❓ A parliamentary question regarding the eviction of Mr. Stipkovich for the Perth to Mandurah railway, focusing on land use and the taking order's purpose. The Minister defends the decision, citing prior agreements and compensation.
AnsweredQoN 167Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the government today evicting 72-year-old Mr Stipkovich from his property at 29 Stakehill Road, Karnup to make way for the Perth to Mandurah railway line, and I ask - (1) Is the whole of the land referred to in the taking order still required for the Perth to Mandurah railway line? (2) Has the purpose of the taking order for this land changed? (3) If the purpose of the land has changed, why has the taking order not been amended? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(3) I thank the member for some notice of this question. Of course I understand that Mr Stipkovich, who has resided on that property for a long time, is aged 72 and has grapevines and a range of other things growing on that site, is very unhappy about leaving. I recognise that. I will place on record some background to this matter. This is another example of the hypocrisy of some members of the opposition, particularly those members who have been around for some time. I am not suggesting that the member who asked the question can be put in that category. The member may not be aware that this land was reserved by the Court government in 1994 when part of the land was set aside for rail reservation, and in 1996 another portion of the land was set aside for a road reservation for the widening of Stakehill Road. This government entered into negotiations with Mr Stipkovich, and these types of discussions have been going on for some 10 years. Finally last year the government provided to Mr Stipkovich $580 000, which he used to purchase a house as a replacement property that he told us he would move to. As a result of Mr Stipkovich’s purchasing this property and telling us it was a replacement property, the government paid the stamp duty and all the other associated costs - Mr C.J. Barnett : Do you think it is appropriate to be displacing his home in this way? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : I think it is absolutely appropriate. An allegation has been made that we are making this poor gentleman homeless. It is important to understand that an enormous amount of effort indeed has gone into providing him with alternative accommodation. All the uses of the land fall within the proposed reservation. We have received some advice on whether the proposed uses fall within the description of the taking order, and we have been assured that they do. I have also asked the WA Planning Commission to approach Mr Stipkovich, which it has done, to ascertain whether he would like to move to some adjoining properties we have. He has rejected that offer. I have also made it clear that if there is any land left over at the end of the works - there may be a small portion of land left over - it is to be offered back to him. Resuming this land is a very difficult thing to do. At the end of the day, this is why we need long-range planning. Unfortunately, 30 years ago they did not plan for rail and we have now had to make reservations over that land, as did the previous government. I feel very sorry for this gentleman, but we have done everything we can to accommodate him.
(1) Is the whole of the land referred to in the taking order still required for the Perth to Mandurah railway line? (2) Has the purpose of the taking order for this land changed? (3) If the purpose of the land has changed, why has the taking order not been amended? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(3) I thank the member for some notice of this question. Of course I understand that Mr Stipkovich, who has resided on that property for a long time, is aged 72 and has grapevines and a range of other things growing on that site, is very unhappy about leaving. I recognise that. I will place on record some background to this matter. This is another example of the hypocrisy of some members of the opposition, particularly those members who have been around for some time. I am not suggesting that the member who asked the question can be put in that category. The member may not be aware that this land was reserved by the Court government in 1994 when part of the land was set aside for rail reservation, and in 1996 another portion of the land was set aside for a road reservation for the widening of Stakehill Road. This government entered into negotiations with Mr Stipkovich, and these types of discussions have been going on for some 10 years. Finally last year the government provided to Mr Stipkovich $580 000, which he used to purchase a house as a replacement property that he told us he would move to. As a result of Mr Stipkovich’s purchasing this property and telling us it was a replacement property, the government paid the stamp duty and all the other associated costs - Mr C.J. Barnett : Do you think it is appropriate to be displacing his home in this way? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : I think it is absolutely appropriate. An allegation has been made that we are making this poor gentleman homeless. It is important to understand that an enormous amount of effort indeed has gone into providing him with alternative accommodation. All the uses of the land fall within the proposed reservation. We have received some advice on whether the proposed uses fall within the description of the taking order, and we have been assured that they do. I have also asked the WA Planning Commission to approach Mr Stipkovich, which it has done, to ascertain whether he would like to move to some adjoining properties we have. He has rejected that offer. I have also made it clear that if there is any land left over at the end of the works - there may be a small portion of land left over - it is to be offered back to him. Resuming this land is a very difficult thing to do. At the end of the day, this is why we need long-range planning. Unfortunately, 30 years ago they did not plan for rail and we have now had to make reservations over that land, as did the previous government. I feel very sorry for this gentleman, but we have done everything we can to accommodate him.
