❓ A WA parliamentary question on notice regarding the potential compulsory acquisition of 'The Cliffe' under the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990. The Minister declines to pursue acquisition, citing a previous parliamentary decision to remove the property from the state register.
AnsweredQoN 341Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
the cliffe — compulsory acquisition
(1) Is the minister aware that he has the power under section 73 of the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 to acquire The Cliffe compulsorily? (2) Is the minister aware that if he chose to do so, he may pay compensation based on its present dilapidated state? (3) Is the minister aware that none of the options being explored by the Shire of Peppermint Grove’s committee investigating The Cliffe includes recommending that the minister acquire the property for the state under section 73 of the act? (4) Is the minister aware that none of the options being explored by the Shire of Peppermint Grove’s committee investigating The Cliffe is as likely to secure the preservation and restoration of The Cliffe as is making use of the provisions of section 73 of the act? (5) Is the minister aware that there is nothing to stop him instructing the Heritage Council to implement the provisions of section 73 today? (6) Will the minister pursue action under section 73 of the act? (7) If yes to (6), when? (8) If no to (6), why not? Hon PETER COLLIER
(1) Is the minister aware that he has the power under section 73 of the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 to acquire The Cliffe compulsorily? (2) Is the minister aware that if he chose to do so, he may pay compensation based on its present dilapidated state? (3) Is the minister aware that none of the options being explored by the Shire of Peppermint Grove’s committee investigating The Cliffe includes recommending that the minister acquire the property for the state under section 73 of the act? (4) Is the minister aware that none of the options being explored by the Shire of Peppermint Grove’s committee investigating The Cliffe is as likely to secure the preservation and restoration of The Cliffe as is making use of the provisions of section 73 of the act? (5) Is the minister aware that there is nothing to stop him instructing the Heritage Council to implement the provisions of section 73 today? (6) Will the minister pursue action under section 73 of the act? (7) If yes to (6), when? (8) If no to (6), why not? Hon PETER COLLIER
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of this question. On behalf of the Minister for Heritage, I provide the following response — (1)-(2) Yes. (3)-(4) No. The state government is not involved in the Shire of Peppermint Grove’s deliberations on the future of The Cliffe. (5) Yes. (6) No. (7) Not applicable. (8) Both houses of Parliament agreed in 2008 that The Cliffe should be removed from the state register, and therefore the matter should now be resolved at the local level.
(2) Is the minister aware that if he chose to do so, he may pay compensation based on its present dilapidated state? (3) Is the minister aware that none of the options being explored by the Shire of Peppermint Grove’s committee investigating The Cliffe includes recommending that the minister acquire the property for the state under section 73 of the act? (4) Is the minister aware that none of the options being explored by the Shire of Peppermint Grove’s committee investigating The Cliffe is as likely to secure the preservation and restoration of The Cliffe as is making use of the provisions of section 73 of the act? (5) Is the minister aware that there is nothing to stop him instructing the Heritage Council to implement the provisions of section 73 today? (6) Will the minister pursue action under section 73 of the act? (7) If yes to (6), when? (8) If no to (6), why not? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. On behalf of the Minister for Heritage, I provide the following response — (1)-(2) Yes. (3)-(4) No. The state government is not involved in the Shire of Peppermint Grove’s deliberations on the future of The Cliffe. (5) Yes. (6) No. (7) Not applicable. (8) Both houses of Parliament agreed in 2008 that The Cliffe should be removed from the state register, and therefore the matter should now be resolved at the local level.
(3) Is the minister aware that none of the options being explored by the Shire of Peppermint Grove’s committee investigating The Cliffe includes recommending that the minister acquire the property for the state under section 73 of the act? (4) Is the minister aware that none of the options being explored by the Shire of Peppermint Grove’s committee investigating The Cliffe is as likely to secure the preservation and restoration of The Cliffe as is making use of the provisions of section 73 of the act? (5) Is the minister aware that there is nothing to stop him instructing the Heritage Council to implement the provisions of section 73 today? (6) Will the minister pursue action under section 73 of the act? (7) If yes to (6), when? (8) If no to (6), why not? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. On behalf of the Minister for Heritage, I provide the following response — (1)-(2) Yes. (3)-(4) No. The state government is not involved in the Shire of Peppermint Grove’s deliberations on the future of The Cliffe. (5) Yes. (6) No. (7) Not applicable. (8) Both houses of Parliament agreed in 2008 that The Cliffe should be removed from the state register, and therefore the matter should now be resolved at the local level.
