❓ A parliamentary question regarding the Minister's decision not to list the Rockingham Hotel on the state's Heritage Register, seeking justification and transparency in the decision-making process.
AnsweredQoN 423Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
ROCKINGHAM HOTEL — HERITAGE LISTING
(1) Why has the minister decided not to list the 130-year-old Rockingham Hotel on the state’s Register of Heritage Places? (2) Did the minister receive advice from the Heritage Council of Western Australia; and, if yes, will the minister table the advice? (3) If not, who did the minister receive advice from on this matter? (4) Has the minister met with the owner of the hotel on this matter? (5) Is the minister a personal friend of the owner of the hotel? The PRESIDENT : The last part of that question is out of order. Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY
(1) Why has the minister decided not to list the 130-year-old Rockingham Hotel on the state’s Register of Heritage Places? (2) Did the minister receive advice from the Heritage Council of Western Australia; and, if yes, will the minister table the advice? (3) If not, who did the minister receive advice from on this matter? (4) Has the minister met with the owner of the hotel on this matter? (5) Is the minister a personal friend of the owner of the hotel? The PRESIDENT : The last part of that question is out of order. Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Section 47(1)(a) of the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 requires that the minister form an opinion on whether a place — (i) is of cultural heritage significance; or (ii) possesses special interest related to or associated with the cultural heritage, and is of value for the present community and future generations; … In doing so, under the act, the minister has regard to the advice of the Heritage Council and any submissions made to the Heritage Council on the matter. A comprehensive report by reputable heritage architects Ian Hocking and Associates was submitted to the Heritage Council, which recommended that — The Rockingham Hotel should be removed from the State Register of Heritage Places as it is not of sufficient heritage value to warrant inclusion. This is due to the poor condition of the place, its lack of rarity as a modified hotel and its low authenticity. Section 47(2) of the act states that regard is to be given to — (a) any distinctive features or scarcity value, the character of the environs of the place, its landscape or townscape value and, and in the case of a building, its beauty and proportions, the degree of unity of its materials, design and scale, and any contribution it makes to the significance of any area, precinct, group of buildings, or amenity of which it forms part, or to its setting or the setting of any other place or feature; … The Minister for Heritage carefully considered this matter and decided not to progress the registration to permanent as he did not consider the Rockingham Hotel to be of sufficient authentic value. Substantial redevelopment, which has not been in keeping with the original heritage, has occurred a number of times. While this hotel may be rare locally, there are better examples elsewhere, and already on the Register of Heritage Places, of places with heritage significance at a state level. (2) Yes. I table the attached document. (3) Not applicable. (4)–(5) No. [See paper 3387.] Point of Order Hon SUE ELLERY : Mr President, you have just ruled—although I note that the minister did not have an answer anyway—that part (5) of the question asked by Hon Kate Doust was out of order. I wonder whether you might give us the reasons for that ruling. You do not have the question in front of you, Mr President, so I will repeat it for you. The question was — (5) Is the minister — That is, the Minister for Heritage — a personal friend of the owner of the hotel? The PRESIDENT : I ruled it out of order because it does not relate specifically to the portfolio. If the question had been phrased in such a way that it asked whether the minister had had any direct dealings with that other person, that would be a different matter.
(2) Did the minister receive advice from the Heritage Council of Western Australia; and, if yes, will the minister table the advice? (3) If not, who did the minister receive advice from on this matter? (4) Has the minister met with the owner of the hotel on this matter? (5) Is the minister a personal friend of the owner of the hotel? The PRESIDENT : The last part of that question is out of order. Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Section 47(1)(a) of the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 requires that the minister form an opinion on whether a place — (i) is of cultural heritage significance; or (ii) possesses special interest related to or associated with the cultural heritage, and is of value for the present community and future generations; … In doing so, under the act, the minister has regard to the advice of the Heritage Council and any submissions made to the Heritage Council on the matter. A comprehensive report by reputable heritage architects Ian Hocking and Associates was submitted to the Heritage Council, which recommended that — The Rockingham Hotel should be removed from the State Register of Heritage Places as it is not of sufficient heritage value to warrant inclusion. This is due to the poor condition of the place, its lack of rarity as a modified hotel and its low authenticity. Section 47(2) of the act states that regard is to be given to — (a) any distinctive features or scarcity value, the character of the environs of the place, its landscape or townscape value and, and in the case of a building, its beauty and proportions, the degree of unity of its materials, design and scale, and any contribution it makes to the significance of any area, precinct, group of buildings, or amenity of which it forms part, or to its setting or the setting of any other place or feature; … The Minister for Heritage carefully considered this matter and decided not to progress the registration to permanent as he did not consider the Rockingham Hotel to be of sufficient authentic value. Substantial redevelopment, which has not been in keeping with the original heritage, has occurred a number of times. While this hotel may be rare locally, there are better examples elsewhere, and already on the Register of Heritage Places, of places with heritage significance at a state level. (2) Yes. I table the attached document. (3) Not applicable. (4)–(5) No. [See paper 3387.] Point of Order Hon SUE ELLERY : Mr President, you have just ruled—although I note that the minister did not have an answer anyway—that part (5) of the question asked by Hon Kate Doust was out of order. I wonder whether you might give us the reasons for that ruling. You do not have the question in front of you, Mr President, so I will repeat it for you. The question was — (5) Is the minister — That is, the Minister for Heritage — a personal friend of the owner of the hotel? The PRESIDENT : I ruled it out of order because it does not relate specifically to the portfolio. If the question had been phrased in such a way that it asked whether the minister had had any direct dealings with that other person, that would be a different matter.
