❓ Question regarding the government's intention to delete the Fremantle eastern bypass from the metropolitan region scheme, alleging the public comment period is a sham. The Minister defends the process, stating the government supports the amendment but seeks public input on future land use.
AnsweredQoN 414Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer the minister to the so-called three-month public comment period relating to the deletion of the Fremantle eastern bypass from the metropolitan region scheme, and in particular to her department’s submission form, which asks people to comment on what the land should be used for when the Fremantle eastern bypass has been deleted. (1) Will the minister admit that this form reveals the Government’s intention to proceed with the deletion of the Fremantle eastern bypass regardless of the level of public opposition to the proposal between now and 21 February? (2) If yes to (1) and the proposal is a fait accompli, what does the minister say to the many thousands of residents in the southern suburbs who are putting a great deal of time and effort into preparing considered opposing submissions on this very important issue? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(2) This is an issue that the member has been running in the local media. Behind it is a misunderstanding of the facts. Mr M.F. Board: You told the House that you were going to delete it. Why ask for people’s opinions if you are not going to hear them? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Why ask people’s opinions? Mr Speaker, we would not proceed with an amendment to the metropolitan region scheme if we did not support in principle the amendment and if we did not believe - Mr M.F. Board: You said the decision was made. You did not even let the freight network review committee consider the options. That is how much this decision has already been made. Why put people through all this effort and money? It is a sham. The SPEAKER: Member for Murdoch, if you need to put more detail in your question, I suggest you do so. However, you do not have an opportunity to ask several questions during the answer to the question that you have already asked. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I will answer this question. The Government believes that the Fremantle eastern bypass should be deleted. We believe its introduction by Sir Charles Court into the metropolitan region scheme in the early 1970s was inappropriate. We believed then that it was not appropriate, as it simply transferred into Fremantle a proposal that was originally intended to go through Dalkeith. Mr M.F. Board: That’s garbage. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: No, that is true. However, that is not the fundamental reason that we oppose it. We oppose it because we believe it is an outdated solution to a real planning problem. The idea that we can continue to mow down existing suburbs to expand the network to deal with growing congestion is outdated. That notion has been abandoned elsewhere around the world. We are determined to deliver modern, sustainable government. Mr C.J. Barnett: Modern, sustainable government! You are meant to be providing modern, sustainable transport, not government. What a new concept. How did you pluck that one out of the air? Modern, sustainable government - that is, the survival of the Labor Party at all costs. Congratulations; you have invented new terminology. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Yes, modern, sustainable government. I have no difficulty with that at all. I am talking about governing in a sustainable way. Obviously, the member for Cottesloe does not understand the concept. That is a demonstration of just how unfit he is to lead a modern political party. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: We start from the proposition, as does any Government when it puts forward a metropolitan region scheme amendment, that we support the amendment we are proposing. If we did not support the amendment, we would not be proposing it. The previous Government passed hundreds of metropolitan region scheme amendments, all of which it supported. There is nothing surprising in that. Mr Speaker, we expect to receive an endorsement for the amendment because we believe fundamentally that it is the correct solution for Perth. We are, therefore, confident that we will receive approval from the Western Australian Planning Commission; we cannot guarantee that, but we are confident we will get that approval. However, in this process people are asking us what will happen to the land if the amendment goes ahead. We quite properly want to get their input into that question at the same time. The Government, therefore, expects to get the amendment approved; otherwise, it would not have put it forward. We could have gone down the path that was taken by the previous Government when it put the Fremantle eastern bypass into the scheme by legislation. We could have got it through this House and through the upper House; however, we decided not to do that. We want to increase the community’s consciousness. We want the community to understand the paradigm shift that must be made in planning for the future and planning sustainability. We do not apologise and we do not pretend in any way, shape or form that we are neutral on the Fremantle eastern bypass. It is a disaster for Fremantle and it is a disaster for Perth.
(1) Will the minister admit that this form reveals the Government’s intention to proceed with the deletion of the Fremantle eastern bypass regardless of the level of public opposition to the proposal between now and 21 February? (2) If yes to (1) and the proposal is a fait accompli, what does the minister say to the many thousands of residents in the southern suburbs who are putting a great deal of time and effort into preparing considered opposing submissions on this very important issue? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(2) This is an issue that the member has been running in the local media. Behind it is a misunderstanding of the facts. Mr M.F. Board: You told the House that you were going to delete it. Why ask for people’s opinions if you are not going to hear them? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Why ask people’s opinions? Mr Speaker, we would not proceed with an amendment to the metropolitan region scheme if we did not support in principle the amendment and if we did not believe - Mr M.F. Board: You said the decision was made. You did not even let the freight network review committee consider the options. That is how much this decision has already been made. Why put people through all this effort and money? It is a sham. The SPEAKER: Member for Murdoch, if you need to put more detail in your question, I suggest you do so. However, you do not have an opportunity to ask several questions during the answer to the question that you have already asked. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I will answer this question. The Government believes that the Fremantle eastern bypass should be deleted. We believe its introduction by Sir Charles Court into the metropolitan region scheme in the early 1970s was inappropriate. We believed then that it was not appropriate, as it simply transferred into Fremantle a proposal that was originally intended to go through Dalkeith. Mr M.F. Board: That’s garbage. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: No, that is true. However, that is not the fundamental reason that we oppose it. We oppose it because we believe it is an outdated solution to a real planning problem. The idea that we can continue to mow down existing suburbs to expand the network to deal with growing congestion is outdated. That notion has been abandoned elsewhere around the world. We are determined to deliver modern, sustainable government. Mr C.J. Barnett: Modern, sustainable government! You are meant to be providing modern, sustainable transport, not government. What a new concept. How did you pluck that one out of the air? Modern, sustainable government - that is, the survival of the Labor Party at all costs. Congratulations; you have invented new terminology. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Yes, modern, sustainable government. I have no difficulty with that at all. I am talking about governing in a sustainable way. Obviously, the member for Cottesloe does not understand the concept. That is a demonstration of just how unfit he is to lead a modern political party. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: We start from the proposition, as does any Government when it puts forward a metropolitan region scheme amendment, that we support the amendment we are proposing. If we did not support the amendment, we would not be proposing it. The previous Government passed hundreds of metropolitan region scheme amendments, all of which it supported. There is nothing surprising in that. Mr Speaker, we expect to receive an endorsement for the amendment because we believe fundamentally that it is the correct solution for Perth. We are, therefore, confident that we will receive approval from the Western Australian Planning Commission; we cannot guarantee that, but we are confident we will get that approval. However, in this process people are asking us what will happen to the land if the amendment goes ahead. We quite properly want to get their input into that question at the same time. The Government, therefore, expects to get the amendment approved; otherwise, it would not have put it forward. We could have gone down the path that was taken by the previous Government when it put the Fremantle eastern bypass into the scheme by legislation. We could have got it through this House and through the upper House; however, we decided not to do that. We want to increase the community’s consciousness. We want the community to understand the paradigm shift that must be made in planning for the future and planning sustainability. We do not apologise and we do not pretend in any way, shape or form that we are neutral on the Fremantle eastern bypass. It is a disaster for Fremantle and it is a disaster for Perth.
(2) If yes to (1) and the proposal is a fait accompli, what does the minister say to the many thousands of residents in the southern suburbs who are putting a great deal of time and effort into preparing considered opposing submissions on this very important issue? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(2) This is an issue that the member has been running in the local media. Behind it is a misunderstanding of the facts. Mr M.F. Board: You told the House that you were going to delete it. Why ask for people’s opinions if you are not going to hear them? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Why ask people’s opinions? Mr Speaker, we would not proceed with an amendment to the metropolitan region scheme if we did not support in principle the amendment and if we did not believe - Mr M.F. Board: You said the decision was made. You did not even let the freight network review committee consider the options. That is how much this decision has already been made. Why put people through all this effort and money? It is a sham. The SPEAKER: Member for Murdoch, if you need to put more detail in your question, I suggest you do so. However, you do not have an opportunity to ask several questions during the answer to the question that you have already asked. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I will answer this question. The Government believes that the Fremantle eastern bypass should be deleted. We believe its introduction by Sir Charles Court into the metropolitan region scheme in the early 1970s was inappropriate. We believed then that it was not appropriate, as it simply transferred into Fremantle a proposal that was originally intended to go through Dalkeith. Mr M.F. Board: That’s garbage. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: No, that is true. However, that is not the fundamental reason that we oppose it. We oppose it because we believe it is an outdated solution to a real planning problem. The idea that we can continue to mow down existing suburbs to expand the network to deal with growing congestion is outdated. That notion has been abandoned elsewhere around the world. We are determined to deliver modern, sustainable government. Mr C.J. Barnett: Modern, sustainable government! You are meant to be providing modern, sustainable transport, not government. What a new concept. How did you pluck that one out of the air? Modern, sustainable government - that is, the survival of the Labor Party at all costs. Congratulations; you have invented new terminology. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Yes, modern, sustainable government. I have no difficulty with that at all. I am talking about governing in a sustainable way. Obviously, the member for Cottesloe does not understand the concept. That is a demonstration of just how unfit he is to lead a modern political party. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: We start from the proposition, as does any Government when it puts forward a metropolitan region scheme amendment, that we support the amendment we are proposing. If we did not support the amendment, we would not be proposing it. The previous Government passed hundreds of metropolitan region scheme amendments, all of which it supported. There is nothing surprising in that. Mr Speaker, we expect to receive an endorsement for the amendment because we believe fundamentally that it is the correct solution for Perth. We are, therefore, confident that we will receive approval from the Western Australian Planning Commission; we cannot guarantee that, but we are confident we will get that approval. However, in this process people are asking us what will happen to the land if the amendment goes ahead. We quite properly want to get their input into that question at the same time. The Government, therefore, expects to get the amendment approved; otherwise, it would not have put it forward. We could have gone down the path that was taken by the previous Government when it put the Fremantle eastern bypass into the scheme by legislation. We could have got it through this House and through the upper House; however, we decided not to do that. We want to increase the community’s consciousness. We want the community to understand the paradigm shift that must be made in planning for the future and planning sustainability. We do not apologise and we do not pretend in any way, shape or form that we are neutral on the Fremantle eastern bypass. It is a disaster for Fremantle and it is a disaster for Perth.
Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(2) This is an issue that the member has been running in the local media. Behind it is a misunderstanding of the facts. Mr M.F. Board: You told the House that you were going to delete it. Why ask for people’s opinions if you are not going to hear them? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Why ask people’s opinions? Mr Speaker, we would not proceed with an amendment to the metropolitan region scheme if we did not support in principle the amendment and if we did not believe - Mr M.F. Board: You said the decision was made. You did not even let the freight network review committee consider the options. That is how much this decision has already been made. Why put people through all this effort and money? It is a sham. The SPEAKER: Member for Murdoch, if you need to put more detail in your question, I suggest you do so. However, you do not have an opportunity to ask several questions during the answer to the question that you have already asked. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I will answer this question. The Government believes that the Fremantle eastern bypass should be deleted. We believe its introduction by Sir Charles Court into the metropolitan region scheme in the early 1970s was inappropriate. We believed then that it was not appropriate, as it simply transferred into Fremantle a proposal that was originally intended to go through Dalkeith. Mr M.F. Board: That’s garbage. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: No, that is true. However, that is not the fundamental reason that we oppose it. We oppose it because we believe it is an outdated solution to a real planning problem. The idea that we can continue to mow down existing suburbs to expand the network to deal with growing congestion is outdated. That notion has been abandoned elsewhere around the world. We are determined to deliver modern, sustainable government. Mr C.J. Barnett: Modern, sustainable government! You are meant to be providing modern, sustainable transport, not government. What a new concept. How did you pluck that one out of the air? Modern, sustainable government - that is, the survival of the Labor Party at all costs. Congratulations; you have invented new terminology. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Yes, modern, sustainable government. I have no difficulty with that at all. I am talking about governing in a sustainable way. Obviously, the member for Cottesloe does not understand the concept. That is a demonstration of just how unfit he is to lead a modern political party. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: We start from the proposition, as does any Government when it puts forward a metropolitan region scheme amendment, that we support the amendment we are proposing. If we did not support the amendment, we would not be proposing it. The previous Government passed hundreds of metropolitan region scheme amendments, all of which it supported. There is nothing surprising in that. Mr Speaker, we expect to receive an endorsement for the amendment because we believe fundamentally that it is the correct solution for Perth. We are, therefore, confident that we will receive approval from the Western Australian Planning Commission; we cannot guarantee that, but we are confident we will get that approval. However, in this process people are asking us what will happen to the land if the amendment goes ahead. We quite properly want to get their input into that question at the same time. The Government, therefore, expects to get the amendment approved; otherwise, it would not have put it forward. We could have gone down the path that was taken by the previous Government when it put the Fremantle eastern bypass into the scheme by legislation. We could have got it through this House and through the upper House; however, we decided not to do that. We want to increase the community’s consciousness. We want the community to understand the paradigm shift that must be made in planning for the future and planning sustainability. We do not apologise and we do not pretend in any way, shape or form that we are neutral on the Fremantle eastern bypass. It is a disaster for Fremantle and it is a disaster for Perth.
(1)-(2) This is an issue that the member has been running in the local media. Behind it is a misunderstanding of the facts. Mr M.F. Board: You told the House that you were going to delete it. Why ask for people’s opinions if you are not going to hear them? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Why ask people’s opinions? Mr Speaker, we would not proceed with an amendment to the metropolitan region scheme if we did not support in principle the amendment and if we did not believe - Mr M.F. Board: You said the decision was made. You did not even let the freight network review committee consider the options. That is how much this decision has already been made. Why put people through all this effort and money? It is a sham. The SPEAKER: Member for Murdoch, if you need to put more detail in your question, I suggest you do so. However, you do not have an opportunity to ask several questions during the answer to the question that you have already asked. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I will answer this question. The Government believes that the Fremantle eastern bypass should be deleted. We believe its introduction by Sir Charles Court into the metropolitan region scheme in the early 1970s was inappropriate. We believed then that it was not appropriate, as it simply transferred into Fremantle a proposal that was originally intended to go through Dalkeith. Mr M.F. Board: That’s garbage. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: No, that is true. However, that is not the fundamental reason that we oppose it. We oppose it because we believe it is an outdated solution to a real planning problem. The idea that we can continue to mow down existing suburbs to expand the network to deal with growing congestion is outdated. That notion has been abandoned elsewhere around the world. We are determined to deliver modern, sustainable government. Mr C.J. Barnett: Modern, sustainable government! You are meant to be providing modern, sustainable transport, not government. What a new concept. How did you pluck that one out of the air? Modern, sustainable government - that is, the survival of the Labor Party at all costs. Congratulations; you have invented new terminology. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Yes, modern, sustainable government. I have no difficulty with that at all. I am talking about governing in a sustainable way. Obviously, the member for Cottesloe does not understand the concept. That is a demonstration of just how unfit he is to lead a modern political party. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: We start from the proposition, as does any Government when it puts forward a metropolitan region scheme amendment, that we support the amendment we are proposing. If we did not support the amendment, we would not be proposing it. The previous Government passed hundreds of metropolitan region scheme amendments, all of which it supported. There is nothing surprising in that. Mr Speaker, we expect to receive an endorsement for the amendment because we believe fundamentally that it is the correct solution for Perth. We are, therefore, confident that we will receive approval from the Western Australian Planning Commission; we cannot guarantee that, but we are confident we will get that approval. However, in this process people are asking us what will happen to the land if the amendment goes ahead. We quite properly want to get their input into that question at the same time. The Government, therefore, expects to get the amendment approved; otherwise, it would not have put it forward. We could have gone down the path that was taken by the previous Government when it put the Fremantle eastern bypass into the scheme by legislation. We could have got it through this House and through the upper House; however, we decided not to do that. We want to increase the community’s consciousness. We want the community to understand the paradigm shift that must be made in planning for the future and planning sustainability. We do not apologise and we do not pretend in any way, shape or form that we are neutral on the Fremantle eastern bypass. It is a disaster for Fremantle and it is a disaster for Perth.
Mr M.F. Board: You told the House that you were going to delete it. Why ask for people’s opinions if you are not going to hear them? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Why ask people’s opinions? Mr Speaker, we would not proceed with an amendment to the metropolitan region scheme if we did not support in principle the amendment and if we did not believe - Mr M.F. Board: You said the decision was made. You did not even let the freight network review committee consider the options. That is how much this decision has already been made. Why put people through all this effort and money? It is a sham. The SPEAKER: Member for Murdoch, if you need to put more detail in your question, I suggest you do so. However, you do not have an opportunity to ask several questions during the answer to the question that you have already asked. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I will answer this question. The Government believes that the Fremantle eastern bypass should be deleted. We believe its introduction by Sir Charles Court into the metropolitan region scheme in the early 1970s was inappropriate. We believed then that it was not appropriate, as it simply transferred into Fremantle a proposal that was originally intended to go through Dalkeith. Mr M.F. Board: That’s garbage. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: No, that is true. However, that is not the fundamental reason that we oppose it. We oppose it because we believe it is an outdated solution to a real planning problem. The idea that we can continue to mow down existing suburbs to expand the network to deal with growing congestion is outdated. That notion has been abandoned elsewhere around the world. We are determined to deliver modern, sustainable government. Mr C.J. Barnett: Modern, sustainable government! You are meant to be providing modern, sustainable transport, not government. What a new concept. How did you pluck that one out of the air? Modern, sustainable government - that is, the survival of the Labor Party at all costs. Congratulations; you have invented new terminology. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Yes, modern, sustainable government. I have no difficulty with that at all. I am talking about governing in a sustainable way. Obviously, the member for Cottesloe does not understand the concept. That is a demonstration of just how unfit he is to lead a modern political party. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: We start from the proposition, as does any Government when it puts forward a metropolitan region scheme amendment, that we support the amendment we are proposing. If we did not support the amendment, we would not be proposing it. The previous Government passed hundreds of metropolitan region scheme amendments, all of which it supported. There is nothing surprising in that. Mr Speaker, we expect to receive an endorsement for the amendment because we believe fundamentally that it is the correct solution for Perth. We are, therefore, confident that we will receive approval from the Western Australian Planning Commission; we cannot guarantee that, but we are confident we will get that approval. However, in this process people are asking us what will happen to the land if the amendment goes ahead. We quite properly want to get their input into that question at the same time. The Government, therefore, expects to get the amendment approved; otherwise, it would not have put it forward. We could have gone down the path that was taken by the previous Government when it put the Fremantle eastern bypass into the scheme by legislation. We could have got it through this House and through the upper House; however, we decided not to do that. We want to increase the community’s consciousness. We want the community to understand the paradigm shift that must be made in planning for the future and planning sustainability. We do not apologise and we do not pretend in any way, shape or form that we are neutral on the Fremantle eastern bypass. It is a disaster for Fremantle and it is a disaster for Perth.
Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Why ask people’s opinions? Mr Speaker, we would not proceed with an amendment to the metropolitan region scheme if we did not support in principle the amendment and if we did not believe - Mr M.F. Board: You said the decision was made. You did not even let the freight network review committee consider the options. That is how much this decision has already been made. Why put people through all this effort and money? It is a sham. The SPEAKER: Member for Murdoch, if you need to put more detail in your question, I suggest you do so. However, you do not have an opportunity to ask several questions during the answer to the question that you have already asked. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I will answer this question. The Government believes that the Fremantle eastern bypass should be deleted. We believe its introduction by Sir Charles Court into the metropolitan region scheme in the early 1970s was inappropriate. We believed then that it was not appropriate, as it simply transferred into Fremantle a proposal that was originally intended to go through Dalkeith. Mr M.F. Board: That’s garbage. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: No, that is true. However, that is not the fundamental reason that we oppose it. We oppose it because we believe it is an outdated solution to a real planning problem. The idea that we can continue to mow down existing suburbs to expand the network to deal with growing congestion is outdated. That notion has been abandoned elsewhere around the world. We are determined to deliver modern, sustainable government. Mr C.J. Barnett: Modern, sustainable government! You are meant to be providing modern, sustainable transport, not government. What a new concept. How did you pluck that one out of the air? Modern, sustainable government - that is, the survival of the Labor Party at all costs. Congratulations; you have invented new terminology. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Yes, modern, sustainable government. I have no difficulty with that at all. I am talking about governing in a sustainable way. Obviously, the member for Cottesloe does not understand the concept. That is a demonstration of just how unfit he is to lead a modern political party. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: We start from the proposition, as does any Government when it puts forward a metropolitan region scheme amendment, that we support the amendment we are proposing. If we did not support the amendment, we would not be proposing it. The previous Government passed hundreds of metropolitan region scheme amendments, all of which it supported. There is nothing surprising in that. Mr Speaker, we expect to receive an endorsement for the amendment because we believe fundamentally that it is the correct solution for Perth. We are, therefore, confident that we will receive approval from the Western Australian Planning Commission; we cannot guarantee that, but we are confident we will get that approval. However, in this process people are asking us what will happen to the land if the amendment goes ahead. We quite properly want to get their input into that question at the same time. The Government, therefore, expects to get the amendment approved; otherwise, it would not have put it forward. We could have gone down the path that was taken by the previous Government when it put the Fremantle eastern bypass into the scheme by legislation. We could have got it through this House and through the upper House; however, we decided not to do that. We want to increase the community’s consciousness. We want the community to understand the paradigm shift that must be made in planning for the future and planning sustainability. We do not apologise and we do not pretend in any way, shape or form that we are neutral on the Fremantle eastern bypass. It is a disaster for Fremantle and it is a disaster for Perth.
Mr M.F. Board: You said the decision was made. You did not even let the freight network review committee consider the options. That is how much this decision has already been made. Why put people through all this effort and money? It is a sham. The SPEAKER: Member for Murdoch, if you need to put more detail in your question, I suggest you do so. However, you do not have an opportunity to ask several questions during the answer to the question that you have already asked. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I will answer this question. The Government believes that the Fremantle eastern bypass should be deleted. We believe its introduction by Sir Charles Court into the metropolitan region scheme in the early 1970s was inappropriate. We believed then that it was not appropriate, as it simply transferred into Fremantle a proposal that was originally intended to go through Dalkeith. Mr M.F. Board: That’s garbage. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: No, that is true. However, that is not the fundamental reason that we oppose it. We oppose it because we believe it is an outdated solution to a real planning problem. The idea that we can continue to mow down existing suburbs to expand the network to deal with growing congestion is outdated. That notion has been abandoned elsewhere around the world. We are determined to deliver modern, sustainable government. Mr C.J. Barnett: Modern, sustainable government! You are meant to be providing modern, sustainable transport, not government. What a new concept. How did you pluck that one out of the air? Modern, sustainable government - that is, the survival of the Labor Party at all costs. Congratulations; you have invented new terminology. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Yes, modern, sustainable government. I have no difficulty with that at all. I am talking about governing in a sustainable way. Obviously, the member for Cottesloe does not understand the concept. That is a demonstration of just how unfit he is to lead a modern political party. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: We start from the proposition, as does any Government when it puts forward a metropolitan region scheme amendment, that we support the amendment we are proposing. If we did not support the amendment, we would not be proposing it. The previous Government passed hundreds of metropolitan region scheme amendments, all of which it supported. There is nothing surprising in that. Mr Speaker, we expect to receive an endorsement for the amendment because we believe fundamentally that it is the correct solution for Perth. We are, therefore, confident that we will receive approval from the Western Australian Planning Commission; we cannot guarantee that, but we are confident we will get that approval. However, in this process people are asking us what will happen to the land if the amendment goes ahead. We quite properly want to get their input into that question at the same time. The Government, therefore, expects to get the amendment approved; otherwise, it would not have put it forward. We could have gone down the path that was taken by the previous Government when it put the Fremantle eastern bypass into the scheme by legislation. We could have got it through this House and through the upper House; however, we decided not to do that. We want to increase the community’s consciousness. We want the community to understand the paradigm shift that must be made in planning for the future and planning sustainability. We do not apologise and we do not pretend in any way, shape or form that we are neutral on the Fremantle eastern bypass. It is a disaster for Fremantle and it is a disaster for Perth.
The SPEAKER: Member for Murdoch, if you need to put more detail in your question, I suggest you do so. However, you do not have an opportunity to ask several questions during the answer to the question that you have already asked. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I will answer this question. The Government believes that the Fremantle eastern bypass should be deleted. We believe its introduction by Sir Charles Court into the metropolitan region scheme in the early 1970s was inappropriate. We believed then that it was not appropriate, as it simply transferred into Fremantle a proposal that was originally intended to go through Dalkeith. Mr M.F. Board: That’s garbage. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: No, that is true. However, that is not the fundamental reason that we oppose it. We oppose it because we believe it is an outdated solution to a real planning problem. The idea that we can continue to mow down existing suburbs to expand the network to deal with growing congestion is outdated. That notion has been abandoned elsewhere around the world. We are determined to deliver modern, sustainable government. Mr C.J. Barnett: Modern, sustainable government! You are meant to be providing modern, sustainable transport, not government. What a new concept. How did you pluck that one out of the air? Modern, sustainable government - that is, the survival of the Labor Party at all costs. Congratulations; you have invented new terminology. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Yes, modern, sustainable government. I have no difficulty with that at all. I am talking about governing in a sustainable way. Obviously, the member for Cottesloe does not understand the concept. That is a demonstration of just how unfit he is to lead a modern political party. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: We start from the proposition, as does any Government when it puts forward a metropolitan region scheme amendment, that we support the amendment we are proposing. If we did not support the amendment, we would not be proposing it. The previous Government passed hundreds of metropolitan region scheme amendments, all of which it supported. There is nothing surprising in that. Mr Speaker, we expect to receive an endorsement for the amendment because we believe fundamentally that it is the correct solution for Perth. We are, therefore, confident that we will receive approval from the Western Australian Planning Commission; we cannot guarantee that, but we are confident we will get that approval. However, in this process people are asking us what will happen to the land if the amendment goes ahead. We quite properly want to get their input into that question at the same time. The Government, therefore, expects to get the amendment approved; otherwise, it would not have put it forward. We could have gone down the path that was taken by the previous Government when it put the Fremantle eastern bypass into the scheme by legislation. We could have got it through this House and through the upper House; however, we decided not to do that. We want to increase the community’s consciousness. We want the community to understand the paradigm shift that must be made in planning for the future and planning sustainability. We do not apologise and we do not pretend in any way, shape or form that we are neutral on the Fremantle eastern bypass. It is a disaster for Fremantle and it is a disaster for Perth.
Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I will answer this question. The Government believes that the Fremantle eastern bypass should be deleted. We believe its introduction by Sir Charles Court into the metropolitan region scheme in the early 1970s was inappropriate. We believed then that it was not appropriate, as it simply transferred into Fremantle a proposal that was originally intended to go through Dalkeith. Mr M.F. Board: That’s garbage. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: No, that is true. However, that is not the fundamental reason that we oppose it. We oppose it because we believe it is an outdated solution to a real planning problem. The idea that we can continue to mow down existing suburbs to expand the network to deal with growing congestion is outdated. That notion has been abandoned elsewhere around the world. We are determined to deliver modern, sustainable government. Mr C.J. Barnett: Modern, sustainable government! You are meant to be providing modern, sustainable transport, not government. What a new concept. How did you pluck that one out of the air? Modern, sustainable government - that is, the survival of the Labor Party at all costs. Congratulations; you have invented new terminology. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Yes, modern, sustainable government. I have no difficulty with that at all. I am talking about governing in a sustainable way. Obviously, the member for Cottesloe does not understand the concept. That is a demonstration of just how unfit he is to lead a modern political party. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: We start from the proposition, as does any Government when it puts forward a metropolitan region scheme amendment, that we support the amendment we are proposing. If we did not support the amendment, we would not be proposing it. The previous Government passed hundreds of metropolitan region scheme amendments, all of which it supported. There is nothing surprising in that. Mr Speaker, we expect to receive an endorsement for the amendment because we believe fundamentally that it is the correct solution for Perth. We are, therefore, confident that we will receive approval from the Western Australian Planning Commission; we cannot guarantee that, but we are confident we will get that approval. However, in this process people are asking us what will happen to the land if the amendment goes ahead. We quite properly want to get their input into that question at the same time. The Government, therefore, expects to get the amendment approved; otherwise, it would not have put it forward. We could have gone down the path that was taken by the previous Government when it put the Fremantle eastern bypass into the scheme by legislation. We could have got it through this House and through the upper House; however, we decided not to do that. We want to increase the community’s consciousness. We want the community to understand the paradigm shift that must be made in planning for the future and planning sustainability. We do not apologise and we do not pretend in any way, shape or form that we are neutral on the Fremantle eastern bypass. It is a disaster for Fremantle and it is a disaster for Perth.