(4) Is the minister aware that none of the options being explored by the Shire of Peppermint Grove’s committee investigating The Cliffe is as likely to secure the preservation and restoration of The Cliffe as is making use of the provisions of section 73 of the act? (5) Is the minister aware that there is nothing to stop him instructing the Heritage Council to implement the provisions of section 73 today? (6) Will the minister pursue action under section 73 of the act? (7) If yes to (6), when? (8) If no to (6), why not? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. On behalf of the Minister for Heritage, I provide the following response — (1)-(2) Yes. (3)-(4) No. The state government is not involved in the Shire of Peppermint Grove’s deliberations on the future of The Cliffe. (5) Yes. (6) No. (7) Not applicable. (8) Both houses of Parliament agreed in 2008 that The Cliffe should be removed from the state register, and therefore the matter should now be resolved at the local level.
(5) Is the minister aware that there is nothing to stop him instructing the Heritage Council to implement the provisions of section 73 today? (6) Will the minister pursue action under section 73 of the act? (7) If yes to (6), when? (8) If no to (6), why not? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. On behalf of the Minister for Heritage, I provide the following response — (1)-(2) Yes. (3)-(4) No. The state government is not involved in the Shire of Peppermint Grove’s deliberations on the future of The Cliffe. (5) Yes. (6) No. (7) Not applicable. (8) Both houses of Parliament agreed in 2008 that The Cliffe should be removed from the state register, and therefore the matter should now be resolved at the local level.
(6) Will the minister pursue action under section 73 of the act? (7) If yes to (6), when? (8) If no to (6), why not? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. On behalf of the Minister for Heritage, I provide the following response — (1)-(2) Yes. (3)-(4) No. The state government is not involved in the Shire of Peppermint Grove’s deliberations on the future of The Cliffe. (5) Yes. (6) No. (7) Not applicable. (8) Both houses of Parliament agreed in 2008 that The Cliffe should be removed from the state register, and therefore the matter should now be resolved at the local level.
(7) If yes to (6), when? (8) If no to (6), why not? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. On behalf of the Minister for Heritage, I provide the following response — (1)-(2) Yes. (3)-(4) No. The state government is not involved in the Shire of Peppermint Grove’s deliberations on the future of The Cliffe. (5) Yes. (6) No. (7) Not applicable. (8) Both houses of Parliament agreed in 2008 that The Cliffe should be removed from the state register, and therefore the matter should now be resolved at the local level.
(8) If no to (6), why not? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. On behalf of the Minister for Heritage, I provide the following response — (1)-(2) Yes. (3)-(4) No. The state government is not involved in the Shire of Peppermint Grove’s deliberations on the future of The Cliffe. (5) Yes. (6) No. (7) Not applicable. (8) Both houses of Parliament agreed in 2008 that The Cliffe should be removed from the state register, and therefore the matter should now be resolved at the local level.
Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. On behalf of the Minister for Heritage, I provide the following response — (1)-(2) Yes. (3)-(4) No. The state government is not involved in the Shire of Peppermint Grove’s deliberations on the future of The Cliffe. (5) Yes. (6) No. (7) Not applicable. (8) Both houses of Parliament agreed in 2008 that The Cliffe should be removed from the state register, and therefore the matter should now be resolved at the local level.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. On behalf of the Minister for Heritage, I provide the following response — (1)-(2) Yes. (3)-(4) No. The state government is not involved in the Shire of Peppermint Grove’s deliberations on the future of The Cliffe. (5) Yes. (6) No. (7) Not applicable. (8) Both houses of Parliament agreed in 2008 that The Cliffe should be removed from the state register, and therefore the matter should now be resolved at the local level.
