❓ A parliamentary question regarding the Minister for Planning's decision to approve a commercial fishing boat jetty in Mindarie Keys, despite local council and community opposition. The Minister defends his decision by referencing the proper planning scheme amendment process and offers access to information via FOI.
AnsweredQoN 56Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
Last week the Minister for Planning used his ministerial powers to overturn the refusal by the City of Wanneroo to approve the building of a 40 metre commercial fishing boat jetty in the heart of the residential area of Mindarie Keys. (1) How does the minister justify approving this unprecedented development which has been rejected not only by the council, but also by the commissioners for Wanneroo, and which is vehemently opposed by the local community? (2) What was the nature of the submissions made to the Minister for Planning by Hon George Cash and the member for Wanneroo in relation to this matter? (3) Will the minister table those submissions? (4) Will the minister table a report prepared for him by a member of the Town Planning Appeal Committee? Mr KIERATH
AnswerView source ↗
If the member had given me some notice of the question, I would have brought along the information. I am happy to table my letter of decision, as it has been made public, which outlines all the reasons for the decision. If the member wants other reports, the normal process is to seek access under the provisions of the freedom of information legislation. Mr Kobelke: You mean go to the Supreme Court to get them? Mr KIERATH: No. Mr Kobelke: That is what I had to do. Mr KIERATH: The member may have had to do that with past ministers, but not with me. In all cases, except for third party information, there has not been one knock-back. The member for Armadale asked me why sometimes I reject decisions of commissioners and other people, and the question gives me an opportunity to explain to the House the issue of planning appeals. Mrs Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER: The member for Midland will come to order! Mr KIERATH: The correct, legal way of ensuring a council’s wishes are met is to amend its town planning scheme, which requires the council to go through a proper process. That process involves receiving submissions from the public, local government, the Western Australian Planning Commission and the minister of the day. The process must run its full course. That is the right way to put any restrictions in place. In most decisions I make, often there are no provisions in the scheme or a council has not moved to change its scheme. Often councils or commissioners attempt to impose obligations via policy instead of through the proper process of amending their town planning schemes. I simplified that by saying they must use either the front door method or the back door method. If they want to sneak around and use the back door method of policies instead of amending their town planning schemes, I will uphold the rights of individuals as espoused in the town planning scheme, which is subsidiary legislation of this House. I am obligated to do so as I took an oath to uphold that legislation. I do not participate in the dirty, sneaky practices practised by the Opposition when it was in government, doing deals behind closed doors with its mates and friends. If the Opposition wants me to dig out those reports and table them in this House, I am prepared to do so, particularly the report of the officer on which I based my decision. However, I again remind the member, and any other member who is interested, that my decision letter contains all the matters that I took into consideration in making that decision. That is enough for most people when they read that letter. If the member for Armadale requires more information, she knows she can get it through FOI legislation; however, I will consider tabling it in the House.
(1) How does the minister justify approving this unprecedented development which has been rejected not only by the council, but also by the commissioners for Wanneroo, and which is vehemently opposed by the local community? (2) What was the nature of the submissions made to the Minister for Planning by Hon George Cash and the member for Wanneroo in relation to this matter? (3) Will the minister table those submissions? (4) Will the minister table a report prepared for him by a member of the Town Planning Appeal Committee? Mr KIERATH replied: If the member had given me some notice of the question, I would have brought along the information. I am happy to table my letter of decision, as it has been made public, which outlines all the reasons for the decision. If the member wants other reports, the normal process is to seek access under the provisions of the freedom of information legislation. Mr Kobelke: You mean go to the Supreme Court to get them? Mr KIERATH: No. Mr Kobelke: That is what I had to do. Mr KIERATH: The member may have had to do that with past ministers, but not with me. In all cases, except for third party information, there has not been one knock-back. The member for Armadale asked me why sometimes I reject decisions of commissioners and other people, and the question gives me an opportunity to explain to the House the issue of planning appeals. Mrs Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER: The member for Midland will come to order! Mr KIERATH: The correct, legal way of ensuring a council’s wishes are met is to amend its town planning scheme, which requires the council to go through a proper process. That process involves receiving submissions from the public, local government, the Western Australian Planning Commission and the minister of the day. The process must run its full course. That is the right way to put any restrictions in place. In most decisions I make, often there are no provisions in the scheme or a council has not moved to change its scheme. Often councils or commissioners attempt to impose obligations via policy instead of through the proper process of amending their town planning schemes. I simplified that by saying they must use either the front door method or the back door method. If they want to sneak around and use the back door method of policies instead of amending their town planning schemes, I will uphold the rights of individuals as espoused in the town planning scheme, which is subsidiary legislation of this House. I am obligated to do so as I took an oath to uphold that legislation. I do not participate in the dirty, sneaky practices practised by the Opposition when it was in government, doing deals behind closed doors with its mates and friends. If the Opposition wants me to dig out those reports and table them in this House, I am prepared to do so, particularly the report of the officer on which I based my decision. However, I again remind the member, and any other member who is interested, that my decision letter contains all the matters that I took into consideration in making that decision. That is enough for most people when they read that letter. If the member for Armadale requires more information, she knows she can get it through FOI legislation; however, I will consider tabling it in the House.
