got into government again. This was a difficult situation for me, because I had to make a decision; and some of my local members were really pushing for a particular point of view, but I had to uphold the points of law. The difference is that when faced with a choice between doing political favours for our mates or upholding the planning law, we uphold the planning law. When members opposite were in government, they did favours for their political mates; and they still do not understand that that is what separates us from their side of politics. We do the right thing. We abide by the law. Members opposite were always so hell-bent on doing favours for their mates that they would not even survive the oath of office. The oath of office is that we must make decisions without fear or favour; and when we are in a semi-judicial position and need to make a decision, we sometimes need to divorce that decision from some of the political considerations. The easiest thing for me, if I had been a member of the Labor Party, would have been to come down with a decision that was supported by the local members. As it turned out, I need to abide by the law - the town planning scheme of the day. Mr Court: Does it say people can have a boat in the harbour? Mr KIERATH: The fascinating thing is that not only does it say people can have a boat in the harbour, but also the Mindarie scheme says that any people who have blocks on the waterfront can have their own jetty and moor their boats. These two owners wanted to moor their boats. There were concerns about commercial use; and, on that basis, we put conditions on it; and if members read the report they will see that it says, “uphold the decision”. That is what the committee said. I did not go against what the committee recommended, but I endorsed what the investigator had put up and what the committee supported. Here we have Mindarie Keys as a harbour and as the base for substantial commercial fishing boats that manoeuvre within 20 metres of the houses and moor within 70 metres. These two people wanted to moor their boats at a jetty, and part of the condition is that there cannot be any commercial activities on the jetty. It is like the driver of a small truck parking his truck at his home at night. That is what they wanted to do; and, in that situation, the town planning scheme allowed it. The fascinating thing is even the advice of the professional officers was to support it, but the elected councillors went against. I can understand why; it was for political reasons. In the end, I am not here to hold up political reasons. I am here to hold up the planning law of this State. This House passed the planning legislation. Town planning scheme amendments are subsidiary to that legislation. I took an oath to uphold my office without fear or favour. That is what I have done, unlike members opposite; and if, heaven forbid, members opposite were ever in a position again of having to choose between doing what is lawful and what is not, they would choose to do political favours for their mates every time, even if it meant breaking the law.
Ms MacTiernan: Can we also have the notes of the committee? Mr KIERATH: The member has my letter of decision, which is the most important; she now has the report that has been put to me. I am grateful that the member raised this issue, because it highlights the difference between the way we on this side deal with planning issues and the way members opposite dealt with planning issues when they were in power; which I am sure they would do again if, heaven forbid, they ever got into government again. This was a difficult situation for me, because I had to make a decision; and some of my local members were really pushing for a particular point of view, but I had to uphold the points of law. The difference is that when faced with a choice between doing political favours for our mates or upholding the planning law, we uphold the planning law. When members opposite were in government, they did favours for their political mates; and they still do not understand that that is what separates us from their side of politics. We do the right thing. We abide by the law. Members opposite were always so hell-bent on doing favours for their mates that they would not even survive the oath of office. The oath of office is that we must make decisions without fear or favour; and when we are in a semi-judicial position and need to make a decision, we sometimes need to divorce that decision from some of the political considerations. The easiest thing for me, if I had been a member of the Labor Party, would have been to come down with a decision that was supported by the local members. As it turned out, I need to abide by the law - the town planning scheme of the day. Mr Court: Does it say people can have a boat in the harbour? Mr KIERATH: The fascinating thing is that not only does it say people can have a boat in the harbour, but also the Mindarie scheme says that any people who have blocks on the waterfront can have their own jetty and moor their boats. These two owners wanted to moor their boats. There were concerns about commercial use; and, on that basis, we put conditions on it; and if members read the report they will see that it says, “uphold the decision”. That is what the committee said. I did not go against what the committee recommended, but I endorsed what the investigator had put up and what the committee supported. Here we have Mindarie Keys as a harbour and as the base for substantial commercial fishing boats that manoeuvre within 20 metres of the houses and moor within 70 metres. These two people wanted to moor their boats at a jetty, and part of the condition is that there cannot be any commercial activities on the jetty. It is like the driver of a small truck parking his truck at his home at night. That is what they wanted to do; and, in that situation, the town planning scheme allowed it. The fascinating thing is even the advice of the professional officers was to support it, but the elected councillors went against. I can understand why; it was for political reasons. In the end, I am not here to hold up political reasons. I am here to hold up the planning law of this State. This House passed the planning legislation. Town planning scheme amendments are subsidiary to that legislation. I took an oath to uphold my office without fear or favour. That is what I have done, unlike members opposite; and if, heaven forbid, members opposite were ever in a position again of having to choose between doing what is lawful and what is not, they would choose to do political favours for their mates every time, even if it meant breaking the law.