(1)-(2) Yes. (3)-(4) No. The state government is not involved in the Shire of Peppermint Grove’s deliberations on the future of The Cliffe. (5) Yes. (6) No. (7) Not applicable. (8) Both houses of Parliament agreed in 2008 that The Cliffe should be removed from the state register, and therefore the matter should now be resolved at the local level.
(3)-(4) No. The state government is not involved in the Shire of Peppermint Grove’s deliberations on the future of The Cliffe. (5) Yes. (6) No. (7) Not applicable. (8) Both houses of Parliament agreed in 2008 that The Cliffe should be removed from the state register, and therefore the matter should now be resolved at the local level.
(5) Yes. (6) No. (7) Not applicable. (8) Both houses of Parliament agreed in 2008 that The Cliffe should be removed from the state register, and therefore the matter should now be resolved at the local level.
(6) No. (7) Not applicable. (8) Both houses of Parliament agreed in 2008 that The Cliffe should be removed from the state register, and therefore the matter should now be resolved at the local level.
(7) Not applicable. (8) Both houses of Parliament agreed in 2008 that The Cliffe should be removed from the state register, and therefore the matter should now be resolved at the local level.
(8) Both houses of Parliament agreed in 2008 that The Cliffe should be removed from the state register, and therefore the matter should now be resolved at the local level.
(2) Is the minister aware that if he chose to do so, he may pay compensation based on its present dilapidated state? (3) Is the minister aware that none of the options being explored by the Shire of Peppermint Grove’s committee investigating The Cliffe includes recommending that the minister acquire the property for the state under section 73 of the act? (4) Is the minister aware that none of the options being explored by the Shire of Peppermint Grove’s committee investigating The Cliffe is as likely to secure the preservation and restoration of The Cliffe as is making use of the provisions of section 73 of the act? (5) Is the minister aware that there is nothing to stop him instructing the Heritage Council to implement the provisions of section 73 today? (6) Will the minister pursue action under section 73 of the act? (7) If yes to (6), when? (8) If no to (6), why not? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. On behalf of the Minister for Heritage, I provide the following response — (1)-(2) Yes. (3)-(4) No. The state government is not involved in the Shire of Peppermint Grove’s deliberations on the future of The Cliffe. (5) Yes. (6) No. (7) Not applicable. (8) Both houses of Parliament agreed in 2008 that The Cliffe should be removed from the state register, and therefore the matter should now be resolved at the local level.
(3) Is the minister aware that none of the options being explored by the Shire of Peppermint Grove’s committee investigating The Cliffe includes recommending that the minister acquire the property for the state under section 73 of the act? (4) Is the minister aware that none of the options being explored by the Shire of Peppermint Grove’s committee investigating The Cliffe is as likely to secure the preservation and restoration of The Cliffe as is making use of the provisions of section 73 of the act? (5) Is the minister aware that there is nothing to stop him instructing the Heritage Council to implement the provisions of section 73 today? (6) Will the minister pursue action under section 73 of the act? (7) If yes to (6), when? (8) If no to (6), why not? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. On behalf of the Minister for Heritage, I provide the following response — (1)-(2) Yes. (3)-(4) No. The state government is not involved in the Shire of Peppermint Grove’s deliberations on the future of The Cliffe. (5) Yes. (6) No. (7) Not applicable. (8) Both houses of Parliament agreed in 2008 that The Cliffe should be removed from the state register, and therefore the matter should now be resolved at the local level.
(4) Is the minister aware that none of the options being explored by the Shire of Peppermint Grove’s committee investigating The Cliffe is as likely to secure the preservation and restoration of The Cliffe as is making use of the provisions of section 73 of the act? (5) Is the minister aware that there is nothing to stop him instructing the Heritage Council to implement the provisions of section 73 today? (6) Will the minister pursue action under section 73 of the act? (7) If yes to (6), when? (8) If no to (6), why not? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. On behalf of the Minister for Heritage, I provide the following response — (1)-(2) Yes. (3)-(4) No. The state government is not involved in the Shire of Peppermint Grove’s deliberations on the future of The Cliffe. (5) Yes. (6) No. (7) Not applicable. (8) Both houses of Parliament agreed in 2008 that The Cliffe should be removed from the state register, and therefore the matter should now be resolved at the local level.