(3) If not, who did the minister receive advice from on this matter? (4) Has the minister met with the owner of the hotel on this matter? (5) Is the minister a personal friend of the owner of the hotel? The PRESIDENT : The last part of that question is out of order. Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Section 47(1)(a) of the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 requires that the minister form an opinion on whether a place — (i) is of cultural heritage significance; or (ii) possesses special interest related to or associated with the cultural heritage, and is of value for the present community and future generations; … In doing so, under the act, the minister has regard to the advice of the Heritage Council and any submissions made to the Heritage Council on the matter. A comprehensive report by reputable heritage architects Ian Hocking and Associates was submitted to the Heritage Council, which recommended that — The Rockingham Hotel should be removed from the State Register of Heritage Places as it is not of sufficient heritage value to warrant inclusion. This is due to the poor condition of the place, its lack of rarity as a modified hotel and its low authenticity. Section 47(2) of the act states that regard is to be given to — (a) any distinctive features or scarcity value, the character of the environs of the place, its landscape or townscape value and, and in the case of a building, its beauty and proportions, the degree of unity of its materials, design and scale, and any contribution it makes to the significance of any area, precinct, group of buildings, or amenity of which it forms part, or to its setting or the setting of any other place or feature; … The Minister for Heritage carefully considered this matter and decided not to progress the registration to permanent as he did not consider the Rockingham Hotel to be of sufficient authentic value. Substantial redevelopment, which has not been in keeping with the original heritage, has occurred a number of times. While this hotel may be rare locally, there are better examples elsewhere, and already on the Register of Heritage Places, of places with heritage significance at a state level. (2) Yes. I table the attached document. (3) Not applicable. (4)–(5) No. [See paper 3387.] Point of Order Hon SUE ELLERY : Mr President, you have just ruled—although I note that the minister did not have an answer anyway—that part (5) of the question asked by Hon Kate Doust was out of order. I wonder whether you might give us the reasons for that ruling. You do not have the question in front of you, Mr President, so I will repeat it for you. The question was — (5) Is the minister — That is, the Minister for Heritage — a personal friend of the owner of the hotel? The PRESIDENT : I ruled it out of order because it does not relate specifically to the portfolio. If the question had been phrased in such a way that it asked whether the minister had had any direct dealings with that other person, that would be a different matter.
(4) Has the minister met with the owner of the hotel on this matter? (5) Is the minister a personal friend of the owner of the hotel? The PRESIDENT : The last part of that question is out of order. Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Section 47(1)(a) of the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 requires that the minister form an opinion on whether a place — (i) is of cultural heritage significance; or (ii) possesses special interest related to or associated with the cultural heritage, and is of value for the present community and future generations; … In doing so, under the act, the minister has regard to the advice of the Heritage Council and any submissions made to the Heritage Council on the matter. A comprehensive report by reputable heritage architects Ian Hocking and Associates was submitted to the Heritage Council, which recommended that — The Rockingham Hotel should be removed from the State Register of Heritage Places as it is not of sufficient heritage value to warrant inclusion. This is due to the poor condition of the place, its lack of rarity as a modified hotel and its low authenticity. Section 47(2) of the act states that regard is to be given to — (a) any distinctive features or scarcity value, the character of the environs of the place, its landscape or townscape value and, and in the case of a building, its beauty and proportions, the degree of unity of its materials, design and scale, and any contribution it makes to the significance of any area, precinct, group of buildings, or amenity of which it forms part, or to its setting or the setting of any other place or feature; … The Minister for Heritage carefully considered this matter and decided not to progress the registration to permanent as he did not consider the Rockingham Hotel to be of sufficient authentic value. Substantial redevelopment, which has not been in keeping with the original heritage, has occurred a number of times. While this hotel may be rare locally, there are better examples elsewhere, and already on the Register of Heritage Places, of places with heritage significance at a state level. (2) Yes. I table the attached document. (3) Not applicable. (4)–(5) No. [See paper 3387.] Point of Order Hon SUE ELLERY : Mr President, you have just ruled—although I note that the minister did not have an answer anyway—that part (5) of the question asked by Hon Kate Doust was out of order. I wonder whether you might give us the reasons for that ruling. You do not have the question in front of you, Mr President, so I will repeat it for you. The question was — (5) Is the minister — That is, the Minister for Heritage — a personal friend of the owner of the hotel? The PRESIDENT : I ruled it out of order because it does not relate specifically to the portfolio. If the question had been phrased in such a way that it asked whether the minister had had any direct dealings with that other person, that would be a different matter.
