❓ The Minister updates the house on the Perry Lakes Stadium redevelopment, criticising the Town of Cambridge's change of plans and accusing the member for Cottesloe of interference.
AnsweredQoN 202Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
Can the minister please update the house on the current situation with regard to the redevelopment of Perry Lakes Stadium? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for the question. I know he is a keen sportsperson and would share the - Several members interjected. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : He was a martial artist. As we know, this has been a very sorry state of affairs. Negotiations have been taking place since 1998 about the redevelopment of the facilities at Perry Lakes. In 2001 the Town of Cambridge put a proposal to the state government that the council would take financial responsibility for the redevelopment of the facilities if, in return, the government would amend the metropolitan region scheme to allow the council to develop the recreational land for housing. The council quite properly saw it as a win-win arrangement, because it would produce a set of new sporting facilities and at the same time allow the council to make a windfall profit in the order of $60 million. The proposal seemed very sensible, and the council went through an extensive tender process, in which a number of leading Western Australian companies tendered for that work, at considerable cost to themselves. However, the council has now decided to go off on a completely different tangent and patch up the old Perry Lakes Stadium. We have told the Town of Cambridge that we will not accept the bizarre proposal to patch up the old, cancerous facility at Perry Lakes Reserve. It is unacceptable. We have had great trouble working out why the council is following this strategy given it is opposed by athletics, rugby and basketball associations. Members of the Property Council of Australia are very angry that they have been treated so appallingly by the council. We have found one person who has been giving support and comfort to the Town of Cambridge in its machinations: the member for Cottesloe. Indeed, we have recently discovered that prior to the last election the member for Cottesloe wrote to the Director General of the Department for Planning and Infrastructure and urged that the process not be allowed to continue during the caretaker period. In his letter, the member describes this commonsense proposal as “a highly contentious issue” and a proposal that “does not have overwhelming public support”. I am happy to table this letter. I suspect that the member for Cottesloe has been a willing player in this debacle. I call upon the Leader of the Opposition to make clear the opposition’s position on this matter to clear the air and get the Town of Cambridge to see commonsense and deliver decent sporting facilities. [See paper 449.] Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order members! I call the member for Bassendean to order for the first time. I am sure all members wish to hear the question the member for Leschenault is waiting to ask. Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan : Undoubtedly.
Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for the question. I know he is a keen sportsperson and would share the - Several members interjected. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : He was a martial artist. As we know, this has been a very sorry state of affairs. Negotiations have been taking place since 1998 about the redevelopment of the facilities at Perry Lakes. In 2001 the Town of Cambridge put a proposal to the state government that the council would take financial responsibility for the redevelopment of the facilities if, in return, the government would amend the metropolitan region scheme to allow the council to develop the recreational land for housing. The council quite properly saw it as a win-win arrangement, because it would produce a set of new sporting facilities and at the same time allow the council to make a windfall profit in the order of $60 million. The proposal seemed very sensible, and the council went through an extensive tender process, in which a number of leading Western Australian companies tendered for that work, at considerable cost to themselves. However, the council has now decided to go off on a completely different tangent and patch up the old Perry Lakes Stadium. We have told the Town of Cambridge that we will not accept the bizarre proposal to patch up the old, cancerous facility at Perry Lakes Reserve. It is unacceptable. We have had great trouble working out why the council is following this strategy given it is opposed by athletics, rugby and basketball associations. Members of the Property Council of Australia are very angry that they have been treated so appallingly by the council. We have found one person who has been giving support and comfort to the Town of Cambridge in its machinations: the member for Cottesloe. Indeed, we have recently discovered that prior to the last election the member for Cottesloe wrote to the Director General of the Department for Planning and Infrastructure and urged that the process not be allowed to continue during the caretaker period. In his letter, the member describes this commonsense proposal as “a highly contentious issue” and a proposal that “does not have overwhelming public support”. I am happy to table this letter. I suspect that the member for Cottesloe has been a willing player in this debacle. I call upon the Leader of the Opposition to make clear the opposition’s position on this matter to clear the air and get the Town of Cambridge to see commonsense and deliver decent sporting facilities. [See paper 449.] Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order members! I call the member for Bassendean to order for the first time. I am sure all members wish to hear the question the member for Leschenault is waiting to ask. Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan : Undoubtedly.