Mr KIERATH: The member has my letter of decision, which is the most important; she now has the report that has been put to me. I am grateful that the member raised this issue, because it highlights the difference between the way we on this side deal with planning issues and the way members opposite dealt with planning issues when they were in power; which I am sure they would do again if, heaven forbid, they ever got into government again. This was a difficult situation for me, because I had to make a decision; and some of my local members were really pushing for a particular point of view, but I had to uphold the points of law. The difference is that when faced with a choice between doing political favours for our mates or upholding the planning law, we uphold the planning law. When members opposite were in government, they did favours for their political mates; and they still do not understand that that is what separates us from their side of politics. We do the right thing. We abide by the law. Members opposite were always so hell-bent on doing favours for their mates that they would not even survive the oath of office. The oath of office is that we must make decisions without fear or favour; and when we are in a semi-judicial position and need to make a decision, we sometimes need to divorce that decision from some of the political considerations. The easiest thing for me, if I had been a member of the Labor Party, would have been to come down with a decision that was supported by the local members. As it turned out, I need to abide by the law - the town planning scheme of the day. Mr Court: Does it say people can have a boat in the harbour? Mr KIERATH: The fascinating thing is that not only does it say people can have a boat in the harbour, but also the Mindarie scheme says that any people who have blocks on the waterfront can have their own jetty and moor their boats. These two owners wanted to moor their boats. There were concerns about commercial use; and, on that basis, we put conditions on it; and if members read the report they will see that it says, “uphold the decision”. That is what the committee said. I did not go against what the committee recommended, but I endorsed what the investigator had put up and what the committee supported. Here we have Mindarie Keys as a harbour and as the base for substantial commercial fishing boats that manoeuvre within 20 metres of the houses and moor within 70 metres. These two people wanted to moor their boats at a jetty, and part of the condition is that there cannot be any commercial activities on the jetty. It is like the driver of a small truck parking his truck at his home at night. That is what they wanted to do; and, in that situation, the town planning scheme allowed it. The fascinating thing is even the advice of the professional officers was to support it, but the elected councillors went against. I can understand why; it was for political reasons. In the end, I am not here to hold up political reasons. I am here to hold up the planning law of this State. This House passed the planning legislation. Town planning scheme amendments are subsidiary to that legislation. I took an oath to uphold my office without fear or favour. That is what I have done, unlike members opposite; and if, heaven forbid, members opposite were ever in a position again of having to choose between doing what is lawful and what is not, they would choose to do political favours for their mates every time, even if it meant breaking the law.