(5) Is the minister a personal friend of the owner of the hotel? The PRESIDENT : The last part of that question is out of order. Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Section 47(1)(a) of the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 requires that the minister form an opinion on whether a place — (i) is of cultural heritage significance; or (ii) possesses special interest related to or associated with the cultural heritage, and is of value for the present community and future generations; … In doing so, under the act, the minister has regard to the advice of the Heritage Council and any submissions made to the Heritage Council on the matter. A comprehensive report by reputable heritage architects Ian Hocking and Associates was submitted to the Heritage Council, which recommended that — The Rockingham Hotel should be removed from the State Register of Heritage Places as it is not of sufficient heritage value to warrant inclusion. This is due to the poor condition of the place, its lack of rarity as a modified hotel and its low authenticity. Section 47(2) of the act states that regard is to be given to — (a) any distinctive features or scarcity value, the character of the environs of the place, its landscape or townscape value and, and in the case of a building, its beauty and proportions, the degree of unity of its materials, design and scale, and any contribution it makes to the significance of any area, precinct, group of buildings, or amenity of which it forms part, or to its setting or the setting of any other place or feature; … The Minister for Heritage carefully considered this matter and decided not to progress the registration to permanent as he did not consider the Rockingham Hotel to be of sufficient authentic value. Substantial redevelopment, which has not been in keeping with the original heritage, has occurred a number of times. While this hotel may be rare locally, there are better examples elsewhere, and already on the Register of Heritage Places, of places with heritage significance at a state level. (2) Yes. I table the attached document. (3) Not applicable. (4)–(5) No. [See paper 3387.] Point of Order Hon SUE ELLERY : Mr President, you have just ruled—although I note that the minister did not have an answer anyway—that part (5) of the question asked by Hon Kate Doust was out of order. I wonder whether you might give us the reasons for that ruling. You do not have the question in front of you, Mr President, so I will repeat it for you. The question was — (5) Is the minister — That is, the Minister for Heritage — a personal friend of the owner of the hotel? The PRESIDENT : I ruled it out of order because it does not relate specifically to the portfolio. If the question had been phrased in such a way that it asked whether the minister had had any direct dealings with that other person, that would be a different matter.
The PRESIDENT : The last part of that question is out of order. Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Section 47(1)(a) of the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 requires that the minister form an opinion on whether a place — (i) is of cultural heritage significance; or (ii) possesses special interest related to or associated with the cultural heritage, and is of value for the present community and future generations; … In doing so, under the act, the minister has regard to the advice of the Heritage Council and any submissions made to the Heritage Council on the matter. A comprehensive report by reputable heritage architects Ian Hocking and Associates was submitted to the Heritage Council, which recommended that — The Rockingham Hotel should be removed from the State Register of Heritage Places as it is not of sufficient heritage value to warrant inclusion. This is due to the poor condition of the place, its lack of rarity as a modified hotel and its low authenticity. Section 47(2) of the act states that regard is to be given to — (a) any distinctive features or scarcity value, the character of the environs of the place, its landscape or townscape value and, and in the case of a building, its beauty and proportions, the degree of unity of its materials, design and scale, and any contribution it makes to the significance of any area, precinct, group of buildings, or amenity of which it forms part, or to its setting or the setting of any other place or feature; … The Minister for Heritage carefully considered this matter and decided not to progress the registration to permanent as he did not consider the Rockingham Hotel to be of sufficient authentic value. Substantial redevelopment, which has not been in keeping with the original heritage, has occurred a number of times. While this hotel may be rare locally, there are better examples elsewhere, and already on the Register of Heritage Places, of places with heritage significance at a state level. (2) Yes. I table the attached document. (3) Not applicable. (4)–(5) No. [See paper 3387.] Point of Order Hon SUE ELLERY : Mr President, you have just ruled—although I note that the minister did not have an answer anyway—that part (5) of the question asked by Hon Kate Doust was out of order. I wonder whether you might give us the reasons for that ruling. You do not have the question in front of you, Mr President, so I will repeat it for you. The question was — (5) Is the minister — That is, the Minister for Heritage — a personal friend of the owner of the hotel? The PRESIDENT : I ruled it out of order because it does not relate specifically to the portfolio. If the question had been phrased in such a way that it asked whether the minister had had any direct dealings with that other person, that would be a different matter.
Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Section 47(1)(a) of the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 requires that the minister form an opinion on whether a place — (i) is of cultural heritage significance; or (ii) possesses special interest related to or associated with the cultural heritage, and is of value for the present community and future generations; … In doing so, under the act, the minister has regard to the advice of the Heritage Council and any submissions made to the Heritage Council on the matter. A comprehensive report by reputable heritage architects Ian Hocking and Associates was submitted to the Heritage Council, which recommended that — The Rockingham Hotel should be removed from the State Register of Heritage Places as it is not of sufficient heritage value to warrant inclusion. This is due to the poor condition of the place, its lack of rarity as a modified hotel and its low authenticity. Section 47(2) of the act states that regard is to be given to — (a) any distinctive features or scarcity value, the character of the environs of the place, its landscape or townscape value and, and in the case of a building, its beauty and proportions, the degree of unity of its materials, design and scale, and any contribution it makes to the significance of any area, precinct, group of buildings, or amenity of which it forms part, or to its setting or the setting of any other place or feature; … The Minister for Heritage carefully considered this matter and decided not to progress the registration to permanent as he did not consider the Rockingham Hotel to be of sufficient authentic value. Substantial redevelopment, which has not been in keeping with the original heritage, has occurred a number of times. While this hotel may be rare locally, there are better examples elsewhere, and already on the Register of Heritage Places, of places with heritage significance at a state level. (2) Yes. I table the attached document. (3) Not applicable. (4)–(5) No. [See paper 3387.] Point of Order Hon SUE ELLERY : Mr President, you have just ruled—although I note that the minister did not have an answer anyway—that part (5) of the question asked by Hon Kate Doust was out of order. I wonder whether you might give us the reasons for that ruling. You do not have the question in front of you, Mr President, so I will repeat it for you. The question was — (5) Is the minister — That is, the Minister for Heritage — a personal friend of the owner of the hotel? The PRESIDENT : I ruled it out of order because it does not relate specifically to the portfolio. If the question had been phrased in such a way that it asked whether the minister had had any direct dealings with that other person, that would be a different matter.