I thank the member for the question. I know he is a keen sportsperson and would share the - Several members interjected. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : He was a martial artist. As we know, this has been a very sorry state of affairs. Negotiations have been taking place since 1998 about the redevelopment of the facilities at Perry Lakes. In 2001 the Town of Cambridge put a proposal to the state government that the council would take financial responsibility for the redevelopment of the facilities if, in return, the government would amend the metropolitan region scheme to allow the council to develop the recreational land for housing. The council quite properly saw it as a win-win arrangement, because it would produce a set of new sporting facilities and at the same time allow the council to make a windfall profit in the order of $60 million. The proposal seemed very sensible, and the council went through an extensive tender process, in which a number of leading Western Australian companies tendered for that work, at considerable cost to themselves. However, the council has now decided to go off on a completely different tangent and patch up the old Perry Lakes Stadium. We have told the Town of Cambridge that we will not accept the bizarre proposal to patch up the old, cancerous facility at Perry Lakes Reserve. It is unacceptable. We have had great trouble working out why the council is following this strategy given it is opposed by athletics, rugby and basketball associations. Members of the Property Council of Australia are very angry that they have been treated so appallingly by the council. We have found one person who has been giving support and comfort to the Town of Cambridge in its machinations: the member for Cottesloe. Indeed, we have recently discovered that prior to the last election the member for Cottesloe wrote to the Director General of the Department for Planning and Infrastructure and urged that the process not be allowed to continue during the caretaker period. In his letter, the member describes this commonsense proposal as “a highly contentious issue” and a proposal that “does not have overwhelming public support”. I am happy to table this letter. I suspect that the member for Cottesloe has been a willing player in this debacle. I call upon the Leader of the Opposition to make clear the opposition’s position on this matter to clear the air and get the Town of Cambridge to see commonsense and deliver decent sporting facilities. [See paper 449.] Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order members! I call the member for Bassendean to order for the first time. I am sure all members wish to hear the question the member for Leschenault is waiting to ask. Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan : Undoubtedly.
Several members interjected. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : He was a martial artist. As we know, this has been a very sorry state of affairs. Negotiations have been taking place since 1998 about the redevelopment of the facilities at Perry Lakes. In 2001 the Town of Cambridge put a proposal to the state government that the council would take financial responsibility for the redevelopment of the facilities if, in return, the government would amend the metropolitan region scheme to allow the council to develop the recreational land for housing. The council quite properly saw it as a win-win arrangement, because it would produce a set of new sporting facilities and at the same time allow the council to make a windfall profit in the order of $60 million. The proposal seemed very sensible, and the council went through an extensive tender process, in which a number of leading Western Australian companies tendered for that work, at considerable cost to themselves. However, the council has now decided to go off on a completely different tangent and patch up the old Perry Lakes Stadium. We have told the Town of Cambridge that we will not accept the bizarre proposal to patch up the old, cancerous facility at Perry Lakes Reserve. It is unacceptable. We have had great trouble working out why the council is following this strategy given it is opposed by athletics, rugby and basketball associations. Members of the Property Council of Australia are very angry that they have been treated so appallingly by the council. We have found one person who has been giving support and comfort to the Town of Cambridge in its machinations: the member for Cottesloe. Indeed, we have recently discovered that prior to the last election the member for Cottesloe wrote to the Director General of the Department for Planning and Infrastructure and urged that the process not be allowed to continue during the caretaker period. In his letter, the member describes this commonsense proposal as “a highly contentious issue” and a proposal that “does not have overwhelming public support”. I am happy to table this letter. I suspect that the member for Cottesloe has been a willing player in this debacle. I call upon the Leader of the Opposition to make clear the opposition’s position on this matter to clear the air and get the Town of Cambridge to see commonsense and deliver decent sporting facilities. [See paper 449.] Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order members! I call the member for Bassendean to order for the first time. I am sure all members wish to hear the question the member for Leschenault is waiting to ask. Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan : Undoubtedly.
Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : He was a martial artist. As we know, this has been a very sorry state of affairs. Negotiations have been taking place since 1998 about the redevelopment of the facilities at Perry Lakes. In 2001 the Town of Cambridge put a proposal to the state government that the council would take financial responsibility for the redevelopment of the facilities if, in return, the government would amend the metropolitan region scheme to allow the council to develop the recreational land for housing. The council quite properly saw it as a win-win arrangement, because it would produce a set of new sporting facilities and at the same time allow the council to make a windfall profit in the order of $60 million. The proposal seemed very sensible, and the council went through an extensive tender process, in which a number of leading Western Australian companies tendered for that work, at considerable cost to themselves. However, the council has now decided to go off on a completely different tangent and patch up the old Perry Lakes Stadium. We have told the Town of Cambridge that we will not accept the bizarre proposal to patch up the old, cancerous facility at Perry Lakes Reserve. It is unacceptable. We have had great trouble working out why the council is following this strategy given it is opposed by athletics, rugby and basketball associations. Members of the Property Council of Australia are very angry that they have been treated so appallingly by the council. We have found one person who has been giving support and comfort to the Town of Cambridge in its machinations: the member for Cottesloe. Indeed, we have recently discovered that prior to the last election the member for Cottesloe wrote to the Director General of the Department for Planning and Infrastructure and urged that the process not be allowed to continue during the caretaker period. In his letter, the member describes this commonsense proposal as “a highly contentious issue” and a proposal that “does not have overwhelming public support”. I am happy to table this letter. I suspect that the member for Cottesloe has been a willing player in this debacle. I call upon the Leader of the Opposition to make clear the opposition’s position on this matter to clear the air and get the Town of Cambridge to see commonsense and deliver decent sporting facilities. [See paper 449.] Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order members! I call the member for Bassendean to order for the first time. I am sure all members wish to hear the question the member for Leschenault is waiting to ask. Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan : Undoubtedly.
As we know, this has been a very sorry state of affairs. Negotiations have been taking place since 1998 about the redevelopment of the facilities at Perry Lakes. In 2001 the Town of Cambridge put a proposal to the state government that the council would take financial responsibility for the redevelopment of the facilities if, in return, the government would amend the metropolitan region scheme to allow the council to develop the recreational land for housing. The council quite properly saw it as a win-win arrangement, because it would produce a set of new sporting facilities and at the same time allow the council to make a windfall profit in the order of $60 million. The proposal seemed very sensible, and the council went through an extensive tender process, in which a number of leading Western Australian companies tendered for that work, at considerable cost to themselves. However, the council has now decided to go off on a completely different tangent and patch up the old Perry Lakes Stadium. We have told the Town of Cambridge that we will not accept the bizarre proposal to patch up the old, cancerous facility at Perry Lakes Reserve. It is unacceptable. We have had great trouble working out why the council is following this strategy given it is opposed by athletics, rugby and basketball associations. Members of the Property Council of Australia are very angry that they have been treated so appallingly by the council. We have found one person who has been giving support and comfort to the Town of Cambridge in its machinations: the member for Cottesloe. Indeed, we have recently discovered that prior to the last election the member for Cottesloe wrote to the Director General of the Department for Planning and Infrastructure and urged that the process not be allowed to continue during the caretaker period. In his letter, the member describes this commonsense proposal as “a highly contentious issue” and a proposal that “does not have overwhelming public support”. I am happy to table this letter. I suspect that the member for Cottesloe has been a willing player in this debacle. I call upon the Leader of the Opposition to make clear the opposition’s position on this matter to clear the air and get the Town of Cambridge to see commonsense and deliver decent sporting facilities. [See paper 449.] Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order members! I call the member for Bassendean to order for the first time. I am sure all members wish to hear the question the member for Leschenault is waiting to ask. Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan : Undoubtedly.
[See paper 449.] Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order members! I call the member for Bassendean to order for the first time. I am sure all members wish to hear the question the member for Leschenault is waiting to ask. Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan : Undoubtedly.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order members! I call the member for Bassendean to order for the first time. I am sure all members wish to hear the question the member for Leschenault is waiting to ask. Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan : Undoubtedly.
The SPEAKER : Order members! I call the member for Bassendean to order for the first time. I am sure all members wish to hear the question the member for Leschenault is waiting to ask. Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan : Undoubtedly.
Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan : Undoubtedly.
Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for the question. I know he is a keen sportsperson and would share the - Several members interjected. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : He was a martial artist. As we know, this has been a very sorry state of affairs. Negotiations have been taking place since 1998 about the redevelopment of the facilities at Perry Lakes. In 2001 the Town of Cambridge put a proposal to the state government that the council would take financial responsibility for the redevelopment of the facilities if, in return, the government would amend the metropolitan region scheme to allow the council to develop the recreational land for housing. The council quite properly saw it as a win-win arrangement, because it would produce a set of new sporting facilities and at the same time allow the council to make a windfall profit in the order of $60 million. The proposal seemed very sensible, and the council went through an extensive tender process, in which a number of leading Western Australian companies tendered for that work, at considerable cost to themselves. However, the council has now decided to go off on a completely different tangent and patch up the old Perry Lakes Stadium. We have told the Town of Cambridge that we will not accept the bizarre proposal to patch up the old, cancerous facility at Perry Lakes Reserve. It is unacceptable. We have had great trouble working out why the council is following this strategy given it is opposed by athletics, rugby and basketball associations. Members of the Property Council of Australia are very angry that they have been treated so appallingly by the council. We have found one person who has been giving support and comfort to the Town of Cambridge in its machinations: the member for Cottesloe. Indeed, we have recently discovered that prior to the last election the member for Cottesloe wrote to the Director General of the Department for Planning and Infrastructure and urged that the process not be allowed to continue during the caretaker period. In his letter, the member describes this commonsense proposal as “a highly contentious issue” and a proposal that “does not have overwhelming public support”. I am happy to table this letter. I suspect that the member for Cottesloe has been a willing player in this debacle. I call upon the Leader of the Opposition to make clear the opposition’s position on this matter to clear the air and get the Town of Cambridge to see commonsense and deliver decent sporting facilities. [See paper 449.] Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order members! I call the member for Bassendean to order for the first time. I am sure all members wish to hear the question the member for Leschenault is waiting to ask. Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan : Undoubtedly.