Mr Court: Does it say people can have a boat in the harbour? Mr KIERATH: The fascinating thing is that not only does it say people can have a boat in the harbour, but also the Mindarie scheme says that any people who have blocks on the waterfront can have their own jetty and moor their boats. These two owners wanted to moor their boats. There were concerns about commercial use; and, on that basis, we put conditions on it; and if members read the report they will see that it says, “uphold the decision”. That is what the committee said. I did not go against what the committee recommended, but I endorsed what the investigator had put up and what the committee supported. Here we have Mindarie Keys as a harbour and as the base for substantial commercial fishing boats that manoeuvre within 20 metres of the houses and moor within 70 metres. These two people wanted to moor their boats at a jetty, and part of the condition is that there cannot be any commercial activities on the jetty. It is like the driver of a small truck parking his truck at his home at night. That is what they wanted to do; and, in that situation, the town planning scheme allowed it. The fascinating thing is even the advice of the professional officers was to support it, but the elected councillors went against. I can understand why; it was for political reasons. In the end, I am not here to hold up political reasons. I am here to hold up the planning law of this State. This House passed the planning legislation. Town planning scheme amendments are subsidiary to that legislation. I took an oath to uphold my office without fear or favour. That is what I have done, unlike members opposite; and if, heaven forbid, members opposite were ever in a position again of having to choose between doing what is lawful and what is not, they would choose to do political favours for their mates every time, even if it meant breaking the law.
Mr KIERATH: The fascinating thing is that not only does it say people can have a boat in the harbour, but also the Mindarie scheme says that any people who have blocks on the waterfront can have their own jetty and moor their boats. These two owners wanted to moor their boats. There were concerns about commercial use; and, on that basis, we put conditions on it; and if members read the report they will see that it says, “uphold the decision”. That is what the committee said. I did not go against what the committee recommended, but I endorsed what the investigator had put up and what the committee supported. Here we have Mindarie Keys as a harbour and as the base for substantial commercial fishing boats that manoeuvre within 20 metres of the houses and moor within 70 metres. These two people wanted to moor their boats at a jetty, and part of the condition is that there cannot be any commercial activities on the jetty. It is like the driver of a small truck parking his truck at his home at night. That is what they wanted to do; and, in that situation, the town planning scheme allowed it. The fascinating thing is even the advice of the professional officers was to support it, but the elected councillors went against. I can understand why; it was for political reasons. In the end, I am not here to hold up political reasons. I am here to hold up the planning law of this State. This House passed the planning legislation. Town planning scheme amendments are subsidiary to that legislation. I took an oath to uphold my office without fear or favour. That is what I have done, unlike members opposite; and if, heaven forbid, members opposite were ever in a position again of having to choose between doing what is lawful and what is not, they would choose to do political favours for their mates every time, even if it meant breaking the law.
The fascinating thing is even the advice of the professional officers was to support it, but the elected councillors went against. I can understand why; it was for political reasons. In the end, I am not here to hold up political reasons. I am here to hold up the planning law of this State. This House passed the planning legislation. Town planning scheme amendments are subsidiary to that legislation. I took an oath to uphold my office without fear or favour. That is what I have done, unlike members opposite; and if, heaven forbid, members opposite were ever in a position again of having to choose between doing what is lawful and what is not, they would choose to do political favours for their mates every time, even if it meant breaking the law.
Mr KIERATH replied: I thank the member for asking the question. I must say at the outset that I think the member for Armadale asked yesterday whether I had received representations from the member for Wanneroo. Yes, I had, and he and one of the upper House members, Hon George Cash, wrote letters in support of the local residents. I cannot thank the member for Armadale enough for raising this issue. I have the full report of the committee that was delivered to me and on which we made our decision, and I am happy to table that for the benefit of members of the House. [See paper No 130.] Ms MacTiernan: Can we also have the notes of the committee? Mr KIERATH: The member has my letter of decision, which is the most important; she now has the report that has been put to me. I am grateful that the member raised this issue, because it highlights the difference between the way we on this side deal with planning issues and the way members opposite dealt with planning issues when they were in power; which I am sure they would do again if, heaven forbid, they ever got into government again. This was a difficult situation for me, because I had to make a decision; and some of my local members were really pushing for a particular point of view, but I had to uphold the points of law. The difference is that when faced with a choice between doing political favours for our mates or upholding the planning law, we uphold the planning law. When members opposite were in government, they did favours for their political mates; and they still do not understand that that is what separates us from their side of politics. We do the right thing. We abide by the law. Members opposite were always so hell-bent on doing favours for their mates that they would not even survive the oath of office. The oath of office is that we must make decisions without fear or favour; and when we are in a semi-judicial position