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Section 47(1)(a) of the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 requires that the minister form an opinion on whether a place — (i) is of cultural heritage significance; or (ii) possesses special interest related to or associated with the cultural heritage, and is of value for the present community and future generations; … In doing so, under the act, the minister has regard to the advice of the Heritage Council and any submissions made to the Heritage Council on the matter. A comprehensive report by reputable heritage architects Ian Hocking and Associates was submitted to the Heritage Council, which recommended that — The Rockingham Hotel should be removed from the State Register of Heritage Places as it is not of sufficient heritage value to warrant inclusion. This is due to the poor condition of the place, its lack of rarity as a modified hotel and its low authenticity. Section 47(2) of the act states that regard is to be given to — (a) any distinctive features or scarcity value, the character of the environs of the place, its landscape or townscape value and, and in the case of a building, its beauty and proportions, the degree of unity of its materials, design and scale, and any contribution it makes to the significance of any area, precinct, group of buildings, or amenity of which it forms part, or to its setting or the setting of any other place or feature; … The Minister for Heritage carefully considered this matter and decided not to progress the registration to permanent as he did not consider the Rockingham Hotel to be of sufficient authentic value. Substantial redevelopment, which has not been in keeping with the original heritage, has occurred a number of times. While this hotel may be rare locally, there are better examples elsewhere, and already on the Register of Heritage Places, of places with heritage significance at a state level. (2) Yes. I table the attached document. (3) Not applicable. (4)–(5) No. [See paper 3387.] Point of Order Hon SUE ELLERY : Mr President, you have just ruled—although I note that the minister did not have an answer anyway—that part (5) of the question asked by Hon Kate Doust was out of order. I wonder whether you might give us the reasons for that ruling. You do not have the question in front of you, Mr President, so I will repeat it for you. The question was — (5) Is the minister — That is, the Minister for Heritage — a personal friend of the owner of the hotel? The PRESIDENT : I ruled it out of order because it does not relate specifically to the portfolio. If the question had been phrased in such a way that it asked whether the minister had had any direct dealings with that other person, that would be a different matter.
(1) Section 47(1)(a) of the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 requires that the minister form an opinion on whether a place — (i) is of cultural heritage significance; or (ii) possesses special interest related to or associated with the cultural heritage, and is of value for the present community and future generations; … In doing so, under the act, the minister has regard to the advice of the Heritage Council and any submissions made to the Heritage Council on the matter. A comprehensive report by reputable heritage architects Ian Hocking and Associates was submitted to the Heritage Council, which recommended that — The Rockingham Hotel should be removed from the State Register of Heritage Places as it is not of sufficient heritage value to warrant inclusion. This is due to the poor condition of the place, its lack of rarity as a modified hotel and its low authenticity. Section 47(2) of the act states that regard is to be given to — (a) any distinctive features or scarcity value, the character of the environs of the place, its landscape or townscape value and, and in the case of a building, its beauty and proportions, the degree of unity of its materials, design and scale, and any contribution it makes to the significance of any area, precinct, group of buildings, or amenity of which it forms part, or to its setting or the setting of any other place or feature; … The Minister for Heritage carefully considered this matter and decided not to progress the registration to permanent as he did not consider the Rockingham Hotel to be of sufficient authentic value. Substantial redevelopment, which has not been in keeping with the original heritage, has occurred a number of times. While this hotel may be rare locally, there are better examples elsewhere, and already on the Register of Heritage Places, of places with heritage significance at a state level. (2) Yes. I table the attached document. (3) Not applicable. (4)–(5) No. [See paper 3387.] Point of Order Hon SUE ELLERY : Mr President, you have just ruled—although I note that the minister did not have an answer anyway—that part (5) of the question asked by Hon Kate Doust was out of order. I wonder whether you might give us the reasons for that ruling. You do not have the question in front of you, Mr President, so I will repeat it for you. The question was — (5) Is the minister — That is, the Minister for Heritage — a personal friend of the owner of the hotel? The PRESIDENT : I ruled it out of order because it does not relate specifically to the portfolio. If the question had been phrased in such a way that it asked whether the minister had had any direct dealings with that other person, that would be a different matter.
(ii) possesses special interest related to or associated with the cultural heritage, and is of value for the present community and future generations; …
A comprehensive report by reputable heritage architects Ian Hocking and Associates was submitted to the Heritage Council, which recommended that — The Rockingham Hotel should be removed from the State Register of Heritage Places as it is not of sufficient heritage value to warrant inclusion. This is due to the poor condition of the place, its lack of rarity as a modified hotel and its low authenticity. Section 47(2) of the act states that regard is to be given to — (a) any distinctive features or scarcity value, the character of the environs of the place, its landscape or townscape value and, and in the case of a building, its beauty and proportions, the degree of unity of its materials, design and scale, and any contribution it makes to the significance of any area, precinct, group of buildings, or amenity of which it forms part, or to its setting or the setting of any other place or feature; … The Minister for Heritage carefully considered this matter and decided not to progress the registration to permanent as he did not consider the Rockingham Hotel to be of sufficient authentic value. Substantial redevelopment, which has not been in keeping with the original heritage, has occurred a number of times. While this hotel may be rare locally, there are better examples elsewhere, and already on the Register of Heritage Places, of places with heritage significance at a state level.