Mr M.F. Board: That’s garbage. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: No, that is true. However, that is not the fundamental reason that we oppose it. We oppose it because we believe it is an outdated solution to a real planning problem. The idea that we can continue to mow down existing suburbs to expand the network to deal with growing congestion is outdated. That notion has been abandoned elsewhere around the world. We are determined to deliver modern, sustainable government. Mr C.J. Barnett: Modern, sustainable government! You are meant to be providing modern, sustainable transport, not government. What a new concept. How did you pluck that one out of the air? Modern, sustainable government - that is, the survival of the Labor Party at all costs. Congratulations; you have invented new terminology. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Yes, modern, sustainable government. I have no difficulty with that at all. I am talking about governing in a sustainable way. Obviously, the member for Cottesloe does not understand the concept. That is a demonstration of just how unfit he is to lead a modern political party. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: We start from the proposition, as does any Government when it puts forward a metropolitan region scheme amendment, that we support the amendment we are proposing. If we did not support the amendment, we would not be proposing it. The previous Government passed hundreds of metropolitan region scheme amendments, all of which it supported. There is nothing surprising in that. Mr Speaker, we expect to receive an endorsement for the amendment because we believe fundamentally that it is the correct solution for Perth. We are, therefore, confident that we will receive approval from the Western Australian Planning Commission; we cannot guarantee that, but we are confident we will get that approval. However, in this process people are asking us what will happen to the land if the amendment goes ahead. We quite properly want to get their input into that question at the same time. The Government, therefore, expects to get the amendment approved; otherwise, it would not have put it forward. We could have gone down the path that was taken by the previous Government when it put the Fremantle eastern bypass into the scheme by legislation. We could have got it through this House and through the upper House; however, we decided not to do that. We want to increase the community’s consciousness. We want the community to understand the paradigm shift that must be made in planning for the future and planning sustainability. We do not apologise and we do not pretend in any way, shape or form that we are neutral on the Fremantle eastern bypass. It is a disaster for Fremantle and it is a disaster for Perth.
Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: No, that is true. However, that is not the fundamental reason that we oppose it. We oppose it because we believe it is an outdated solution to a real planning problem. The idea that we can continue to mow down existing suburbs to expand the network to deal with growing congestion is outdated. That notion has been abandoned elsewhere around the world. We are determined to deliver modern, sustainable government. Mr C.J. Barnett: Modern, sustainable government! You are meant to be providing modern, sustainable transport, not government. What a new concept. How did you pluck that one out of the air? Modern, sustainable government - that is, the survival of the Labor Party at all costs. Congratulations; you have invented new terminology. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Yes, modern, sustainable government. I have no difficulty with that at all. I am talking about governing in a sustainable way. Obviously, the member for Cottesloe does not understand the concept. That is a demonstration of just how unfit he is to lead a modern political party. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: We start from the proposition, as does any Government when it puts forward a metropolitan region scheme amendment, that we support the amendment we are proposing. If we did not support the amendment, we would not be proposing it. The previous Government passed hundreds of metropolitan region scheme amendments, all of which it supported. There is nothing surprising in that. Mr Speaker, we expect to receive an endorsement for the amendment because we believe fundamentally that it is the correct solution for Perth. We are, therefore, confident that we will receive approval from the Western Australian Planning Commission; we cannot guarantee that, but we are confident we will get that approval. However, in this process people are asking us what will happen to the land if the amendment goes ahead. We quite properly want to get their input into that question at the same time. The Government, therefore, expects to get the amendment approved; otherwise, it would not have put it forward. We could have gone down the path that was taken by the previous Government when it put the Fremantle eastern bypass into the scheme by legislation. We could have got it through this House and through the upper House; however, we decided not to do that. We want to increase the community’s consciousness. We want the community to understand the paradigm shift that must be made in planning for the future and planning sustainability. We do not apologise and we do not pretend in any way, shape or form that we are neutral on the Fremantle eastern bypass. It is a disaster for Fremantle and it is a disaster for Perth.
Mr C.J. Barnett: Modern, sustainable government! You are meant to be providing modern, sustainable transport, not government. What a new concept. How did you pluck that one out of the air? Modern, sustainable government - that is, the survival of the Labor Party at all costs. Congratulations; you have invented new terminology. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Yes, modern, sustainable government. I have no difficulty with that at all. I am talking about governing in a sustainable way. Obviously, the member for Cottesloe does not understand the concept. That is a demonstration of just how unfit he is to lead a modern political party. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: We start from the proposition, as does any Government when it puts forward a metropolitan region scheme amendment, that we support the amendment we are proposing. If we did not support the amendment, we would not be proposing it. The previous Government passed hundreds of metropolitan region scheme amendments, all of which it supported. There is nothing surprising in that. Mr Speaker, we expect to receive an endorsement for the amendment because we believe fundamentally that it is the correct solution for Perth. We are, therefore, confident that we will receive approval from the Western Australian Planning Commission; we cannot guarantee that, but we are confident we will get that approval. However, in this process people are asking us what will happen to the land if the amendment goes ahead. We quite properly want to get their input into that question at the same time. The Government, therefore, expects to get the amendment approved; otherwise, it would not have put it forward. We could have gone down the path that was taken by the previous Government when it put the Fremantle eastern bypass into the scheme by legislation. We could have got it through this House and through the upper House; however, we decided not to do that. We want to increase the community’s consciousness. We want the community to understand the paradigm shift that must be made in planning for the future and planning sustainability. We do not apologise and we do not pretend in any way, shape or form that we are neutral on the Fremantle eastern bypass. It is a disaster for Fremantle and it is a disaster for Perth.
Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Yes, modern, sustainable government. I have no difficulty with that at all. I am talking about governing in a sustainable way. Obviously, the member for Cottesloe does not understand the concept. That is a demonstration of just how unfit he is to lead a modern political party. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: We start from the proposition, as does any Government when it puts forward a metropolitan region scheme amendment, that we support the amendment we are proposing. If we did not support the amendment, we would not be proposing it. The previous Government passed hundreds of metropolitan region scheme amendments, all of which it supported. There is nothing surprising in that. Mr Speaker, we expect to receive an endorsement for the amendment because we believe fundamentally that it is the correct solution for Perth. We are, therefore, confident that we will receive approval from the Western Australian Planning Commission; we cannot guarantee that, but we are confident we will get that approval. However, in this process people are asking us what will happen to the land if the amendment goes ahead. We quite properly want to get their input into that question at the same time. The Government, therefore, expects to get the amendment approved; otherwise, it would not have put it forward. We could have gone down the path that was taken by the previous Government when it put the Fremantle eastern bypass into the scheme by legislation. We could have got it through this House and through the upper House; however, we decided not to do that. We want to increase the community’s consciousness. We want the community to understand the paradigm shift that must be made in planning for the future and planning sustainability. We do not apologise and we do not pretend in any way, shape or form that we are neutral on the Fremantle eastern bypass. It is a disaster for Fremantle and it is a disaster for Perth.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: We start from the proposition, as does any Government when it puts forward a metropolitan region scheme amendment, that we support the amendment we are proposing. If we did not support the amendment, we would not be proposing it. The previous Government passed hundreds of metropolitan region scheme amendments, all of which it supported. There is nothing surprising in that. Mr Speaker, we expect to receive an endorsement for the amendment because we believe fundamentally that it is the correct solution for Perth. We are, therefore, confident that we will receive approval from the Western Australian Planning Commission; we cannot guarantee that, but we are confident we will get that approval. However, in this process people are asking us what will happen to the land if the amendment goes ahead. We quite properly want to get their input into that question at the same time. The Government, therefore, expects to get the amendment approved; otherwise, it would not have put it forward. We could have gone down the path that was taken by the previous Government when it put the Fremantle eastern bypass into the scheme by legislation. We could have got it through this House and through the upper House; however, we decided not to do that. We want to increase the community’s consciousness. We want the community to understand the paradigm shift that must be made in planning for the future and planning sustainability. We do not apologise and we do not pretend in any way, shape or form that we are neutral on the Fremantle eastern bypass. It is a disaster for Fremantle and it is a disaster for Perth.
The SPEAKER: Members! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: We start from the proposition, as does any Government when it puts forward a metropolitan region scheme amendment, that we support the amendment we are proposing. If we did not support the amendment, we would not be proposing it. The previous Government passed hundreds of metropolitan region scheme amendments, all of which it supported. There is nothing surprising in that. Mr Speaker, we expect to receive an endorsement for the amendment because we believe fundamentally that it is the correct solution for Perth. We are, therefore, confident that we will receive approval from the Western Australian Planning Commission; we cannot guarantee that, but we are confident we will get that approval. However, in this process people are asking us what will happen to the land if the amendment goes ahead. We quite properly want to get their input into that question at the same time. The Government, therefore, expects to get the amendment approved; otherwise, it would not have put it forward. We could have gone down the path that was taken by the previous Government when it put the Fremantle eastern bypass into the scheme by legislation. We could have got it through this House and through the upper House; however, we decided not to do that. We want to increase the community’s consciousness. We want the community to understand the paradigm shift that must be made in planning for the future and planning sustainability. We do not apologise and we do not pretend in any way, shape or form that we are neutral on the Fremantle eastern bypass. It is a disaster for Fremantle and it is a disaster for Perth.
Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: We start from the proposition, as does any Government when it puts forward a metropolitan region scheme amendment, that we support the amendment we are proposing. If we did not support the amendment, we would not be proposing it. The previous Government passed hundreds of metropolitan region scheme amendments, all of which it supported. There is nothing surprising in that. Mr Speaker, we expect to receive an endorsement for the amendment because we believe fundamentally that it is the correct solution for Perth. We are, therefore, confident that we will receive approval from the Western Australian Planning Commission; we cannot guarantee that, but we are confident we will get that approval. However, in this process people are asking us what will happen to the land if the amendment goes ahead. We quite properly want to get their input into that question at the same time. The Government, therefore, expects to get the amendment approved; otherwise, it would not have put it forward. We could have gone down the path that was taken by the previous Government when it put the Fremantle eastern bypass into the scheme by legislation. We could have got it through this House and through the upper House; however, we decided not to do that. We want to increase the community’s consciousness. We want the community to understand the paradigm shift that must be made in planning for the future and planning sustainability. We do not apologise and we do not pretend in any way, shape or form that we are neutral on the Fremantle eastern bypass. It is a disaster for Fremantle and it is a disaster for Perth.