and need to make a decision, we sometimes need to divorce that decision from some of the political considerations. The easiest thing for me, if I had been a member of the Labor Party, would have been to come down with a decision that was supported by the local members. As it turned out, I need to abide by the law - the town planning scheme of the day. Mr Court: Does it say people can have a boat in the harbour? Mr KIERATH: The fascinating thing is that not only does it say people can have a boat in the harbour, but also the Mindarie scheme says that any people who have blocks on the waterfront can have their own jetty and moor their boats. These two owners wanted to moor their boats. There were concerns about commercial use; and, on that basis, we put conditions on it; and if members read the report they will see that it says, “uphold the decision”. That is what the committee said. I did not go against what the committee recommended, but I endorsed what the investigator had put up and what the committee supported. Here we have Mindarie Keys as a harbour and as the base for substantial commercial fishing boats that manoeuvre within 20 metres of the houses and moor within 70 metres. These two people wanted to moor their boats at a jetty, and part of the condition is that there cannot be any commercial activities on the jetty. It is like the driver of a small truck parking his truck at his home at night. That is what they wanted to do; and, in that situation, the town planning scheme allowed it. The fascinating thing is even the advice of the professional officers was to support it, but the elected councillors went against. I can understand why; it was for political reasons. In the end, I am not here to hold up political reasons. I am here to hold up the planning law of this State. This House passed the planning legislation. Town planning scheme amendments are subsidiary to that legislation. I took an oath to uphold my office without fear or favour. That is what I have done, unlike members opposite; and if, heaven forbid, members opposite were ever in a position again of having to choose between doing what is lawful and what is not, they would choose to do political favours for their mates every time, even if it meant breaking the law.
I thank the member for asking the question. I must say at the outset that I think the member for Armadale asked yesterday whether I had received representations from the member for Wanneroo. Yes, I had, and he and one of the upper House members, Hon George Cash, wrote letters in support of the local residents. I cannot thank the member for Armadale enough for raising this issue. I have the full report of the committee that was delivered to me and on which we made our decision, and I am happy to table that for the benefit of members of the House. [See paper No 130.] Ms MacTiernan: Can we also have the notes of the committee? Mr KIERATH: The member has my letter of decision, which is the most important; she now has the report that has been put to me. I am grateful that the member raised this issue, because it highlights the difference between the way we on this side deal with planning issues and the way members opposite dealt with planning issues when they were in power; which I am sure they would do again if, heaven forbid, they ever got into government again. This was a difficult situation for me, because I had to make a decision; and some of my local members were really pushing for a particular point of view, but I had to uphold the points of law. The difference is that when faced with a choice between doing political favours for our mates or upholding the planning law, we uphold the planning law. When members opposite were in government, they did favours for their political mates; and they still do not understand that that is what separates us from their side of politics. We do the right thing. We abide by the law. Members opposite were always so hell-bent on doing favours for their mates that they would not even survive the oath of office. The oath of office is that we must make decisions without fear or favour; and when we are in a semi-judicial position and need to make a decision, we sometimes need to divorce that decision from some of the political considerations. The easiest thing for me, if I had been a member of the Labor Party, would have been to come down with a decision that was supported by the local members. As it turned out, I need to abide by the law - the town planning scheme of the day. Mr Court: Does it say people can have a boat in the harbour? Mr KIERATH: The fascinating thing is that not only does it say people can have a boat in the harbour, but also the Mindarie scheme says that any people who have blocks on the waterfront can have their own jetty and moor their boats. These two owners wanted to moor their boats. There were concerns about commercial use; and, on that basis, we put conditions on it; and if members read the report they will see that it says, “uphold the decision”. That is what the committee said. I did not go against what the committee recommended, but I endorsed what the investigator had put up and what the committee supported. Here we have Mindarie Keys as a harbour and as the base for substantial commercial fishing boats that manoeuvre within 20 metres of the houses and moor within 70 metres. These two people wanted to moor their boats at a jetty, and part of the condition is that there cannot be any commercial activities on the jetty. It is like the driver of a small truck parking his truck at his home at night. That is what they wanted to do; and, in that situation, the town planning scheme allowed it. The fascinating thing is even the advice of the professional officers was to support it, but the elected councillors went against. I can understand why; it was for political reasons. In the end, I am not here to hold up political reasons. I am here to hold up the planning law of this State. This House passed the planning legislation. Town planning scheme amendments are subsidiary to that legislation. I took an oath to uphold my office without fear or favour. That is what I have done, unlike members opposite; and if, heaven forbid, members opposite were ever in a position again of having to choose between doing what is lawful and what is not, they would choose to do political favours for their mates every time, even if it meant breaking the law.