(2) Has the purpose of the taking order for this land changed? (3) If the purpose of the land has changed, why has the taking order not been amended? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(3) I thank the member for some notice of this question. Of course I understand that Mr Stipkovich, who has resided on that property for a long time, is aged 72 and has grapevines and a range of other things growing on that site, is very unhappy about leaving. I recognise that. I will place on record some background to this matter. This is another example of the hypocrisy of some members of the opposition, particularly those members who have been around for some time. I am not suggesting that the member who asked the question can be put in that category. The member may not be aware that this land was reserved by the Court government in 1994 when part of the land was set aside for rail reservation, and in 1996 another portion of the land was set aside for a road reservation for the widening of Stakehill Road. This government entered into negotiations with Mr Stipkovich, and these types of discussions have been going on for some 10 years. Finally last year the government provided to Mr Stipkovich $580 000, which he used to purchase a house as a replacement property that he told us he would move to. As a result of Mr Stipkovich’s purchasing this property and telling us it was a replacement property, the government paid the stamp duty and all the other associated costs - Mr C.J. Barnett : Do you think it is appropriate to be displacing his home in this way? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : I think it is absolutely appropriate. An allegation has been made that we are making this poor gentleman homeless. It is important to understand that an enormous amount of effort indeed has gone into providing him with alternative accommodation. All the uses of the land fall within the proposed reservation. We have received some advice on whether the proposed uses fall within the description of the taking order, and we have been assured that they do. I have also asked the WA Planning Commission to approach Mr Stipkovich, which it has done, to ascertain whether he would like to move to some adjoining properties we have. He has rejected that offer. I have also made it clear that if there is any land left over at the end of the works - there may be a small portion of land left over - it is to be offered back to him. Resuming this land is a very difficult thing to do. At the end of the day, this is why we need long-range planning. Unfortunately, 30 years ago they did not plan for rail and we have now had to make reservations over that land, as did the previous government. I feel very sorry for this gentleman, but we have done everything we can to accommodate him.
(3) If the purpose of the land has changed, why has the taking order not been amended? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(3) I thank the member for some notice of this question. Of course I understand that Mr Stipkovich, who has resided on that property for a long time, is aged 72 and has grapevines and a range of other things growing on that site, is very unhappy about leaving. I recognise that. I will place on record some background to this matter. This is another example of the hypocrisy of some members of the opposition, particularly those members who have been around for some time. I am not suggesting that the member who asked the question can be put in that category. The member may not be aware that this land was reserved by the Court government in 1994 when part of the land was set aside for rail reservation, and in 1996 another portion of the land was set aside for a road reservation for the widening of Stakehill Road. This government entered into negotiations with Mr Stipkovich, and these types of discussions have been going on for some 10 years. Finally last year the government provided to Mr Stipkovich $580 000, which he used to purchase a house as a replacement property that he told us he would move to. As a result of Mr Stipkovich’s purchasing this property and telling us it was a replacement property, the government paid the stamp duty and all the other associated costs - Mr C.J. Barnett : Do you think it is appropriate to be displacing his home in this way? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : I think it is absolutely appropriate. An allegation has been made that we are making this poor gentleman homeless. It is important to understand that an enormous amount of effort indeed has gone into providing him with alternative accommodation. All the uses of the land fall within the proposed reservation. We have received some advice on whether the proposed uses fall within the description of the taking order, and we have been assured that they do. I have also asked the WA Planning Commission to approach Mr Stipkovich, which it has done, to ascertain whether he would like to move to some adjoining properties we have. He has rejected that offer. I have also made it clear that if there is any land left over at the end of the works - there may be a small portion of land left over - it is to be offered back to him. Resuming this land is a very difficult thing to do. At the end of the day, this is why we need long-range planning. Unfortunately, 30 years ago they did not plan for rail and we have now had to make reservations over that land, as did the previous government. I feel very sorry for this gentleman, but we have done everything we can to accommodate him.
Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(3) I thank the member for some notice of this question. Of course I understand that Mr Stipkovich, who has resided on that property for a long time, is aged 72 and has grapevines and a range of other things growing on that site, is very unhappy about leaving. I recognise that. I will place on record some background to this matter. This is another example of the hypocrisy of some members of the opposition, particularly those members who have been around for some time. I am not suggesting that the member who asked the question can be put in that category. The member may not be aware that this land was reserved by the Court government in 1994 when part of the land was set aside for rail reservation, and in 1996 another portion of the land was set aside for a road reservation for the widening of Stakehill Road. This government entered into negotiations with Mr Stipkovich, and these types of discussions have been going on for some 10 years. Finally last year the government provided to Mr Stipkovich $580 000, which he used to purchase a house as a replacement property that he told us he would move to. As a result of Mr Stipkovich’s purchasing this property and telling us it was a replacement property, the government paid the stamp duty and all the other associated costs - Mr C.J. Barnett : Do you think it is appropriate to be displacing his home in this way? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : I think it is absolutely appropriate. An allegation has been made that we are making this poor gentleman homeless. It is important to understand that an enormous amount of effort indeed has gone into providing him with alternative accommodation. All the uses of the land fall within the proposed reservation. We have received some advice on whether the proposed uses fall within the description of the taking order, and we have been assured that they do. I have also asked the WA Planning Commission to approach Mr Stipkovich, which it has done, to ascertain whether he would like to move to some adjoining properties we have. He has rejected that offer. I have also made it clear that if there is any land left over at the end of the works - there may be a small portion of land left over - it is to be offered back to him. Resuming this land is a very difficult thing to do. At the end of the day, this is why we need long-range planning. Unfortunately, 30 years ago they did not plan for rail and we have now had to make reservations over that land, as did the previous government. I feel very sorry for this gentleman, but we have done everything we can to accommodate him.
(1)-(3) I thank the member for some notice of this question. Of course I understand that Mr Stipkovich, who has resided on that property for a long time, is aged 72 and has grapevines and a range of other things growing on that site, is very unhappy about leaving. I recognise that. I will place on record some background to this matter. This is another example of the hypocrisy of some members of the opposition, particularly those members who have been around for some time. I am not suggesting that the member who asked the question can be put in that category. The member may not be aware that this land was reserved by the Court government in 1994 when part of the land was set aside for rail reservation, and in 1996 another portion of the land was set aside for a road reservation for the widening of Stakehill Road. This government entered into negotiations with Mr Stipkovich, and these types of discussions have been going on for some 10 years. Finally last year the government provided to Mr Stipkovich $580 000, which he used to purchase a house as a replacement property that he told us he would move to. As a result of Mr Stipkovich’s purchasing this property and telling us it was a replacement property, the government paid the stamp duty and all the other associated costs - Mr C.J. Barnett : Do you think it is appropriate to be displacing his home in this way? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : I think it is absolutely appropriate. An allegation has been made that we are making this poor gentleman homeless. It is important to understand that an enormous amount of effort indeed has gone into providing him with alternative accommodation. All the uses of the land fall within the proposed reservation. We have received some advice on whether the proposed uses fall within the description of the taking order, and we have been assured that they do. I have also asked the WA Planning Commission to approach Mr Stipkovich, which it has done, to ascertain whether he would like to move to some adjoining properties we have. He has rejected that offer. I have also made it clear that if there is any land left over at the end of the works - there may be a small portion of land left over - it is to be offered back to him. Resuming this land is a very difficult thing to do. At the end of the day, this is why we need long-range planning. Unfortunately, 30 years ago they did not plan for rail and we have now had to make reservations over that land, as did the previous government. I feel very sorry for this gentleman, but we have done everything we can to accommodate him.
Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : I think it is absolutely appropriate. An allegation has been made that we are making this poor gentleman homeless. It is important to understand that an enormous amount of effort indeed has gone into providing him with alternative accommodation. All the uses of the land fall within the proposed reservation. We have received some advice on whether the proposed uses fall within the description of the taking order, and we have been assured that they do. I have also asked the WA Planning Commission to approach Mr Stipkovich, which it has done, to ascertain whether he would like to move to some adjoining properties we have. He has rejected that offer. I have also made it clear that if there is any land left over at the end of the works - there may be a small portion of land left over - it is to be offered back to him. Resuming this land is a very difficult thing to do. At the end of the day, this is why we need long-range planning. Unfortunately, 30 years ago they did not plan for rail and we have now had to make reservations over that land, as did the previous government. I feel very sorry for this gentleman, but we have done everything we can to accommodate him.
(1) Is the whole of the land referred to in the taking order still required for the Perth to Mandurah railway line? (2) Has the purpose of the taking order for this land changed? (3) If the purpose of the land has changed, why has the taking order not been amended? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(3) I thank the member for some notice of this question. Of course I understand that Mr Stipkovich, who has resided on that property for a long time, is aged 72 and has grapevines and a range of other things growing on that site, is very unhappy about leaving. I recognise that. I will place on record some background to this matter. This is another example of the hypocrisy of some members of the opposition, particularly those members who have been around for some time. I am not suggesting that the member who asked the question can be put in that category. The member may not be aware that this land was reserved by the Court government in 1994 when part of the land was set aside for rail reservation, and in 1996 another portion of the land was set aside for a road reservation for the widening of Stakehill Road. This government entered into negotiations with Mr Stipkovich, and these types of discussions have been going on for some 10 years. Finally last year the government provided to Mr Stipkovich $580 000, which he used to purchase a house as a replacement property that he told us he would move to. As a result of Mr Stipkovich’s purchasing this property and telling us it was a replacement property, the government paid the stamp duty and all the other associated costs - Mr C.J. Barnett : Do you think it is appropriate to be displacing his home in this way? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : I think it is absolutely appropriate. An allegation has been made that we are making this poor gentleman homeless. It is important to understand that an enormous amount of effort indeed has gone into providing him with alternative accommodation. All the uses of the land fall within the proposed reservation. We have received some advice on whether the proposed uses fall within the description of the taking order, and we have been assured that they do. I have also asked the WA Planning Commission to approach Mr Stipkovich, which it has done, to ascertain whether he would like to move to some adjoining properties we have. He has rejected that offer. I have also made it clear that if there is any land left over at the end of the works - there may be a small portion of land left over - it is to be offered back to him. Resuming this land is a very difficult thing to do. At the end of the day, this is why we need long-range planning. Unfortunately, 30 years ago they did not plan for rail and we have now had to make reservations over that land, as did the previous government. I feel very sorry for this gentleman, but we have done everything we can to accommodate him.