Mr Speaker, we expect to receive an endorsement for the amendment because we believe fundamentally that it is the correct solution for Perth. We are, therefore, confident that we will receive approval from the Western Australian Planning Commission; we cannot guarantee that, but we are confident we will get that approval. However, in this process people are asking us what will happen to the land if the amendment goes ahead. We quite properly want to get their input into that question at the same time. The Government, therefore, expects to get the amendment approved; otherwise, it would not have put it forward. We could have gone down the path that was taken by the previous Government when it put the Fremantle eastern bypass into the scheme by legislation. We could have got it through this House and through the upper House; however, we decided not to do that. We want to increase the community’s consciousness. We want the community to understand the paradigm shift that must be made in planning for the future and planning sustainability. We do not apologise and we do not pretend in any way, shape or form that we are neutral on the Fremantle eastern bypass. It is a disaster for Fremantle and it is a disaster for Perth.
We could have gone down the path that was taken by the previous Government when it put the Fremantle eastern bypass into the scheme by legislation. We could have got it through this House and through the upper House; however, we decided not to do that. We want to increase the community’s consciousness. We want the community to understand the paradigm shift that must be made in planning for the future and planning sustainability. We do not apologise and we do not pretend in any way, shape or form that we are neutral on the Fremantle eastern bypass. It is a disaster for Fremantle and it is a disaster for Perth.
(1) Will the minister admit that this form reveals the Government’s intention to proceed with the deletion of the Fremantle eastern bypass regardless of the level of public opposition to the proposal between now and 21 February? (2) If yes to (1) and the proposal is a fait accompli, what does the minister say to the many thousands of residents in the southern suburbs who are putting a great deal of time and effort into preparing considered opposing submissions on this very important issue? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(2) This is an issue that the member has been running in the local media. Behind it is a misunderstanding of the facts. Mr M.F. Board: You told the House that you were going to delete it. Why ask for people’s opinions if you are not going to hear them? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Why ask people’s opinions? Mr Speaker, we would not proceed with an amendment to the metropolitan region scheme if we did not support in principle the amendment and if we did not believe - Mr M.F. Board: You said the decision was made. You did not even let the freight network review committee consider the options. That is how much this decision has already been made. Why put people through all this effort and money? It is a sham. The SPEAKER: Member for Murdoch, if you need to put more detail in your question, I suggest you do so. However, you do not have an opportunity to ask several questions during the answer to the question that you have already asked. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I will answer this question. The Government believes that the Fremantle eastern bypass should be deleted. We believe its introduction by Sir Charles Court into the metropolitan region scheme in the early 1970s was inappropriate. We believed then that it was not appropriate, as it simply transferred into Fremantle a proposal that was originally intended to go through Dalkeith. Mr M.F. Board: That’s garbage. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: No, that is true. However, that is not the fundamental reason that we oppose it. We oppose it because we believe it is an outdated solution to a real planning problem. The idea that we can continue to mow down existing suburbs to expand the network to deal with growing congestion is outdated. That notion has been abandoned elsewhere around the world. We are determined to deliver modern, sustainable government. Mr C.J. Barnett: Modern, sustainable government! You are meant to be providing modern, sustainable transport, not government. What a new concept. How did you pluck that one out of the air? Modern, sustainable government - that is, the survival of the Labor Party at all costs. Congratulations; you have invented new terminology. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Yes, modern, sustainable government. I have no difficulty with that at all. I am talking about governing in a sustainable way. Obviously, the member for Cottesloe does not understand the concept. That is a demonstration of just how unfit he is to lead a modern political party. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: We start from the proposition, as does any Government when it puts forward a metropolitan region scheme amendment, that we support the amendment we are proposing. If we did not support the amendment, we would not be proposing it. The previous Government passed hundreds of metropolitan region scheme amendments, all of which it supported. There is nothing surprising in that. Mr Speaker, we expect to receive an endorsement for the amendment because we believe fundamentally that it is the correct solution for Perth. We are, therefore, confident that we will receive approval from the Western Australian Planning Commission; we cannot guarantee that, but we are confident we will get that approval. However, in this process people are asking us what will happen to the land if the amendment goes ahead. We quite properly want to get their input into that question at the same time. The Government, therefore, expects to get the amendment approved; otherwise, it would not have put it forward. We could have gone down the path that was taken by the previous Government when it put the Fremantle eastern bypass into the scheme by legislation. We could have got it through this House and through the upper House; however, we decided not to do that. We want to increase the community’s consciousness. We want the community to understand the paradigm shift that must be made in planning for the future and planning sustainability. We do not apologise and we do not pretend in any way, shape or form that we are neutral on the Fremantle eastern bypass. It is a disaster for Fremantle and it is a disaster for Perth.
(2) If yes to (1) and the proposal is a fait accompli, what does the minister say to the many thousands of residents in the southern suburbs who are putting a great deal of time and effort into preparing considered opposing submissions on this very important issue? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(2) This is an issue that the member has been running in the local media. Behind it is a misunderstanding of the facts. Mr M.F. Board: You told the House that you were going to delete it. Why ask for people’s opinions if you are not going to hear them? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Why ask people’s opinions? Mr Speaker, we would not proceed with an amendment to the metropolitan region scheme if we did not support in principle the amendment and if we did not believe - Mr M.F. Board: You said the decision was made. You did not even let the freight network review committee consider the options. That is how much this decision has already been made. Why put people through all this effort and money? It is a sham. The SPEAKER: Member for Murdoch, if you need to put more detail in your question, I suggest you do so. However, you do not have an opportunity to ask several questions during the answer to the question that you have already asked. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I will answer this question. The Government believes that the Fremantle eastern bypass should be deleted. We believe its introduction by Sir Charles Court into the metropolitan region scheme in the early 1970s was inappropriate. We believed then that it was not appropriate, as it simply transferred into Fremantle a proposal that was originally intended to go through Dalkeith. Mr M.F. Board: That’s garbage. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: No, that is true. However, that is not the fundamental reason that we oppose it. We oppose it because we believe it is an outdated solution to a real planning problem. The idea that we can continue to mow down existing suburbs to expand the network to deal with growing congestion is outdated. That notion has been abandoned elsewhere around the world. We are determined to deliver modern, sustainable government. Mr C.J. Barnett: Modern, sustainable government! You are meant to be providing modern, sustainable transport, not government. What a new concept. How did you pluck that one out of the air? Modern, sustainable government - that is, the survival of the Labor Party at all costs. Congratulations; you have invented new terminology. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Yes, modern, sustainable government. I have no difficulty with that at all. I am talking about governing in a sustainable way. Obviously, the member for Cottesloe does not understand the concept. That is a demonstration of just how unfit he is to lead a modern political party. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: We start from the proposition, as does any Government when it puts forward a metropolitan region scheme amendment, that we support the amendment we are proposing. If we did not support the amendment, we would not be proposing it. The previous Government passed hundreds of metropolitan region scheme amendments, all of which it supported. There is nothing surprising in that. Mr Speaker, we expect to receive an endorsement for the amendment because we believe fundamentally that it is the correct solution for Perth. We are, therefore, confident that we will receive approval from the Western Australian Planning Commission; we cannot guarantee that, but we are confident we will get that approval. However, in this process people are asking us what will happen to the land if the amendment goes ahead. We quite properly want to get their input into that question at the same time. The Government, therefore, expects to get the amendment approved; otherwise, it would not have put it forward. We could have gone down the path that was taken by the previous Government when it put the Fremantle eastern bypass into the scheme by legislation. We could have got it through this House and through the upper House; however, we decided not to do that. We want to increase the community’s consciousness. We want the community to understand the paradigm shift that must be made in planning for the future and planning sustainability. We do not apologise and we do not pretend in any way, shape or form that we are neutral on the Fremantle eastern bypass. It is a disaster for Fremantle and it is a disaster for Perth.
Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(2) This is an issue that the member has been running in the local media. Behind it is a misunderstanding of the facts. Mr M.F. Board: You told the House that you were going to delete it. Why ask for people’s opinions if you are not going to hear them? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Why ask people’s opinions? Mr Speaker, we would not proceed with an amendment to the metropolitan region scheme if we did not support in principle the amendment and if we did not believe - Mr M.F. Board: You said the decision was made. You did not even let the freight network review committee consider the options. That is how much this decision has already been made. Why put people through all this effort and money? It is a sham. The SPEAKER: Member for Murdoch, if you need to put more detail in your question, I suggest you do so. However, you do not have an opportunity to ask several questions during the answer to the question that you have already asked. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I will answer this question. The Government believes that the Fremantle eastern bypass should be deleted. We believe its introduction by Sir Charles Court into the metropolitan region scheme in the early 1970s was inappropriate. We believed then that it was not appropriate, as it simply transferred into Fremantle a proposal that was originally intended to go through Dalkeith. Mr M.F. Board: That’s garbage. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: No, that is true. However, that is not the fundamental reason that we oppose it. We oppose it because we believe it is an outdated solution to a real planning problem. The idea that we can continue to mow down existing suburbs to expand the network to deal with growing congestion is outdated. That notion has been abandoned elsewhere around the world. We are determined to deliver modern, sustainable government. Mr C.J. Barnett: Modern, sustainable government! You are meant to be providing modern, sustainable transport, not government. What a new concept. How did you pluck that one out of the air? Modern, sustainable government - that is, the survival of the Labor Party at all costs. Congratulations; you have invented new terminology. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Yes, modern, sustainable government. I have no difficulty with that at all. I am talking about governing in a sustainable way. Obviously, the member for Cottesloe does not understand the concept. That is a demonstration of just how unfit he is to lead a modern political party. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: We start from the proposition, as does any Government when it puts forward a metropolitan region scheme amendment, that we support the amendment we are proposing. If we did not support the amendment, we would not be proposing it. The previous Government passed hundreds of metropolitan region scheme amendments, all of which it supported. There is nothing surprising in that. Mr Speaker, we expect to receive an endorsement for the amendment because we believe fundamentally that it is the correct solution for Perth. We are, therefore, confident that we will receive approval from the Western Australian Planning Commission; we cannot guarantee that, but we are confident we will get that approval. However, in this process people are asking us what will happen to the land if the amendment goes ahead. We quite properly want to get their input into that question at the same time. The Government, therefore, expects to get the amendment approved; otherwise, it would not have put it forward. We could have gone down the path that was taken by the previous Government when it put the Fremantle eastern bypass into the scheme by legislation. We could have got it through this House and through the upper House; however, we decided not to do that. We want to increase the community’s consciousness. We want the community to understand the paradigm shift that must be made in planning for the future and planning sustainability. We do not apologise and we do not pretend in any way, shape or form that we are neutral on the Fremantle eastern bypass. It is a disaster for Fremantle and it is a disaster for Perth.
(1)-(2) This is an issue that the member has been running in the local media. Behind it is a misunderstanding of the facts. Mr M.F. Board: You told the House that you were going to delete it. Why ask for people’s opinions if you are not going to hear them? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Why ask people’s opinions? Mr Speaker, we would not proceed with an amendment to the metropolitan region scheme if we did not support in principle the amendment and if we did not believe - Mr M.F. Board: You said the decision was made. You did not even let the freight network review committee consider the options. That is how much this decision has already been made. Why put people through all this effort and money? It is a sham. The SPEAKER: Member for Murdoch, if you need to put more detail in your question, I suggest you do so. However, you do not have an opportunity to ask several questions during the answer to the question that you have already asked. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I will answer this question. The Government believes that the Fremantle eastern bypass should be deleted. We believe its introduction by Sir Charles Court into the metropolitan region scheme in the early 1970s was inappropriate. We believed then that it was not appropriate, as it simply transferred into Fremantle a proposal that was originally intended to go through Dalkeith. Mr M.F. Board: That’s garbage. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: No, that is true. However, that is not the fundamental reason that we oppose it. We oppose it because we believe it is an outdated solution to a real planning problem. The idea that we can continue to mow down existing suburbs to expand the network to deal with growing congestion is outdated. That notion has been abandoned elsewhere around the world. We are determined to deliver modern, sustainable government. Mr C.J. Barnett: Modern, sustainable government! You are meant to be providing modern, sustainable transport, not government. What a new concept. How did you pluck that one out of the air? Modern, sustainable government - that is, the survival of the Labor Party at all costs. Congratulations; you have invented new terminology. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Yes, modern, sustainable government. I have no difficulty with that at all. I am talking about governing in a sustainable way. Obviously, the member for Cottesloe does not understand the concept. That is a demonstration of just how unfit he is to lead a modern political party. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: We start from the proposition, as does any Government when it puts forward a metropolitan region scheme amendment, that we support the amendment we are proposing. If we did not support the amendment, we would not be proposing it. The previous Government passed hundreds of metropolitan region scheme amendments, all of which it supported. There is nothing surprising in that. Mr Speaker, we expect to receive an endorsement for the amendment because we believe fundamentally that it is the correct solution for Perth. We are, therefore, confident that we will receive approval from the Western Australian Planning Commission; we cannot guarantee that, but we are confident we will get that approval. However, in this process people are asking us what will happen to the land if the amendment goes ahead. We quite properly want to get their input into that question at the same time. The Government, therefore, expects to get the amendment approved; otherwise, it would not have put it forward. We could have gone down the path that was taken by the previous Government when it put the Fremantle eastern bypass into the scheme by legislation. We could have got it through this House and through the upper House; however, we decided not to do that. We want to increase the community’s consciousness. We want the community to understand the paradigm shift that must be made in planning for the future and planning sustainability. We do not apologise and we do not pretend in any way, shape or form that we are neutral on the Fremantle eastern bypass. It is a disaster for Fremantle and it is a disaster for Perth.
Mr M.F. Board: You told the House that you were going to delete it. Why ask for people’s opinions if you are not going to hear them? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Why ask people’s opinions? Mr Speaker, we would not proceed with an amendment to the metropolitan region scheme if we did not support in principle the amendment and if we did not believe - Mr M.F. Board: You said the decision was made. You did not even let the freight network review committee consider the options. That is how much this decision has already been made. Why put people through all this effort and money? It is a sham. The SPEAKER: Member for Murdoch, if you need to put more detail in your question, I suggest you do so. However, you do not have an opportunity to ask several questions during the answer to the question that you have already asked. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I will answer this question. The Government believes that the Fremantle eastern bypass should be deleted. We believe its introduction by Sir Charles Court into the metropolitan region scheme in the early 1970s was inappropriate. We believed then that it was not appropriate, as it simply transferred into Fremantle a proposal that was originally intended to go through Dalkeith. Mr M.F. Board: That’s garbage. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: No, that is true. However, that is not the fundamental reason that we oppose it. We oppose it because we believe it is an outdated solution to a real planning problem. The idea that we can continue to mow down existing suburbs to expand the network to deal with growing congestion is outdated. That notion has been abandoned elsewhere around the world. We are determined to deliver modern, sustainable government. Mr C.J. Barnett: Modern, sustainable government! You are meant to be providing modern, sustainable transport, not government. What a new concept. How did you pluck that one out of the air? Modern, sustainable government - that is, the survival of the Labor Party at all costs. Congratulations; you have invented new terminology. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Yes, modern, sustainable government. I have no difficulty with that at all. I am talking about governing in a sustainable way. Obviously, the member for Cottesloe does not understand the concept. That is a demonstration of just how unfit he is to lead a modern political party. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: We start from the proposition, as does any Government when it puts forward a metropolitan region scheme amendment, that we support the amendment we are proposing. If we did not support the amendment, we would not be proposing it. The previous Government passed hundreds of metropolitan region scheme amendments, all of which it supported. There is nothing surprising in that. Mr Speaker, we expect to receive an endorsement for the amendment because we believe fundamentally that it is the correct solution for Perth. We are, therefore, confident that we will receive approval from the Western Australian Planning Commission; we cannot guarantee that, but we are confident we will get that approval. However, in this process people are asking us what will happen to the land if the amendment goes ahead. We quite properly want to get their input into that question at the same time. The Government, therefore, expects to get the amendment approved; otherwise, it would not have put it forward. We could have gone down the path that was taken by the previous Government when it put the Fremantle eastern bypass into the scheme by legislation. We could have got it through this House and through the upper House; however, we decided not to do that. We want to increase the community’s consciousness. We want the community to understand the paradigm shift that must be made in planning for the future and planning sustainability. We do not apologise and we do not pretend in any way, shape or form that we are neutral on the Fremantle eastern bypass. It is a disaster for Fremantle and it is a disaster for Perth.
Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Why ask people’s opinions? Mr Speaker, we would not proceed with an amendment to the metropolitan region scheme if we did not support in principle the amendment and if we did not believe - Mr M.F. Board: You said the decision was made. You did not even let the freight network review committee consider the options. That is how much this decision has already been made. Why put people through all this effort and money? It is a sham. The SPEAKER: Member for Murdoch, if you need to put more detail in your question, I suggest you do so. However, you do not have an opportunity to ask several questions during the answer to the question that you have already asked. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I will answer this question. The Government believes that the Fremantle eastern bypass should be deleted. We believe its introduction by Sir Charles Court into the metropolitan region scheme in the early 1970s was inappropriate. We believed then that it was not appropriate, as it simply transferred into Fremantle a proposal that was originally intended to go through Dalkeith. Mr M.F. Board: That’s garbage. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: No, that is true. However, that is not the fundamental reason that we oppose it. We oppose it because we believe it is an outdated solution to a real planning problem. The idea that we can continue to mow down existing suburbs to expand the network to deal with growing congestion is outdated. That notion has been abandoned elsewhere around the world. We are determined to deliver modern, sustainable government. Mr C.J. Barnett: Modern, sustainable government! You are meant to be providing modern, sustainable transport, not government. What a new concept. How did you pluck that one out of the air? Modern, sustainable government - that is, the survival of the Labor Party at all costs. Congratulations; you have invented new terminology. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Yes, modern, sustainable government. I have no difficulty with that at all. I am talking about governing in a sustainable way. Obviously, the member for Cottesloe does not understand the concept. That is a demonstration of just how unfit he is to lead a modern political party. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: We start from the proposition, as does any Government when it puts forward a metropolitan region scheme amendment, that we support the amendment we are proposing. If we did not support the amendment, we would not be proposing it. The previous Government passed hundreds of metropolitan region scheme amendments, all of which it supported. There is nothing surprising in that. Mr Speaker, we expect to receive an endorsement for the amendment because we believe fundamentally that it is the correct solution for Perth. We are, therefore, confident that we will receive approval from the Western Australian Planning Commission; we cannot guarantee that, but we are confident we will get that approval. However, in this process people are asking us what will happen to the land if the amendment goes ahead. We quite properly want to get their input into that question at the same time. The Government, therefore, expects to get the amendment approved; otherwise, it would not have put it forward. We could have gone down the path that was taken by the previous Government when it put the Fremantle eastern bypass into the scheme by legislation. We could have got it through this House and through the upper House; however, we decided not to do that. We want to increase the community’s consciousness. We want the community to understand the paradigm shift that must be made in planning for the future and planning sustainability. We do not apologise and we do not pretend in any way, shape or form that we are neutral on the Fremantle eastern bypass. It is a disaster for Fremantle and it is a disaster for Perth.