(2) What was the nature of the submissions made to the Minister for Planning by Hon George Cash and the member for Wanneroo in relation to this matter? (3) Will the minister table those submissions? (4) Will the minister table a report prepared for him by a member of the Town Planning Appeal Committee? Mr KIERATH replied: If the member had given me some notice of the question, I would have brought along the information. I am happy to table my letter of decision, as it has been made public, which outlines all the reasons for the decision. If the member wants other reports, the normal process is to seek access under the provisions of the freedom of information legislation. Mr Kobelke: You mean go to the Supreme Court to get them? Mr KIERATH: No. Mr Kobelke: That is what I had to do. Mr KIERATH: The member may have had to do that with past ministers, but not with me. In all cases, except for third party information, there has not been one knock-back. The member for Armadale asked me why sometimes I reject decisions of commissioners and other people, and the question gives me an opportunity to explain to the House the issue of planning appeals. Mrs Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER: The member for Midland will come to order! Mr KIERATH: The correct, legal way of ensuring a council’s wishes are met is to amend its town planning scheme, which requires the council to go through a proper process. That process involves receiving submissions from the public, local government, the Western Australian Planning Commission and the minister of the day. The process must run its full course. That is the right way to put any restrictions in place. In most decisions I make, often there are no provisions in the scheme or a council has not moved to change its scheme. Often councils or commissioners attempt to impose obligations via policy instead of through the proper process of amending their town planning schemes. I simplified that by saying they must use either the front door method or the back door method. If they want to sneak around and use the back door method of policies instead of amending their town planning schemes, I will uphold the rights of individuals as espoused in the town planning scheme, which is subsidiary legislation of this House. I am obligated to do so as I took an oath to uphold that legislation. I do not participate in the dirty, sneaky practices practised by the Opposition when it was in government, doing deals behind closed doors with its mates and friends. If the Opposition wants me to dig out those reports and table them in this House, I am prepared to do so, particularly the report of the officer on which I based my decision. However, I again remind the member, and any other member who is interested, that my decision letter contains all the matters that I took into consideration in making that decision. That is enough for most people when they read that letter. If the member for Armadale requires more information, she knows she can get it through FOI legislation; however, I will consider tabling it in the House.
(3) Will the minister table those submissions? (4) Will the minister table a report prepared for him by a member of the Town Planning Appeal Committee? Mr KIERATH replied: If the member had given me some notice of the question, I would have brought along the information. I am happy to table my letter of decision, as it has been made public, which outlines all the reasons for the decision. If the member wants other reports, the normal process is to seek access under the provisions of the freedom of information legislation. Mr Kobelke: You mean go to the Supreme Court to get them? Mr KIERATH: No. Mr Kobelke: That is what I had to do. Mr KIERATH: The member may have had to do that with past ministers, but not with me. In all cases, except for third party information, there has not been one knock-back. The member for Armadale asked me why sometimes I reject decisions of commissioners and other people, and the question gives me an opportunity to explain to the House the issue of planning appeals. Mrs Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER: The member for Midland will come to order! Mr KIERATH: The correct, legal way of ensuring a council’s wishes are met is to amend its town planning scheme, which requires the council to go through a proper process. That process involves receiving submissions from the public, local government, the Western Australian Planning Commission and the minister of the day. The process must run its full course. That is the right way to put any restrictions in place. In most decisions I make, often there are no provisions in the scheme or a council has not moved to change its scheme. Often councils or commissioners attempt to impose obligations via policy instead of through the proper process of amending their town planning schemes. I simplified that by saying they must use either the front door method or the back door method. If they want to sneak around and use the back door method of policies instead of amending their town planning schemes, I will uphold the rights of individuals as espoused in the town planning scheme, which is subsidiary legislation of this House. I am obligated to do so as I took an oath to uphold that legislation. I do not participate in the dirty, sneaky practices practised by the Opposition when it was in government, doing deals behind closed doors with its mates and friends. If the Opposition wants me to dig out those reports and table them in this House, I am prepared to do so, particularly the report of the officer on which I based my decision. However, I again remind the member, and any other member who is interested, that my decision letter contains all the matters that I took into consideration in making that decision. That is enough for most people when they read that letter. If the member for Armadale requires more information, she knows she can get it through FOI legislation; however, I will consider tabling it in the House.