[See paper No 130.] Ms MacTiernan: Can we also have the notes of the committee? Mr KIERATH: The member has my letter of decision, which is the most important; she now has the report that has been put to me. I am grateful that the member raised this issue, because it highlights the difference between the way we on this side deal with planning issues and the way members opposite dealt with planning issues when they were in power; which I am sure they would do again if, heaven forbid, they ever got into government again. This was a difficult situation for me, because I had to make a decision; and some of my local members were really pushing for a particular point of view, but I had to uphold the points of law. The difference is that when faced with a choice between doing political favours for our mates or upholding the planning law, we uphold the planning law. When members opposite were in government, they did favours for their political mates; and they still do not understand that that is what separates us from their side of politics. We do the right thing. We abide by the law. Members opposite were always so hell-bent on doing favours for their mates that they would not even survive the oath of office. The oath of office is that we must make decisions without fear or favour; and when we are in a semi-judicial position and need to make a decision, we sometimes need to divorce that decision from some of the political considerations. The easiest thing for me, if I had been a member of the Labor Party, would have been to come down with a decision that was supported by the local members. As it turned out, I need to abide by the law - the town planning scheme of the day. Mr Court: Does it say people can have a boat in the harbour? Mr KIERATH: The fascinating thing is that not only does it say people can have a boat in the harbour, but also the Mindarie scheme says that any people who have blocks on the waterfront can have their own jetty and moor their boats. These two owners wanted to moor their boats. There were concerns about commercial use; and, on that basis, we put conditions on it; and if members read the report they will see that it says, “uphold the decision”. That is what the committee said. I did not go against what the committee recommended, but I endorsed what the investigator had put up and what the committee supported. Here we have Mindarie Keys as a harbour and as the base for substantial commercial fishing boats that manoeuvre within 20 metres of the houses and moor within 70 metres. These two people wanted to moor their boats at a jetty, and part of the condition is that there cannot be any commercial activities on the jetty. It is like the driver of a small truck parking his truck at his home at night. That is what they wanted to do; and, in that situation, the town planning scheme allowed it. The fascinating thing is even the advice of the professional officers was to support it, but the elected councillors went against. I can understand why; it was for political reasons. In the end, I am not here to hold up political reasons. I am here to hold up the planning law of this State. This House passed the planning legislation. Town planning scheme amendments are subsidiary to that legislation. I took an oath to uphold my office without fear or favour. That is what I have done, unlike members opposite; and if, heaven forbid, members opposite were ever in a position again of having to choose between doing what is lawful and what is not, they would choose to do political favours for their mates every time, even if it meant breaking the law.