(3) Not applicable. (4)–(5) No. [See paper 3387.] Point of Order Hon SUE ELLERY : Mr President, you have just ruled—although I note that the minister did not have an answer anyway—that part (5) of the question asked by Hon Kate Doust was out of order. I wonder whether you might give us the reasons for that ruling. You do not have the question in front of you, Mr President, so I will repeat it for you. The question was — (5) Is the minister — That is, the Minister for Heritage — a personal friend of the owner of the hotel? The PRESIDENT : I ruled it out of order because it does not relate specifically to the portfolio. If the question had been phrased in such a way that it asked whether the minister had had any direct dealings with that other person, that would be a different matter.
(4)–(5) No. [See paper 3387.] Point of Order Hon SUE ELLERY : Mr President, you have just ruled—although I note that the minister did not have an answer anyway—that part (5) of the question asked by Hon Kate Doust was out of order. I wonder whether you might give us the reasons for that ruling. You do not have the question in front of you, Mr President, so I will repeat it for you. The question was — (5) Is the minister — That is, the Minister for Heritage — a personal friend of the owner of the hotel? The PRESIDENT : I ruled it out of order because it does not relate specifically to the portfolio. If the question had been phrased in such a way that it asked whether the minister had had any direct dealings with that other person, that would be a different matter.
[See paper 3387.] Point of Order Hon SUE ELLERY : Mr President, you have just ruled—although I note that the minister did not have an answer anyway—that part (5) of the question asked by Hon Kate Doust was out of order. I wonder whether you might give us the reasons for that ruling. You do not have the question in front of you, Mr President, so I will repeat it for you. The question was — (5) Is the minister — That is, the Minister for Heritage — a personal friend of the owner of the hotel? The PRESIDENT : I ruled it out of order because it does not relate specifically to the portfolio. If the question had been phrased in such a way that it asked whether the minister had had any direct dealings with that other person, that would be a different matter.
(2) Did the minister receive advice from the Heritage Council of Western Australia; and, if yes, will the minister table the advice? (3) If not, who did the minister receive advice from on this matter? (4) Has the minister met with the owner of the hotel on this matter? (5) Is the minister a personal friend of the owner of the hotel? The PRESIDENT : The last part of that question is out of order. Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Section 47(1)(a) of the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 requires that the minister form an opinion on whether a place — (i) is of cultural heritage significance; or (ii) possesses special interest related to or associated with the cultural heritage, and is of value for the present community and future generations; … In doing so, under the act, the minister has regard to the advice of the Heritage Council and any submissions made to the Heritage Council on the matter. A comprehensive report by reputable heritage architects Ian Hocking and Associates was submitted to the Heritage Council, which recommended that — The Rockingham Hotel should be removed from the State Register of Heritage Places as it is not of sufficient heritage value to warrant inclusion. This is due to the poor condition of the place, its lack of rarity as a modified hotel and its low authenticity. Section 47(2) of the act states that regard is to be given to — (a) any distinctive features or scarcity value, the character of the environs of the place, its landscape or townscape value and, and in the case of a building, its beauty and proportions, the degree of unity of its materials, design and scale, and any contribution it makes to the significance of any area, precinct, group of buildings, or amenity of which it forms part, or to its setting or the setting of any other place or feature; … The Minister for Heritage carefully considered this matter and decided not to progress the registration to permanent as he did not consider the Rockingham Hotel to be of sufficient authentic value. Substantial redevelopment, which has not been in keeping with the original heritage, has occurred a number of times. While this hotel may be rare locally, there are better examples elsewhere, and already on the Register of Heritage Places, of places with heritage significance at a state level. (2) Yes. I table the attached document. (3) Not applicable. (4)–(5) No. [See paper 3387.] Point of Order Hon SUE ELLERY : Mr President, you have just ruled—although I note that the minister did not have an answer anyway—that part (5) of the question asked by Hon Kate Doust was out of order. I wonder whether you might give us the reasons for that ruling. You do not have the question in front of you, Mr President, so I will repeat it for you. The question was — (5) Is the minister — That is, the Minister for Heritage — a personal friend of the owner of the hotel? The PRESIDENT : I ruled it out of order because it does not relate specifically to the portfolio. If the question had been phrased in such a way that it asked whether the minister had had any direct dealings with that other person, that would be a different matter.
(3) If not, who did the minister receive advice from on this matter? (4) Has the minister met with the owner of the hotel on this matter? (5) Is the minister a personal friend of the owner of the hotel? The PRESIDENT : The last part of that question is out of order. Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Section 47(1)(a) of the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 requires that the minister form an opinion on whether a place — (i) is of cultural heritage significance; or (ii) possesses special interest related to or associated with the cultural heritage, and is of value for the present community and future generations; … In doing so, under the act, the minister has regard to the advice of the Heritage Council and any submissions made to the Heritage Council on the matter. A comprehensive report by reputable heritage architects Ian Hocking and Associates was submitted to the Heritage Council, which recommended that — The Rockingham Hotel should be removed from the State Register of Heritage Places as it is not of sufficient heritage value to warrant inclusion. This is due to the poor condition of the place, its lack of rarity as a modified hotel and its low authenticity. Section 47(2) of the act states that regard is to be given to — (a) any distinctive features or scarcity value, the character of the environs of the place, its landscape or townscape value and, and in the case of a building, its beauty and proportions, the degree of unity of its materials, design and scale, and any contribution it makes to the significance of any area, precinct, group of buildings, or amenity of which it forms part, or to its setting or the setting of any other place or feature; … The Minister for Heritage carefully considered this matter and decided not to progress the registration to permanent as he did not consider the Rockingham Hotel to be of sufficient authentic value. Substantial redevelopment, which has not been in keeping with the original heritage, has occurred a number of times. While this hotel may be rare locally, there are better examples elsewhere, and already on the Register of Heritage Places, of places with heritage significance at a state level. (2) Yes. I table the attached document. (3) Not applicable. (4)–(5) No. [See paper 3387.] Point of Order Hon SUE ELLERY : Mr President, you have just ruled—although I note that the minister did not have an answer anyway—that part (5) of the question asked by Hon Kate Doust was out of order. I wonder whether you might give us the reasons for that ruling. You do not have the question in front of you, Mr President, so I will repeat it for you. The question was — (5) Is the minister — That is, the Minister for Heritage — a personal friend of the owner of the hotel? The PRESIDENT : I ruled it out of order because it does not relate specifically to the portfolio. If the question had been phrased in such a way that it asked whether the minister had had any direct dealings with that other person, that would be a different matter.