(4) Will the minister table a report prepared for him by a member of the Town Planning Appeal Committee? Mr KIERATH replied: If the member had given me some notice of the question, I would have brought along the information. I am happy to table my letter of decision, as it has been made public, which outlines all the reasons for the decision. If the member wants other reports, the normal process is to seek access under the provisions of the freedom of information legislation. Mr Kobelke: You mean go to the Supreme Court to get them? Mr KIERATH: No. Mr Kobelke: That is what I had to do. Mr KIERATH: The member may have had to do that with past ministers, but not with me. In all cases, except for third party information, there has not been one knock-back. The member for Armadale asked me why sometimes I reject decisions of commissioners and other people, and the question gives me an opportunity to explain to the House the issue of planning appeals. Mrs Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER: The member for Midland will come to order! Mr KIERATH: The correct, legal way of ensuring a council’s wishes are met is to amend its town planning scheme, which requires the council to go through a proper process. That process involves receiving submissions from the public, local government, the Western Australian Planning Commission and the minister of the day. The process must run its full course. That is the right way to put any restrictions in place. In most decisions I make, often there are no provisions in the scheme or a council has not moved to change its scheme. Often councils or commissioners attempt to impose obligations via policy instead of through the proper process of amending their town planning schemes. I simplified that by saying they must use either the front door method or the back door method. If they want to sneak around and use the back door method of policies instead of amending their town planning schemes, I will uphold the rights of individuals as espoused in the town planning scheme, which is subsidiary legislation of this House. I am obligated to do so as I took an oath to uphold that legislation. I do not participate in the dirty, sneaky practices practised by the Opposition when it was in government, doing deals behind closed doors with its mates and friends. If the Opposition wants me to dig out those reports and table them in this House, I am prepared to do so, particularly the report of the officer on which I based my decision. However, I again remind the member, and any other member who is interested, that my decision letter contains all the matters that I took into consideration in making that decision. That is enough for most people when they read that letter. If the member for Armadale requires more information, she knows she can get it through FOI legislation; however, I will consider tabling it in the House.
Mr KIERATH replied: If the member had given me some notice of the question, I would have brought along the information. I am happy to table my letter of decision, as it has been made public, which outlines all the reasons for the decision. If the member wants other reports, the normal process is to seek access under the provisions of the freedom of information legislation. Mr Kobelke: You mean go to the Supreme Court to get them? Mr KIERATH: No. Mr Kobelke: That is what I had to do. Mr KIERATH: The member may have had to do that with past ministers, but not with me. In all cases, except for third party information, there has not been one knock-back. The member for Armadale asked me why sometimes I reject decisions of commissioners and other people, and the question gives me an opportunity to explain to the House the issue of planning appeals. Mrs Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER: The member for Midland will come to order! Mr KIERATH: The correct, legal way of ensuring a council’s wishes are met is to amend its town planning scheme, which requires the council to go through a proper process. That process involves receiving submissions from the public, local government, the Western Australian Planning Commission and the minister of the day. The process must run its full course. That is the right way to put any restrictions in place. In most decisions I make, often there are no provisions in the scheme or a council has not moved to change its scheme. Often councils or commissioners attempt to impose obligations via policy instead of through the proper process of amending their town planning schemes. I simplified that by saying they must use either the front door method or the back door method. If they want to sneak around and use the back door method of policies instead of amending their town planning schemes, I will uphold the rights of individuals as espoused in the town planning scheme, which is subsidiary legislation of this House. I am obligated to do so as I took an oath to uphold that legislation. I do not participate in the dirty, sneaky practices practised by the Opposition when it was in government, doing deals behind closed doors with its mates and friends. If the Opposition wants me to dig out those reports and table them in this House, I am prepared to do so, particularly the report of the officer on which I based my decision. However, I again remind the member, and any other member who is interested, that my decision letter contains all the matters that I took into consideration in making that decision. That is enough for most people when they read that letter. If the member for Armadale requires more information, she knows she can get it through FOI legislation; however, I will consider tabling it in the House.