(2) Has the purpose of the taking order for this land changed? (3) If the purpose of the land has changed, why has the taking order not been amended? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(3) I thank the member for some notice of this question. Of course I understand that Mr Stipkovich, who has resided on that property for a long time, is aged 72 and has grapevines and a range of other things growing on that site, is very unhappy about leaving. I recognise that. I will place on record some background to this matter. This is another example of the hypocrisy of some members of the opposition, particularly those members who have been around for some time. I am not suggesting that the member who asked the question can be put in that category. The member may not be aware that this land was reserved by the Court government in 1994 when part of the land was set aside for rail reservation, and in 1996 another portion of the land was set aside for a road reservation for the widening of Stakehill Road. This government entered into negotiations with Mr Stipkovich, and these types of discussions have been going on for some 10 years. Finally last year the government provided to Mr Stipkovich $580 000, which he used to purchase a house as a replacement property that he told us he would move to. As a result of Mr Stipkovich’s purchasing this property and telling us it was a replacement property, the government paid the stamp duty and all the other associated costs - Mr C.J. Barnett : Do you think it is appropriate to be displacing his home in this way? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : I think it is absolutely appropriate. An allegation has been made that we are making this poor gentleman homeless. It is important to understand that an enormous amount of effort indeed has gone into providing him with alternative accommodation. All the uses of the land fall within the proposed reservation. We have received some advice on whether the proposed uses fall within the description of the taking order, and we have been assured that they do. I have also asked the WA Planning Commission to approach Mr Stipkovich, which it has done, to ascertain whether he would like to move to some adjoining properties we have. He has rejected that offer. I have also made it clear that if there is any land left over at the end of the works - there may be a small portion of land left over - it is to be offered back to him. Resuming this land is a very difficult thing to do. At the end of the day, this is why we need long-range planning. Unfortunately, 30 years ago they did not plan for rail and we have now had to make reservations over that land, as did the previous government. I feel very sorry for this gentleman, but we have done everything we can to accommodate him.
(3) If the purpose of the land has changed, why has the taking order not been amended? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(3) I thank the member for some notice of this question. Of course I understand that Mr Stipkovich, who has resided on that property for a long time, is aged 72 and has grapevines and a range of other things growing on that site, is very unhappy about leaving. I recognise that. I will place on record some background to this matter. This is another example of the hypocrisy of some members of the opposition, particularly those members who have been around for some time. I am not suggesting that the member who asked the question can be put in that category. The member may not be aware that this land was reserved by the Court government in 1994 when part of the land was set aside for rail reservation, and in 1996 another portion of the land was set aside for a road reservation for the widening of Stakehill Road. This government entered into negotiations with Mr Stipkovich, and these types of discussions have been going on for some 10 years. Finally last year the government provided to Mr Stipkovich $580 000, which he used to purchase a house as a replacement property that he told us he would move to. As a result of Mr Stipkovich’s purchasing this property and telling us it was a replacement property, the government paid the stamp duty and all the other associated costs - Mr C.J. Barnett : Do you think it is appropriate to be displacing his home in this way? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : I think it is absolutely appropriate. An allegation has been made that we are making this poor gentleman homeless. It is important to understand that an enormous amount of effort indeed has gone into providing him with alternative accommodation. All the uses of the land fall within the proposed reservation. We have received some advice on whether the proposed uses fall within the description of the taking order, and we have been assured that they do. I have also asked the WA Planning Commission to approach Mr Stipkovich, which it has done, to ascertain whether he would like to move to some adjoining properties we have. He has rejected that offer. I have also made it clear that if there is any land left over at the end of the works - there may be a small portion of land left over - it is to be offered back to him. Resuming this land is a very difficult thing to do. At the end of the day, this is why we need long-range planning. Unfortunately, 30 years ago they did not plan for rail and we have now had to make reservations over that land, as did the previous government. I feel very sorry for this gentleman, but we have done everything we can to accommodate him.
Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(3) I thank the member for some notice of this question. Of course I understand that Mr Stipkovich, who has resided on that property for a long time, is aged 72 and has grapevines and a range of other things growing on that site, is very unhappy about leaving. I recognise that. I will place on record some background to this matter. This is another example of the hypocrisy of some members of the opposition, particularly those members who have been around for some time. I am not suggesting that the member who asked the question can be put in that category. The member may not be aware that this land was reserved by the Court government in 1994 when part of the land was set aside for rail reservation, and in 1996 another portion of the land was set aside for a road reservation for the widening of Stakehill Road. This government entered into negotiations with Mr Stipkovich, and these types of discussions have been going on for some 10 years. Finally last year the government provided to Mr Stipkovich $580 000, which he used to purchase a house as a replacement property that he told us he would move to. As a result of Mr Stipkovich’s purchasing this property and telling us it was a replacement property, the government paid the stamp duty and all the other associated costs - Mr C.J. Barnett : Do you think it is appropriate to be displacing his home in this way? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : I think it is absolutely appropriate. An allegation has been made that we are making this poor gentleman homeless. It is important to understand that an enormous amount of effort indeed has gone into providing him with alternative accommodation. All the uses of the land fall within the proposed reservation. We have received some advice on whether the proposed uses fall within the description of the taking order, and we have been assured that they do. I have also asked the WA Planning Commission to approach Mr Stipkovich, which it has done, to ascertain whether he would like to move to some adjoining properties we have. He has rejected that offer. I have also made it clear that if there is any land left over at the end of the works - there may be a small portion of land left over - it is to be offered back to him. Resuming this land is a very difficult thing to do. At the end of the day, this is why we need long-range planning. Unfortunately, 30 years ago they did not plan for rail and we have now had to make reservations over that land, as did the previous government. I feel very sorry for this gentleman, but we have done everything we can to accommodate him.
(1)-(3) I thank the member for some notice of this question. Of course I understand that Mr Stipkovich, who has resided on that property for a long time, is aged 72 and has grapevines and a range of other things growing on that site, is very unhappy about leaving. I recognise that. I will place on record some background to this matter. This is another example of the hypocrisy of some members of the opposition, particularly those members who have been around for some time. I am not suggesting that the member who asked the question can be put in that category. The member may not be aware that this land was reserved by the Court government in 1994 when part of the land was set aside for rail reservation, and in 1996 another portion of the land was set aside for a road reservation for the widening of Stakehill Road. This government entered into negotiations with Mr Stipkovich, and these types of discussions have been going on for some 10 years. Finally last year the government provided to Mr Stipkovich $580 000, which he used to purchase a house as a replacement property that he told us he would move to. As a result of Mr Stipkovich’s purchasing this property and telling us it was a replacement property, the government paid the stamp duty and all the other associated costs - Mr C.J. Barnett : Do you think it is appropriate to be displacing his home in this way? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : I think it is absolutely appropriate. An allegation has been made that we are making this poor gentleman homeless. It is important to understand that an enormous amount of effort indeed has gone into providing him with alternative accommodation. All the uses of the land fall within the proposed reservation. We have received some advice on whether the proposed uses fall within the description of the taking order, and we have been assured that they do. I have also asked the WA Planning Commission to approach Mr Stipkovich, which it has done, to ascertain whether he would like to move to some adjoining properties we have. He has rejected that offer. I have also made it clear that if there is any land left over at the end of the works - there may be a small portion of land left over - it is to be offered back to him. Resuming this land is a very difficult thing to do. At the end of the day, this is why we need long-range planning. Unfortunately, 30 years ago they did not plan for rail and we have now had to make reservations over that land, as did the previous government. I feel very sorry for this gentleman, but we have done everything we can to accommodate him.
Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : I think it is absolutely appropriate. An allegation has been made that we are making this poor gentleman homeless. It is important to understand that an enormous amount of effort indeed has gone into providing him with alternative accommodation. All the uses of the land fall within the proposed reservation. We have received some advice on whether the proposed uses fall within the description of the taking order, and we have been assured that they do. I have also asked the WA Planning Commission to approach Mr Stipkovich, which it has done, to ascertain whether he would like to move to some adjoining properties we have. He has rejected that offer. I have also made it clear that if there is any land left over at the end of the works - there may be a small portion of land left over - it is to be offered back to him. Resuming this land is a very difficult thing to do. At the end of the day, this is why we need long-range planning. Unfortunately, 30 years ago they did not plan for rail and we have now had to make reservations over that land, as did the previous government. I feel very sorry for this gentleman, but we have done everything we can to accommodate him.
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.