(5) Is the minister aware that there is nothing to stop him instructing the Heritage Council to implement the provisions of section 73 today? (6) Will the minister pursue action under section 73 of the act? (7) If yes to (6), when? (8) If no to (6), why not? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. On behalf of the Minister for Heritage, I provide the following response — (1)-(2) Yes. (3)-(4) No. The state government is not involved in the Shire of Peppermint Grove’s deliberations on the future of The Cliffe. (5) Yes. (6) No. (7) Not applicable. (8) Both houses of Parliament agreed in 2008 that The Cliffe should be removed from the state register, and therefore the matter should now be resolved at the local level.
(6) Will the minister pursue action under section 73 of the act? (7) If yes to (6), when? (8) If no to (6), why not? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. On behalf of the Minister for Heritage, I provide the following response — (1)-(2) Yes. (3)-(4) No. The state government is not involved in the Shire of Peppermint Grove’s deliberations on the future of The Cliffe. (5) Yes. (6) No. (7) Not applicable. (8) Both houses of Parliament agreed in 2008 that The Cliffe should be removed from the state register, and therefore the matter should now be resolved at the local level.
(7) If yes to (6), when? (8) If no to (6), why not? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. On behalf of the Minister for Heritage, I provide the following response — (1)-(2) Yes. (3)-(4) No. The state government is not involved in the Shire of Peppermint Grove’s deliberations on the future of The Cliffe. (5) Yes. (6) No. (7) Not applicable. (8) Both houses of Parliament agreed in 2008 that The Cliffe should be removed from the state register, and therefore the matter should now be resolved at the local level.
(8) If no to (6), why not? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. On behalf of the Minister for Heritage, I provide the following response — (1)-(2) Yes. (3)-(4) No. The state government is not involved in the Shire of Peppermint Grove’s deliberations on the future of The Cliffe. (5) Yes. (6) No. (7) Not applicable. (8) Both houses of Parliament agreed in 2008 that The Cliffe should be removed from the state register, and therefore the matter should now be resolved at the local level.
Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. On behalf of the Minister for Heritage, I provide the following response — (1)-(2) Yes. (3)-(4) No. The state government is not involved in the Shire of Peppermint Grove’s deliberations on the future of The Cliffe. (5) Yes. (6) No. (7) Not applicable. (8) Both houses of Parliament agreed in 2008 that The Cliffe should be removed from the state register, and therefore the matter should now be resolved at the local level.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. On behalf of the Minister for Heritage, I provide the following response — (1)-(2) Yes. (3)-(4) No. The state government is not involved in the Shire of Peppermint Grove’s deliberations on the future of The Cliffe. (5) Yes. (6) No. (7) Not applicable. (8) Both houses of Parliament agreed in 2008 that The Cliffe should be removed from the state register, and therefore the matter should now be resolved at the local level.
(1)-(2) Yes. (3)-(4) No. The state government is not involved in the Shire of Peppermint Grove’s deliberations on the future of The Cliffe. (5) Yes. (6) No. (7) Not applicable. (8) Both houses of Parliament agreed in 2008 that The Cliffe should be removed from the state register, and therefore the matter should now be resolved at the local level.
(3)-(4) No. The state government is not involved in the Shire of Peppermint Grove’s deliberations on the future of The Cliffe. (5) Yes. (6) No. (7) Not applicable. (8) Both houses of Parliament agreed in 2008 that The Cliffe should be removed from the state register, and therefore the matter should now be resolved at the local level.
(5) Yes. (6) No. (7) Not applicable. (8) Both houses of Parliament agreed in 2008 that The Cliffe should be removed from the state register, and therefore the matter should now be resolved at the local level.
(6) No. (7) Not applicable. (8) Both houses of Parliament agreed in 2008 that The Cliffe should be removed from the state register, and therefore the matter should now be resolved at the local level.
(7) Not applicable. (8) Both houses of Parliament agreed in 2008 that The Cliffe should be removed from the state register, and therefore the matter should now be resolved at the local level.
(8) Both houses of Parliament agreed in 2008 that The Cliffe should be removed from the state register, and therefore the matter should now be resolved at the local level.
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.