(4) Has the minister met with the owner of the hotel on this matter? (5) Is the minister a personal friend of the owner of the hotel? The PRESIDENT : The last part of that question is out of order. Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Section 47(1)(a) of the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 requires that the minister form an opinion on whether a place — (i) is of cultural heritage significance; or (ii) possesses special interest related to or associated with the cultural heritage, and is of value for the present community and future generations; … In doing so, under the act, the minister has regard to the advice of the Heritage Council and any submissions made to the Heritage Council on the matter. A comprehensive report by reputable heritage architects Ian Hocking and Associates was submitted to the Heritage Council, which recommended that — The Rockingham Hotel should be removed from the State Register of Heritage Places as it is not of sufficient heritage value to warrant inclusion. This is due to the poor condition of the place, its lack of rarity as a modified hotel and its low authenticity. Section 47(2) of the act states that regard is to be given to — (a) any distinctive features or scarcity value, the character of the environs of the place, its landscape or townscape value and, and in the case of a building, its beauty and proportions, the degree of unity of its materials, design and scale, and any contribution it makes to the significance of any area, precinct, group of buildings, or amenity of which it forms part, or to its setting or the setting of any other place or feature; … The Minister for Heritage carefully considered this matter and decided not to progress the registration to permanent as he did not consider the Rockingham Hotel to be of sufficient authentic value. Substantial redevelopment, which has not been in keeping with the original heritage, has occurred a number of times. While this hotel may be rare locally, there are better examples elsewhere, and already on the Register of Heritage Places, of places with heritage significance at a state level. (2) Yes. I table the attached document. (3) Not applicable. (4)–(5) No. [See paper 3387.] Point of Order Hon SUE ELLERY : Mr President, you have just ruled—although I note that the minister did not have an answer anyway—that part (5) of the question asked by Hon Kate Doust was out of order. I wonder whether you might give us the reasons for that ruling. You do not have the question in front of you, Mr President, so I will repeat it for you. The question was — (5) Is the minister — That is, the Minister for Heritage — a personal friend of the owner of the hotel? The PRESIDENT : I ruled it out of order because it does not relate specifically to the portfolio. If the question had been phrased in such a way that it asked whether the minister had had any direct dealings with that other person, that would be a different matter.
(5) Is the minister a personal friend of the owner of the hotel? The PRESIDENT : The last part of that question is out of order. Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Section 47(1)(a) of the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 requires that the minister form an opinion on whether a place — (i) is of cultural heritage significance; or (ii) possesses special interest related to or associated with the cultural heritage, and is of value for the present community and future generations; … In doing so, under the act, the minister has regard to the advice of the Heritage Council and any submissions made to the Heritage Council on the matter. A comprehensive report by reputable heritage architects Ian Hocking and Associates was submitted to the Heritage Council, which recommended that — The Rockingham Hotel should be removed from the State Register of Heritage Places as it is not of sufficient heritage value to warrant inclusion. This is due to the poor condition of the place, its lack of rarity as a modified hotel and its low authenticity. Section 47(2) of the act states that regard is to be given to — (a) any distinctive features or scarcity value, the character of the environs of the place, its landscape or townscape value and, and in the case of a building, its beauty and proportions, the degree of unity of its materials, design and scale, and any contribution it makes to the significance of any area, precinct, group of buildings, or amenity of which it forms part, or to its setting or the setting of any other place or feature; … The Minister for Heritage carefully considered this matter and decided not to progress the registration to permanent as he did not consider the Rockingham Hotel to be of sufficient authentic value. Substantial redevelopment, which has not been in keeping with the original heritage, has occurred a number of times. While this hotel may be rare locally, there are better examples elsewhere, and already on the Register of Heritage Places, of places with heritage significance at a state level. (2) Yes. I table the attached document. (3) Not applicable. (4)–(5) No. [See paper 3387.] Point of Order Hon SUE ELLERY : Mr President, you have just ruled—although I note that the minister did not have an answer anyway—that part (5) of the question asked by Hon Kate Doust was out of order. I wonder whether you might give us the reasons for that ruling. You do not have the question in front of you, Mr President, so I will repeat it for you. The question was — (5) Is the minister — That is, the Minister for Heritage — a personal friend of the owner of the hotel? The PRESIDENT : I ruled it out of order because it does not relate specifically to the portfolio. If the question had been phrased in such a way that it asked whether the minister had had any direct dealings with that other person, that would be a different matter.