I thank the member for the question. I know he is a keen sportsperson and would share the - Several members interjected. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : He was a martial artist. As we know, this has been a very sorry state of affairs. Negotiations have been taking place since 1998 about the redevelopment of the facilities at Perry Lakes. In 2001 the Town of Cambridge put a proposal to the state government that the council would take financial responsibility for the redevelopment of the facilities if, in return, the government would amend the metropolitan region scheme to allow the council to develop the recreational land for housing. The council quite properly saw it as a win-win arrangement, because it would produce a set of new sporting facilities and at the same time allow the council to make a windfall profit in the order of $60 million. The proposal seemed very sensible, and the council went through an extensive tender process, in which a number of leading Western Australian companies tendered for that work, at considerable cost to themselves. However, the council has now decided to go off on a completely different tangent and patch up the old Perry Lakes Stadium. We have told the Town of Cambridge that we will not accept the bizarre proposal to patch up the old, cancerous facility at Perry Lakes Reserve. It is unacceptable. We have had great trouble working out why the council is following this strategy given it is opposed by athletics, rugby and basketball associations. Members of the Property Council of Australia are very angry that they have been treated so appallingly by the council. We have found one person who has been giving support and comfort to the Town of Cambridge in its machinations: the member for Cottesloe. Indeed, we have recently discovered that prior to the last election the member for Cottesloe wrote to the Director General of the Department for Planning and Infrastructure and urged that the process not be allowed to continue during the caretaker period. In his letter, the member describes this commonsense proposal as “a highly contentious issue” and a proposal that “does not have overwhelming public support”. I am happy to table this letter. I suspect that the member for Cottesloe has been a willing player in this debacle. I call upon the Leader of the Opposition to make clear the opposition’s position on this matter to clear the air and get the Town of Cambridge to see commonsense and deliver decent sporting facilities. [See paper 449.] Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order members! I call the member for Bassendean to order for the first time. I am sure all members wish to hear the question the member for Leschenault is waiting to ask. Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan : Undoubtedly.
Several members interjected. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : He was a martial artist. As we know, this has been a very sorry state of affairs. Negotiations have been taking place since 1998 about the redevelopment of the facilities at Perry Lakes. In 2001 the Town of Cambridge put a proposal to the state government that the council would take financial responsibility for the redevelopment of the facilities if, in return, the government would amend the metropolitan region scheme to allow the council to develop the recreational land for housing. The council quite properly saw it as a win-win arrangement, because it would produce a set of new sporting facilities and at the same time allow the council to make a windfall profit in the order of $60 million. The proposal seemed very sensible, and the council went through an extensive tender process, in which a number of leading Western Australian companies tendered for that work, at considerable cost to themselves. However, the council has now decided to go off on a completely different tangent and patch up the old Perry Lakes Stadium. We have told the Town of Cambridge that we will not accept the bizarre proposal to patch up the old, cancerous facility at Perry Lakes Reserve. It is unacceptable. We have had great trouble working out why the council is following this strategy given it is opposed by athletics, rugby and basketball associations. Members of the Property Council of Australia are very angry that they have been treated so appallingly by the council. We have found one person who has been giving support and comfort to the Town of Cambridge in its machinations: the member for Cottesloe. Indeed, we have recently discovered that prior to the last election the member for Cottesloe wrote to the Director General of the Department for Planning and Infrastructure and urged that the process not be allowed to continue during the caretaker period. In his letter, the member describes this commonsense proposal as “a highly contentious issue” and a proposal that “does not have overwhelming public support”. I am happy to table this letter. I suspect that the member for Cottesloe has been a willing player in this debacle. I call upon the Leader of the Opposition to make clear the opposition’s position on this matter to clear the air and get the Town of Cambridge to see commonsense and deliver decent sporting facilities. [See paper 449.] Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order members! I call the member for Bassendean to order for the first time. I am sure all members wish to hear the question the member for Leschenault is waiting to ask. Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan : Undoubtedly.
Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : He was a martial artist. As we know, this has been a very sorry state of affairs. Negotiations have been taking place since 1998 about the redevelopment of the facilities at Perry Lakes. In 2001 the Town of Cambridge put a proposal to the state government that the council would take financial responsibility for the redevelopment of the facilities if, in return, the government would amend the metropolitan region scheme to allow the council to develop the recreational land for housing. The council quite properly saw it as a win-win arrangement, because it would produce a set of new sporting facilities and at the same time allow the council to make a windfall profit in the order of $60 million. The proposal seemed very sensible, and the council went through an extensive tender process, in which a number of leading Western Australian companies tendered for that work, at considerable cost to themselves. However, the council has now decided to go off on a completely different tangent and patch up the old Perry Lakes Stadium. We have told the Town of Cambridge that we will not accept the bizarre proposal to patch up the old, cancerous facility at Perry Lakes Reserve. It is unacceptable. We have had great trouble working out why the council is following this strategy given it is opposed by athletics, rugby and basketball associations. Members of the Property Council of Australia are very angry that they have been treated so appallingly by the council. We have found one person who has been giving support and comfort to the Town of Cambridge in its machinations: the member for Cottesloe. Indeed, we have recently discovered that prior to the last election the member for Cottesloe wrote to the Director General of the Department for Planning and Infrastructure and urged that the process not be allowed to continue during the caretaker period. In his letter, the member describes this commonsense proposal as “a highly contentious issue” and a proposal that “does not have overwhelming public support”. I am happy to table this letter. I suspect that the member for Cottesloe has been a willing player in this debacle. I call upon the Leader of the Opposition to make clear the opposition’s position on this matter to clear the air and get the Town of Cambridge to see commonsense and deliver decent sporting facilities. [See paper 449.] Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order members! I call the member for Bassendean to order for the first time. I am sure all members wish to hear the question the member for Leschenault is waiting to ask. Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan : Undoubtedly.
As we know, this has been a very sorry state of affairs. Negotiations have been taking place since 1998 about the redevelopment of the facilities at Perry Lakes. In 2001 the Town of Cambridge put a proposal to the state government that the council would take financial responsibility for the redevelopment of the facilities if, in return, the government would amend the metropolitan region scheme to allow the council to develop the recreational land for housing. The council quite properly saw it as a win-win arrangement, because it would produce a set of new sporting facilities and at the same time allow the council to make a windfall profit in the order of $60 million. The proposal seemed very sensible, and the council went through an extensive tender process, in which a number of leading Western Australian companies tendered for that work, at considerable cost to themselves. However, the council has now decided to go off on a completely different tangent and patch up the old Perry Lakes Stadium. We have told the Town of Cambridge that we will not accept the bizarre proposal to patch up the old, cancerous facility at Perry Lakes Reserve. It is unacceptable. We have had great trouble working out why the council is following this strategy given it is opposed by athletics, rugby and basketball associations. Members of the Property Council of Australia are very angry that they have been treated so appallingly by the council. We have found one person who has been giving support and comfort to the Town of Cambridge in its machinations: the member for Cottesloe. Indeed, we have recently discovered that prior to the last election the member for Cottesloe wrote to the Director General of the Department for Planning and Infrastructure and urged that the process not be allowed to continue during the caretaker period. In his letter, the member describes this commonsense proposal as “a highly contentious issue” and a proposal that “does not have overwhelming public support”. I am happy to table this letter. I suspect that the member for Cottesloe has been a willing player in this debacle. I call upon the Leader of the Opposition to make clear the opposition’s position on this matter to clear the air and get the Town of Cambridge to see commonsense and deliver decent sporting facilities. [See paper 449.] Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order members! I call the member for Bassendean to order for the first time. I am sure all members wish to hear the question the member for Leschenault is waiting to ask. Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan : Undoubtedly.
[See paper 449.] Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order members! I call the member for Bassendean to order for the first time. I am sure all members wish to hear the question the member for Leschenault is waiting to ask. Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan : Undoubtedly.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order members! I call the member for Bassendean to order for the first time. I am sure all members wish to hear the question the member for Leschenault is waiting to ask. Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan : Undoubtedly.
The SPEAKER : Order members! I call the member for Bassendean to order for the first time. I am sure all members wish to hear the question the member for Leschenault is waiting to ask. Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan : Undoubtedly.
Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan : Undoubtedly.
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.