Ms MacTiernan: Can we also have the notes of the committee? Mr KIERATH: The member has my letter of decision, which is the most important; she now has the report that has been put to me. I am grateful that the member raised this issue, because it highlights the difference between the way we on this side deal with planning issues and the way members opposite dealt with planning issues when they were in power; which I am sure they would do again if, heaven forbid, they ever got into government again. This was a difficult situation for me, because I had to make a decision; and some of my local members were really pushing for a particular point of view, but I had to uphold the points of law. The difference is that when faced with a choice between doing political favours for our mates or upholding the planning law, we uphold the planning law. When members opposite were in government, they did favours for their political mates; and they still do not understand that that is what separates us from their side of politics. We do the right thing. We abide by the law. Members opposite were always so hell-bent on doing favours for their mates that they would not even survive the oath of office. The oath of office is that we must make decisions without fear or favour; and when we are in a semi-judicial position and need to make a decision, we sometimes need to divorce that decision from some of the political considerations. The easiest thing for me, if I had been a member of the Labor Party, would have been to come down with a decision that was supported by the local members. As it turned out, I need to abide by the law - the town planning scheme of the day. Mr Court: Does it say people can have a boat in the harbour? Mr KIERATH: The fascinating thing is that not only does it say people can have a boat in the harbour, but also the Mindarie scheme says that any people who have blocks on the waterfront can have their own jetty and moor their boats. These two owners wanted to moor their boats. There were concerns about commercial use; and, on that basis, we put conditions on it; and if members read the report they will see that it says, “uphold the decision”. That is what the committee said. I did not go against what the committee recommended, but I endorsed what the investigator had put up and what the committee supported. Here we have Mindarie Keys as a harbour and as the base for substantial commercial fishing boats that manoeuvre within 20 metres of the houses and moor within 70 metres. These two people wanted to moor their boats at a jetty, and part of the condition is that there cannot be any commercial activities on the jetty. It is like the driver of a small truck parking his truck at his home at night. That is what they wanted to do; and, in that situation, the town planning scheme allowed it. The fascinating thing is even the advice of the professional officers was to support it, but the elected councillors went against. I can understand why; it was for political reasons. In the end, I am not here to hold up political reasons. I am here to hold up the planning law of this State. This House passed the planning legislation. Town planning scheme amendments are subsidiary to that legislation. I took an oath to uphold my office without fear or favour. That is what I have done, unlike members opposite; and if, heaven forbid, members opposite were ever in a position again of having to choose between doing what is lawful and what is not, they would choose to do political favours for their mates every time, even if it meant breaking the law.
Mr KIERATH: The member has my letter of decision, which is the most important; she now has the report that has been put to me. I am grateful that the member raised this issue, because it highlights the difference between the way we on this side deal with planning issues and the way members opposite dealt with planning issues when they were in power; which I am sure they would do again if, heaven forbid, they ever got into government again. This was a difficult situation for me, because I had to make a decision; and some of my local members were really pushing for a particular point of view, but I had to uphold the points of law. The difference is that when faced with a choice between doing political favours for our mates or upholding the planning law, we uphold the planning law. When members opposite were in government, they did favours for their political mates; and they still do not understand that that is what separates us from their side of politics. We do the right thing. We abide by the law. Members opposite were always so hell-bent on doing favours for their mates that they would not even survive the oath of office. The oath of office is that we must make decisions without fear or favour; and when we are in a semi-judicial position and need to make a decision, we sometimes need to divorce that decision from some of the political considerations. The easiest thing for me, if I had been a member of the Labor Party, would have been to come down with a decision that was supported by the local members. As it turned out, I need to abide by the law - the town planning scheme of the day. Mr Court: Does it say people can have a boat in the harbour? Mr KIERATH: The fascinating thing is that not only does it say people can have a boat in the harbour, but also the Mindarie scheme says that any people who have blocks on the waterfront can have their own jetty and moor their boats. These two owners wanted to moor their boats. There were concerns about commercial use; and, on that basis, we put conditions on it; and if members read the report they will see that it says, “uphold the decision”. That is what the committee said. I did not go against what the committee recommended, but I endorsed what the investigator had put up and what the committee supported. Here we have Mindarie Keys as a harbour and as the base for substantial commercial fishing boats that manoeuvre within 20 metres of the houses and moor within 70 metres. These two people wanted to moor their boats at a jetty, and part of the condition is that there cannot be any commercial activities on the jetty. It is like the driver of a small truck parking his truck at his home at night. That is what they wanted to do; and, in that situation, the town planning scheme allowed it. The fascinating thing is even the advice of the professional officers was to support it, but the elected councillors went against. I can understand why; it was for political reasons. In the end, I am not here to hold up political reasons. I am here to hold up the planning law of this State. This House passed the planning legislation. Town planning scheme amendments are subsidiary to that legislation. I took an oath to uphold my office without fear or favour. That is what I have done, unlike members opposite; and if, heaven forbid, members opposite were ever in a position again of having to choose between doing what is lawful and what is not, they would choose to do political favours for their mates every time, even if it meant breaking the law.