The PRESIDENT : The last part of that question is out of order. Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Section 47(1)(a) of the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 requires that the minister form an opinion on whether a place — (i) is of cultural heritage significance; or (ii) possesses special interest related to or associated with the cultural heritage, and is of value for the present community and future generations; … In doing so, under the act, the minister has regard to the advice of the Heritage Council and any submissions made to the Heritage Council on the matter. A comprehensive report by reputable heritage architects Ian Hocking and Associates was submitted to the Heritage Council, which recommended that — The Rockingham Hotel should be removed from the State Register of Heritage Places as it is not of sufficient heritage value to warrant inclusion. This is due to the poor condition of the place, its lack of rarity as a modified hotel and its low authenticity. Section 47(2) of the act states that regard is to be given to — (a) any distinctive features or scarcity value, the character of the environs of the place, its landscape or townscape value and, and in the case of a building, its beauty and proportions, the degree of unity of its materials, design and scale, and any contribution it makes to the significance of any area, precinct, group of buildings, or amenity of which it forms part, or to its setting or the setting of any other place or feature; … The Minister for Heritage carefully considered this matter and decided not to progress the registration to permanent as he did not consider the Rockingham Hotel to be of sufficient authentic value. Substantial redevelopment, which has not been in keeping with the original heritage, has occurred a number of times. While this hotel may be rare locally, there are better examples elsewhere, and already on the Register of Heritage Places, of places with heritage significance at a state level. (2) Yes. I table the attached document. (3) Not applicable. (4)–(5) No. [See paper 3387.] Point of Order Hon SUE ELLERY : Mr President, you have just ruled—although I note that the minister did not have an answer anyway—that part (5) of the question asked by Hon Kate Doust was out of order. I wonder whether you might give us the reasons for that ruling. You do not have the question in front of you, Mr President, so I will repeat it for you. The question was — (5) Is the minister — That is, the Minister for Heritage — a personal friend of the owner of the hotel? The PRESIDENT : I ruled it out of order because it does not relate specifically to the portfolio. If the question had been phrased in such a way that it asked whether the minister had had any direct dealings with that other person, that would be a different matter.
Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Section 47(1)(a) of the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 requires that the minister form an opinion on whether a place — (i) is of cultural heritage significance; or (ii) possesses special interest related to or associated with the cultural heritage, and is of value for the present community and future generations; … In doing so, under the act, the minister has regard to the advice of the Heritage Council and any submissions made to the Heritage Council on the matter. A comprehensive report by reputable heritage architects Ian Hocking and Associates was submitted to the Heritage Council, which recommended that — The Rockingham Hotel should be removed from the State Register of Heritage Places as it is not of sufficient heritage value to warrant inclusion. This is due to the poor condition of the place, its lack of rarity as a modified hotel and its low authenticity. Section 47(2) of the act states that regard is to be given to — (a) any distinctive features or scarcity value, the character of the environs of the place, its landscape or townscape value and, and in the case of a building, its beauty and proportions, the degree of unity of its materials, design and scale, and any contribution it makes to the significance of any area, precinct, group of buildings, or amenity of which it forms part, or to its setting or the setting of any other place or feature; … The Minister for Heritage carefully considered this matter and decided not to progress the registration to permanent as he did not consider the Rockingham Hotel to be of sufficient authentic value. Substantial redevelopment, which has not been in keeping with the original heritage, has occurred a number of times. While this hotel may be rare locally, there are better examples elsewhere, and already on the Register of Heritage Places, of places with heritage significance at a state level. (2) Yes. I table the attached document. (3) Not applicable. (4)–(5) No. [See paper 3387.] Point of Order Hon SUE ELLERY : Mr President, you have just ruled—although I note that the minister did not have an answer anyway—that part (5) of the question asked by Hon Kate Doust was out of order. I wonder whether you might give us the reasons for that ruling. You do not have the question in front of you, Mr President, so I will repeat it for you. The question was — (5) Is the minister — That is, the Minister for Heritage — a personal friend of the owner of the hotel? The PRESIDENT : I ruled it out of order because it does not relate specifically to the portfolio. If the question had been phrased in such a way that it asked whether the minister had had any direct dealings with that other person, that would be a different matter.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Section 47(1)(a) of the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 requires that the minister form an opinion on whether a place — (i) is of cultural heritage significance; or (ii) possesses special interest related to or associated with the cultural heritage, and is of value for the present community and future generations; … In doing so, under the act, the minister has regard to the advice of the Heritage Council and any submissions made to the Heritage Council on the matter. A comprehensive report by reputable heritage architects Ian Hocking and Associates was submitted to the Heritage Council, which recommended that — The Rockingham Hotel should be removed from the State Register of Heritage Places as it is not of sufficient heritage value to warrant inclusion. This is due to the poor condition of the place, its lack of rarity as a modified hotel and its low authenticity. Section 47(2) of the act states that regard is to be given to — (a) any distinctive features or scarcity value, the character of the environs of the place, its landscape or townscape value and, and in the case of a building, its beauty and proportions, the degree of unity of its materials, design and scale, and any contribution it makes to the significance of any area, precinct, group of buildings, or amenity of which it forms part, or to its setting or the setting of any other place or feature; … The Minister for Heritage carefully considered this matter and decided not to progress the registration to permanent as he did not consider the Rockingham Hotel to be of sufficient authentic value. Substantial redevelopment, which has not been in keeping with the original heritage, has occurred a number of times. While this hotel may be rare locally, there are better examples elsewhere, and already on the Register of Heritage Places, of places with heritage significance at a state level. (2) Yes. I table the attached document. (3) Not applicable. (4)–(5) No. [See paper 3387.] Point of Order Hon SUE ELLERY : Mr President, you have just ruled—although I note that the minister did not have an answer anyway—that part (5) of the question asked by Hon Kate Doust was out of order. I wonder whether you might give us the reasons for that ruling. You do not have the question in front of you, Mr President, so I will repeat it for you. The question was — (5) Is the minister — That is, the Minister for Heritage — a personal friend of the owner of the hotel? The PRESIDENT : I ruled it out of order because it does not relate specifically to the portfolio. If the question had been phrased in such a way that it asked whether the minister had had any direct dealings with that other person, that would be a different matter.