Mr M.F. Board: You said the decision was made. You did not even let the freight network review committee consider the options. That is how much this decision has already been made. Why put people through all this effort and money? It is a sham. The SPEAKER: Member for Murdoch, if you need to put more detail in your question, I suggest you do so. However, you do not have an opportunity to ask several questions during the answer to the question that you have already asked. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I will answer this question. The Government believes that the Fremantle eastern bypass should be deleted. We believe its introduction by Sir Charles Court into the metropolitan region scheme in the early 1970s was inappropriate. We believed then that it was not appropriate, as it simply transferred into Fremantle a proposal that was originally intended to go through Dalkeith. Mr M.F. Board: That’s garbage. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: No, that is true. However, that is not the fundamental reason that we oppose it. We oppose it because we believe it is an outdated solution to a real planning problem. The idea that we can continue to mow down existing suburbs to expand the network to deal with growing congestion is outdated. That notion has been abandoned elsewhere around the world. We are determined to deliver modern, sustainable government. Mr C.J. Barnett: Modern, sustainable government! You are meant to be providing modern, sustainable transport, not government. What a new concept. How did you pluck that one out of the air? Modern, sustainable government - that is, the survival of the Labor Party at all costs. Congratulations; you have invented new terminology. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Yes, modern, sustainable government. I have no difficulty with that at all. I am talking about governing in a sustainable way. Obviously, the member for Cottesloe does not understand the concept. That is a demonstration of just how unfit he is to lead a modern political party. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: We start from the proposition, as does any Government when it puts forward a metropolitan region scheme amendment, that we support the amendment we are proposing. If we did not support the amendment, we would not be proposing it. The previous Government passed hundreds of metropolitan region scheme amendments, all of which it supported. There is nothing surprising in that. Mr Speaker, we expect to receive an endorsement for the amendment because we believe fundamentally that it is the correct solution for Perth. We are, therefore, confident that we will receive approval from the Western Australian Planning Commission; we cannot guarantee that, but we are confident we will get that approval. However, in this process people are asking us what will happen to the land if the amendment goes ahead. We quite properly want to get their input into that question at the same time. The Government, therefore, expects to get the amendment approved; otherwise, it would not have put it forward. We could have gone down the path that was taken by the previous Government when it put the Fremantle eastern bypass into the scheme by legislation. We could have got it through this House and through the upper House; however, we decided not to do that. We want to increase the community’s consciousness. We want the community to understand the paradigm shift that must be made in planning for the future and planning sustainability. We do not apologise and we do not pretend in any way, shape or form that we are neutral on the Fremantle eastern bypass. It is a disaster for Fremantle and it is a disaster for Perth.
The SPEAKER: Member for Murdoch, if you need to put more detail in your question, I suggest you do so. However, you do not have an opportunity to ask several questions during the answer to the question that you have already asked. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I will answer this question. The Government believes that the Fremantle eastern bypass should be deleted. We believe its introduction by Sir Charles Court into the metropolitan region scheme in the early 1970s was inappropriate. We believed then that it was not appropriate, as it simply transferred into Fremantle a proposal that was originally intended to go through Dalkeith. Mr M.F. Board: That’s garbage. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: No, that is true. However, that is not the fundamental reason that we oppose it. We oppose it because we believe it is an outdated solution to a real planning problem. The idea that we can continue to mow down existing suburbs to expand the network to deal with growing congestion is outdated. That notion has been abandoned elsewhere around the world. We are determined to deliver modern, sustainable government. Mr C.J. Barnett: Modern, sustainable government! You are meant to be providing modern, sustainable transport, not government. What a new concept. How did you pluck that one out of the air? Modern, sustainable government - that is, the survival of the Labor Party at all costs. Congratulations; you have invented new terminology. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Yes, modern, sustainable government. I have no difficulty with that at all. I am talking about governing in a sustainable way. Obviously, the member for Cottesloe does not understand the concept. That is a demonstration of just how unfit he is to lead a modern political party. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: We start from the proposition, as does any Government when it puts forward a metropolitan region scheme amendment, that we support the amendment we are proposing. If we did not support the amendment, we would not be proposing it. The previous Government passed hundreds of metropolitan region scheme amendments, all of which it supported. There is nothing surprising in that. Mr Speaker, we expect to receive an endorsement for the amendment because we believe fundamentally that it is the correct solution for Perth. We are, therefore, confident that we will receive approval from the Western Australian Planning Commission; we cannot guarantee that, but we are confident we will get that approval. However, in this process people are asking us what will happen to the land if the amendment goes ahead. We quite properly want to get their input into that question at the same time. The Government, therefore, expects to get the amendment approved; otherwise, it would not have put it forward. We could have gone down the path that was taken by the previous Government when it put the Fremantle eastern bypass into the scheme by legislation. We could have got it through this House and through the upper House; however, we decided not to do that. We want to increase the community’s consciousness. We want the community to understand the paradigm shift that must be made in planning for the future and planning sustainability. We do not apologise and we do not pretend in any way, shape or form that we are neutral on the Fremantle eastern bypass. It is a disaster for Fremantle and it is a disaster for Perth.
Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I will answer this question. The Government believes that the Fremantle eastern bypass should be deleted. We believe its introduction by Sir Charles Court into the metropolitan region scheme in the early 1970s was inappropriate. We believed then that it was not appropriate, as it simply transferred into Fremantle a proposal that was originally intended to go through Dalkeith. Mr M.F. Board: That’s garbage. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: No, that is true. However, that is not the fundamental reason that we oppose it. We oppose it because we believe it is an outdated solution to a real planning problem. The idea that we can continue to mow down existing suburbs to expand the network to deal with growing congestion is outdated. That notion has been abandoned elsewhere around the world. We are determined to deliver modern, sustainable government. Mr C.J. Barnett: Modern, sustainable government! You are meant to be providing modern, sustainable transport, not government. What a new concept. How did you pluck that one out of the air? Modern, sustainable government - that is, the survival of the Labor Party at all costs. Congratulations; you have invented new terminology. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Yes, modern, sustainable government. I have no difficulty with that at all. I am talking about governing in a sustainable way. Obviously, the member for Cottesloe does not understand the concept. That is a demonstration of just how unfit he is to lead a modern political party. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: We start from the proposition, as does any Government when it puts forward a metropolitan region scheme amendment, that we support the amendment we are proposing. If we did not support the amendment, we would not be proposing it. The previous Government passed hundreds of metropolitan region scheme amendments, all of which it supported. There is nothing surprising in that. Mr Speaker, we expect to receive an endorsement for the amendment because we believe fundamentally that it is the correct solution for Perth. We are, therefore, confident that we will receive approval from the Western Australian Planning Commission; we cannot guarantee that, but we are confident we will get that approval. However, in this process people are asking us what will happen to the land if the amendment goes ahead. We quite properly want to get their input into that question at the same time. The Government, therefore, expects to get the amendment approved; otherwise, it would not have put it forward. We could have gone down the path that was taken by the previous Government when it put the Fremantle eastern bypass into the scheme by legislation. We could have got it through this House and through the upper House; however, we decided not to do that. We want to increase the community’s consciousness. We want the community to understand the paradigm shift that must be made in planning for the future and planning sustainability. We do not apologise and we do not pretend in any way, shape or form that we are neutral on the Fremantle eastern bypass. It is a disaster for Fremantle and it is a disaster for Perth.
Mr M.F. Board: That’s garbage. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: No, that is true. However, that is not the fundamental reason that we oppose it. We oppose it because we believe it is an outdated solution to a real planning problem. The idea that we can continue to mow down existing suburbs to expand the network to deal with growing congestion is outdated. That notion has been abandoned elsewhere around the world. We are determined to deliver modern, sustainable government. Mr C.J. Barnett: Modern, sustainable government! You are meant to be providing modern, sustainable transport, not government. What a new concept. How did you pluck that one out of the air? Modern, sustainable government - that is, the survival of the Labor Party at all costs. Congratulations; you have invented new terminology. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Yes, modern, sustainable government. I have no difficulty with that at all. I am talking about governing in a sustainable way. Obviously, the member for Cottesloe does not understand the concept. That is a demonstration of just how unfit he is to lead a modern political party. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: We start from the proposition, as does any Government when it puts forward a metropolitan region scheme amendment, that we support the amendment we are proposing. If we did not support the amendment, we would not be proposing it. The previous Government passed hundreds of metropolitan region scheme amendments, all of which it supported. There is nothing surprising in that. Mr Speaker, we expect to receive an endorsement for the amendment because we believe fundamentally that it is the correct solution for Perth. We are, therefore, confident that we will receive approval from the Western Australian Planning Commission; we cannot guarantee that, but we are confident we will get that approval. However, in this process people are asking us what will happen to the land if the amendment goes ahead. We quite properly want to get their input into that question at the same time. The Government, therefore, expects to get the amendment approved; otherwise, it would not have put it forward. We could have gone down the path that was taken by the previous Government when it put the Fremantle eastern bypass into the scheme by legislation. We could have got it through this House and through the upper House; however, we decided not to do that. We want to increase the community’s consciousness. We want the community to understand the paradigm shift that must be made in planning for the future and planning sustainability. We do not apologise and we do not pretend in any way, shape or form that we are neutral on the Fremantle eastern bypass. It is a disaster for Fremantle and it is a disaster for Perth.
Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: No, that is true. However, that is not the fundamental reason that we oppose it. We oppose it because we believe it is an outdated solution to a real planning problem. The idea that we can continue to mow down existing suburbs to expand the network to deal with growing congestion is outdated. That notion has been abandoned elsewhere around the world. We are determined to deliver modern, sustainable government. Mr C.J. Barnett: Modern, sustainable government! You are meant to be providing modern, sustainable transport, not government. What a new concept. How did you pluck that one out of the air? Modern, sustainable government - that is, the survival of the Labor Party at all costs. Congratulations; you have invented new terminology. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Yes, modern, sustainable government. I have no difficulty with that at all. I am talking about governing in a sustainable way. Obviously, the member for Cottesloe does not understand the concept. That is a demonstration of just how unfit he is to lead a modern political party. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: We start from the proposition, as does any Government when it puts forward a metropolitan region scheme amendment, that we support the amendment we are proposing. If we did not support the amendment, we would not be proposing it. The previous Government passed hundreds of metropolitan region scheme amendments, all of which it supported. There is nothing surprising in that. Mr Speaker, we expect to receive an endorsement for the amendment because we believe fundamentally that it is the correct solution for Perth. We are, therefore, confident that we will receive approval from the Western Australian Planning Commission; we cannot guarantee that, but we are confident we will get that approval. However, in this process people are asking us what will happen to the land if the amendment goes ahead. We quite properly want to get their input into that question at the same time. The Government, therefore, expects to get the amendment approved; otherwise, it would not have put it forward. We could have gone down the path that was taken by the previous Government when it put the Fremantle eastern bypass into the scheme by legislation. We could have got it through this House and through the upper House; however, we decided not to do that. We want to increase the community’s consciousness. We want the community to understand the paradigm shift that must be made in planning for the future and planning sustainability. We do not apologise and we do not pretend in any way, shape or form that we are neutral on the Fremantle eastern bypass. It is a disaster for Fremantle and it is a disaster for Perth.
Mr C.J. Barnett: Modern, sustainable government! You are meant to be providing modern, sustainable transport, not government. What a new concept. How did you pluck that one out of the air? Modern, sustainable government - that is, the survival of the Labor Party at all costs. Congratulations; you have invented new terminology. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Yes, modern, sustainable government. I have no difficulty with that at all. I am talking about governing in a sustainable way. Obviously, the member for Cottesloe does not understand the concept. That is a demonstration of just how unfit he is to lead a modern political party. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: We start from the proposition, as does any Government when it puts forward a metropolitan region scheme amendment, that we support the amendment we are proposing. If we did not support the amendment, we would not be proposing it. The previous Government passed hundreds of metropolitan region scheme amendments, all of which it supported. There is nothing surprising in that. Mr Speaker, we expect to receive an endorsement for the amendment because we believe fundamentally that it is the correct solution for Perth. We are, therefore, confident that we will receive approval from the Western Australian Planning Commission; we cannot guarantee that, but we are confident we will get that approval. However, in this process people are asking us what will happen to the land if the amendment goes ahead. We quite properly want to get their input into that question at the same time. The Government, therefore, expects to get the amendment approved; otherwise, it would not have put it forward. We could have gone down the path that was taken by the previous Government when it put the Fremantle eastern bypass into the scheme by legislation. We could have got it through this House and through the upper House; however, we decided not to do that. We want to increase the community’s consciousness. We want the community to understand the paradigm shift that must be made in planning for the future and planning sustainability. We do not apologise and we do not pretend in any way, shape or form that we are neutral on the Fremantle eastern bypass. It is a disaster for Fremantle and it is a disaster for Perth.
Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Yes, modern, sustainable government. I have no difficulty with that at all. I am talking about governing in a sustainable way. Obviously, the member for Cottesloe does not understand the concept. That is a demonstration of just how unfit he is to lead a modern political party. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: We start from the proposition, as does any Government when it puts forward a metropolitan region scheme amendment, that we support the amendment we are proposing. If we did not support the amendment, we would not be proposing it. The previous Government passed hundreds of metropolitan region scheme amendments, all of which it supported. There is nothing surprising in that. Mr Speaker, we expect to receive an endorsement for the amendment because we believe fundamentally that it is the correct solution for Perth. We are, therefore, confident that we will receive approval from the Western Australian Planning Commission; we cannot guarantee that, but we are confident we will get that approval. However, in this process people are asking us what will happen to the land if the amendment goes ahead. We quite properly want to get their input into that question at the same time. The Government, therefore, expects to get the amendment approved; otherwise, it would not have put it forward. We could have gone down the path that was taken by the previous Government when it put the Fremantle eastern bypass into the scheme by legislation. We could have got it through this House and through the upper House; however, we decided not to do that. We want to increase the community’s consciousness. We want the community to understand the paradigm shift that must be made in planning for the future and planning sustainability. We do not apologise and we do not pretend in any way, shape or form that we are neutral on the Fremantle eastern bypass. It is a disaster for Fremantle and it is a disaster for Perth.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: We start from the proposition, as does any Government when it puts forward a metropolitan region scheme amendment, that we support the amendment we are proposing. If we did not support the amendment, we would not be proposing it. The previous Government passed hundreds of metropolitan region scheme amendments, all of which it supported. There is nothing surprising in that. Mr Speaker, we expect to receive an endorsement for the amendment because we believe fundamentally that it is the correct solution for Perth. We are, therefore, confident that we will receive approval from the Western Australian Planning Commission; we cannot guarantee that, but we are confident we will get that approval. However, in this process people are asking us what will happen to the land if the amendment goes ahead. We quite properly want to get their input into that question at the same time. The Government, therefore, expects to get the amendment approved; otherwise, it would not have put it forward. We could have gone down the path that was taken by the previous Government when it put the Fremantle eastern bypass into the scheme by legislation. We could have got it through this House and through the upper House; however, we decided not to do that. We want to increase the community’s consciousness. We want the community to understand the paradigm shift that must be made in planning for the future and planning sustainability. We do not apologise and we do not pretend in any way, shape or form that we are neutral on the Fremantle eastern bypass. It is a disaster for Fremantle and it is a disaster for Perth.
The SPEAKER: Members! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: We start from the proposition, as does any Government when it puts forward a metropolitan region scheme amendment, that we support the amendment we are proposing. If we did not support the amendment, we would not be proposing it. The previous Government passed hundreds of metropolitan region scheme amendments, all of which it supported. There is nothing surprising in that. Mr Speaker, we expect to receive an endorsement for the amendment because we believe fundamentally that it is the correct solution for Perth. We are, therefore, confident that we will receive approval from the Western Australian Planning Commission; we cannot guarantee that, but we are confident we will get that approval. However, in this process people are asking us what will happen to the land if the amendment goes ahead. We quite properly want to get their input into that question at the same time. The Government, therefore, expects to get the amendment approved; otherwise, it would not have put it forward. We could have gone down the path that was taken by the previous Government when it put the Fremantle eastern bypass into the scheme by legislation. We could have got it through this House and through the upper House; however, we decided not to do that. We want to increase the community’s consciousness. We want the community to understand the paradigm shift that must be made in planning for the future and planning sustainability. We do not apologise and we do not pretend in any way, shape or form that we are neutral on the Fremantle eastern bypass. It is a disaster for Fremantle and it is a disaster for Perth.
Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: We start from the proposition, as does any Government when it puts forward a metropolitan region scheme amendment, that we support the amendment we are proposing. If we did not support the amendment, we would not be proposing it. The previous Government passed hundreds of metropolitan region scheme amendments, all of which it supported. There is nothing surprising in that. Mr Speaker, we expect to receive an endorsement for the amendment because we believe fundamentally that it is the correct solution for Perth. We are, therefore, confident that we will receive approval from the Western Australian Planning Commission; we cannot guarantee that, but we are confident we will get that approval. However, in this process people are asking us what will happen to the land if the amendment goes ahead. We quite properly want to get their input into that question at the same time. The Government, therefore, expects to get the amendment approved; otherwise, it would not have put it forward. We could have gone down the path that was taken by the previous Government when it put the Fremantle eastern bypass into the scheme by legislation. We could have got it through this House and through the upper House; however, we decided not to do that. We want to increase the community’s consciousness. We want the community to understand the paradigm shift that must be made in planning for the future and planning sustainability. We do not apologise and we do not pretend in any way, shape or form that we are neutral on the Fremantle eastern bypass. It is a disaster for Fremantle and it is a disaster for Perth.
Mr Speaker, we expect to receive an endorsement for the amendment because we believe fundamentally that it is the correct solution for Perth. We are, therefore, confident that we will receive approval from the Western Australian Planning Commission; we cannot guarantee that, but we are confident we will get that approval. However, in this process people are asking us what will happen to the land if the amendment goes ahead. We quite properly want to get their input into that question at the same time. The Government, therefore, expects to get the amendment approved; otherwise, it would not have put it forward. We could have gone down the path that was taken by the previous Government when it put the Fremantle eastern bypass into the scheme by legislation. We could have got it through this House and through the upper House; however, we decided not to do that. We want to increase the community’s consciousness. We want the community to understand the paradigm shift that must be made in planning for the future and planning sustainability. We do not apologise and we do not pretend in any way, shape or form that we are neutral on the Fremantle eastern bypass. It is a disaster for Fremantle and it is a disaster for Perth.
We could have gone down the path that was taken by the previous Government when it put the Fremantle eastern bypass into the scheme by legislation. We could have got it through this House and through the upper House; however, we decided not to do that. We want to increase the community’s consciousness. We want the community to understand the paradigm shift that must be made in planning for the future and planning sustainability. We do not apologise and we do not pretend in any way, shape or form that we are neutral on the Fremantle eastern bypass. It is a disaster for Fremantle and it is a disaster for Perth.
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.