Mr Court: Does it say people can have a boat in the harbour? Mr KIERATH: The fascinating thing is that not only does it say people can have a boat in the harbour, but also the Mindarie scheme says that any people who have blocks on the waterfront can have their own jetty and moor their boats. These two owners wanted to moor their boats. There were concerns about commercial use; and, on that basis, we put conditions on it; and if members read the report they will see that it says, “uphold the decision”. That is what the committee said. I did not go against what the committee recommended, but I endorsed what the investigator had put up and what the committee supported. Here we have Mindarie Keys as a harbour and as the base for substantial commercial fishing boats that manoeuvre within 20 metres of the houses and moor within 70 metres. These two people wanted to moor their boats at a jetty, and part of the condition is that there cannot be any commercial activities on the jetty. It is like the driver of a small truck parking his truck at his home at night. That is what they wanted to do; and, in that situation, the town planning scheme allowed it. The fascinating thing is even the advice of the professional officers was to support it, but the elected councillors went against. I can understand why; it was for political reasons. In the end, I am not here to hold up political reasons. I am here to hold up the planning law of this State. This House passed the planning legislation. Town planning scheme amendments are subsidiary to that legislation. I took an oath to uphold my office without fear or favour. That is what I have done, unlike members opposite; and if, heaven forbid, members opposite were ever in a position again of having to choose between doing what is lawful and what is not, they would choose to do political favours for their mates every time, even if it meant breaking the law.
Mr KIERATH: The fascinating thing is that not only does it say people can have a boat in the harbour, but also the Mindarie scheme says that any people who have blocks on the waterfront can have their own jetty and moor their boats. These two owners wanted to moor their boats. There were concerns about commercial use; and, on that basis, we put conditions on it; and if members read the report they will see that it says, “uphold the decision”. That is what the committee said. I did not go against what the committee recommended, but I endorsed what the investigator had put up and what the committee supported. Here we have Mindarie Keys as a harbour and as the base for substantial commercial fishing boats that manoeuvre within 20 metres of the houses and moor within 70 metres. These two people wanted to moor their boats at a jetty, and part of the condition is that there cannot be any commercial activities on the jetty. It is like the driver of a small truck parking his truck at his home at night. That is what they wanted to do; and, in that situation, the town planning scheme allowed it. The fascinating thing is even the advice of the professional officers was to support it, but the elected councillors went against. I can understand why; it was for political reasons. In the end, I am not here to hold up political reasons. I am here to hold up the planning law of this State. This House passed the planning legislation. Town planning scheme amendments are subsidiary to that legislation. I took an oath to uphold my office without fear or favour. That is what I have done, unlike members opposite; and if, heaven forbid, members opposite were ever in a position again of having to choose between doing what is lawful and what is not, they would choose to do political favours for their mates every time, even if it meant breaking the law.
The fascinating thing is even the advice of the professional officers was to support it, but the elected councillors went against. I can understand why; it was for political reasons. In the end, I am not here to hold up political reasons. I am here to hold up the planning law of this State. This House passed the planning legislation. Town planning scheme amendments are subsidiary to that legislation. I took an oath to uphold my office without fear or favour. That is what I have done, unlike members opposite; and if, heaven forbid, members opposite were ever in a position again of having to choose between doing what is lawful and what is not, they would choose to do political favours for their mates every time, even if it meant breaking the law.
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.