(1) Section 47(1)(a) of the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 requires that the minister form an opinion on whether a place — (i) is of cultural heritage significance; or (ii) possesses special interest related to or associated with the cultural heritage, and is of value for the present community and future generations; … In doing so, under the act, the minister has regard to the advice of the Heritage Council and any submissions made to the Heritage Council on the matter. A comprehensive report by reputable heritage architects Ian Hocking and Associates was submitted to the Heritage Council, which recommended that — The Rockingham Hotel should be removed from the State Register of Heritage Places as it is not of sufficient heritage value to warrant inclusion. This is due to the poor condition of the place, its lack of rarity as a modified hotel and its low authenticity. Section 47(2) of the act states that regard is to be given to — (a) any distinctive features or scarcity value, the character of the environs of the place, its landscape or townscape value and, and in the case of a building, its beauty and proportions, the degree of unity of its materials, design and scale, and any contribution it makes to the significance of any area, precinct, group of buildings, or amenity of which it forms part, or to its setting or the setting of any other place or feature; … The Minister for Heritage carefully considered this matter and decided not to progress the registration to permanent as he did not consider the Rockingham Hotel to be of sufficient authentic value. Substantial redevelopment, which has not been in keeping with the original heritage, has occurred a number of times. While this hotel may be rare locally, there are better examples elsewhere, and already on the Register of Heritage Places, of places with heritage significance at a state level. (2) Yes. I table the attached document. (3) Not applicable. (4)–(5) No. [See paper 3387.] Point of Order Hon SUE ELLERY : Mr President, you have just ruled—although I note that the minister did not have an answer anyway—that part (5) of the question asked by Hon Kate Doust was out of order. I wonder whether you might give us the reasons for that ruling. You do not have the question in front of you, Mr President, so I will repeat it for you. The question was — (5) Is the minister — That is, the Minister for Heritage — a personal friend of the owner of the hotel? The PRESIDENT : I ruled it out of order because it does not relate specifically to the portfolio. If the question had been phrased in such a way that it asked whether the minister had had any direct dealings with that other person, that would be a different matter.
(ii) possesses special interest related to or associated with the cultural heritage, and is of value for the present community and future generations; …
A comprehensive report by reputable heritage architects Ian Hocking and Associates was submitted to the Heritage Council, which recommended that — The Rockingham Hotel should be removed from the State Register of Heritage Places as it is not of sufficient heritage value to warrant inclusion. This is due to the poor condition of the place, its lack of rarity as a modified hotel and its low authenticity. Section 47(2) of the act states that regard is to be given to — (a) any distinctive features or scarcity value, the character of the environs of the place, its landscape or townscape value and, and in the case of a building, its beauty and proportions, the degree of unity of its materials, design and scale, and any contribution it makes to the significance of any area, precinct, group of buildings, or amenity of which it forms part, or to its setting or the setting of any other place or feature; … The Minister for Heritage carefully considered this matter and decided not to progress the registration to permanent as he did not consider the Rockingham Hotel to be of sufficient authentic value. Substantial redevelopment, which has not been in keeping with the original heritage, has occurred a number of times. While this hotel may be rare locally, there are better examples elsewhere, and already on the Register of Heritage Places, of places with heritage significance at a state level.
(3) Not applicable. (4)–(5) No. [See paper 3387.] Point of Order Hon SUE ELLERY : Mr President, you have just ruled—although I note that the minister did not have an answer anyway—that part (5) of the question asked by Hon Kate Doust was out of order. I wonder whether you might give us the reasons for that ruling. You do not have the question in front of you, Mr President, so I will repeat it for you. The question was — (5) Is the minister — That is, the Minister for Heritage — a personal friend of the owner of the hotel? The PRESIDENT : I ruled it out of order because it does not relate specifically to the portfolio. If the question had been phrased in such a way that it asked whether the minister had had any direct dealings with that other person, that would be a different matter.
(4)–(5) No. [See paper 3387.] Point of Order Hon SUE ELLERY : Mr President, you have just ruled—although I note that the minister did not have an answer anyway—that part (5) of the question asked by Hon Kate Doust was out of order. I wonder whether you might give us the reasons for that ruling. You do not have the question in front of you, Mr President, so I will repeat it for you. The question was — (5) Is the minister — That is, the Minister for Heritage — a personal friend of the owner of the hotel? The PRESIDENT : I ruled it out of order because it does not relate specifically to the portfolio. If the question had been phrased in such a way that it asked whether the minister had had any direct dealings with that other person, that would be a different matter.
[See paper 3387.] Point of Order Hon SUE ELLERY : Mr President, you have just ruled—although I note that the minister did not have an answer anyway—that part (5) of the question asked by Hon Kate Doust was out of order. I wonder whether you might give us the reasons for that ruling. You do not have the question in front of you, Mr President, so I will repeat it for you. The question was — (5) Is the minister — That is, the Minister for Heritage — a personal friend of the owner of the hotel? The PRESIDENT : I ruled it out of order because it does not relate specifically to the portfolio. If the question had been phrased in such a way that it asked whether the minister had had any direct dealings with that other person, that would be a different matter.
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.