If the member had given me some notice of the question, I would have brought along the information. I am happy to table my letter of decision, as it has been made public, which outlines all the reasons for the decision. If the member wants other reports, the normal process is to seek access under the provisions of the freedom of information legislation. Mr Kobelke: You mean go to the Supreme Court to get them? Mr KIERATH: No. Mr Kobelke: That is what I had to do. Mr KIERATH: The member may have had to do that with past ministers, but not with me. In all cases, except for third party information, there has not been one knock-back. The member for Armadale asked me why sometimes I reject decisions of commissioners and other people, and the question gives me an opportunity to explain to the House the issue of planning appeals. Mrs Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER: The member for Midland will come to order! Mr KIERATH: The correct, legal way of ensuring a council’s wishes are met is to amend its town planning scheme, which requires the council to go through a proper process. That process involves receiving submissions from the public, local government, the Western Australian Planning Commission and the minister of the day. The process must run its full course. That is the right way to put any restrictions in place. In most decisions I make, often there are no provisions in the scheme or a council has not moved to change its scheme. Often councils or commissioners attempt to impose obligations via policy instead of through the proper process of amending their town planning schemes. I simplified that by saying they must use either the front door method or the back door method. If they want to sneak around and use the back door method of policies instead of amending their town planning schemes, I will uphold the rights of individuals as espoused in the town planning scheme, which is subsidiary legislation of this House. I am obligated to do so as I took an oath to uphold that legislation. I do not participate in the dirty, sneaky practices practised by the Opposition when it was in government, doing deals behind closed doors with its mates and friends. If the Opposition wants me to dig out those reports and table them in this House, I am prepared to do so, particularly the report of the officer on which I based my decision. However, I again remind the member, and any other member who is interested, that my decision letter contains all the matters that I took into consideration in making that decision. That is enough for most people when they read that letter. If the member for Armadale requires more information, she knows she can get it through FOI legislation; however, I will consider tabling it in the House.
Mr Kobelke: You mean go to the Supreme Court to get them? Mr KIERATH: No. Mr Kobelke: That is what I had to do. Mr KIERATH: The member may have had to do that with past ministers, but not with me. In all cases, except for third party information, there has not been one knock-back. The member for Armadale asked me why sometimes I reject decisions of commissioners and other people, and the question gives me an opportunity to explain to the House the issue of planning appeals. Mrs Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER: The member for Midland will come to order! Mr KIERATH: The correct, legal way of ensuring a council’s wishes are met is to amend its town planning scheme, which requires the council to go through a proper process. That process involves receiving submissions from the public, local government, the Western Australian Planning Commission and the minister of the day. The process must run its full course. That is the right way to put any restrictions in place. In most decisions I make, often there are no provisions in the scheme or a council has not moved to change its scheme. Often councils or commissioners attempt to impose obligations via policy instead of through the proper process of amending their town planning schemes. I simplified that by saying they must use either the front door method or the back door method. If they want to sneak around and use the back door method of policies instead of amending their town planning schemes, I will uphold the rights of individuals as espoused in the town planning scheme, which is subsidiary legislation of this House. I am obligated to do so as I took an oath to uphold that legislation. I do not participate in the dirty, sneaky practices practised by the Opposition when it was in government, doing deals behind closed doors with its mates and friends. If the Opposition wants me to dig out those reports and table them in this House, I am prepared to do so, particularly the report of the officer on which I based my decision. However, I again remind the member, and any other member who is interested, that my decision letter contains all the matters that I took into consideration in making that decision. That is enough for most people when they read that letter. If the member for Armadale requires more information, she knows she can get it through FOI legislation; however, I will consider tabling it in the House.
Mr KIERATH: No. Mr Kobelke: That is what I had to do. Mr KIERATH: The member may have had to do that with past ministers, but not with me. In all cases, except for third party information, there has not been one knock-back. The member for Armadale asked me why sometimes I reject decisions of commissioners and other people, and the question gives me an opportunity to explain to the House the issue of planning appeals. Mrs Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER: The member for Midland will come to order! Mr KIERATH: The correct, legal way of ensuring a council’s wishes are met is to amend its town planning scheme, which requires the council to go through a proper process. That process involves receiving submissions from the public, local government, the Western Australian Planning Commission and the minister of the day. The process must run its full course. That is the right way to put any restrictions in place. In most decisions I make, often there are no provisions in the scheme or a council has not moved to change its scheme. Often councils or commissioners attempt to impose obligations via policy instead of through the proper process of amending their town planning schemes. I simplified that by saying they must use either the front door method or the back door method. If they want to sneak around and use the back door method of policies instead of amending their town planning schemes, I will uphold the rights of individuals as espoused in the town planning scheme, which is subsidiary legislation of this House. I am obligated to do so as I took an oath to uphold that legislation. I do not participate in the dirty, sneaky practices practised by the Opposition when it was in government, doing deals behind closed doors with its mates and friends. If the Opposition wants me to dig out those reports and table them in this House, I am prepared to do so, particularly the report of the officer on which I based my decision. However, I again remind the member, and any other member who is interested, that my decision letter contains all the matters that I took into consideration in making that decision. That is enough for most people when they read that letter. If the member for Armadale requires more information, she knows she can get it through FOI legislation; however, I will consider tabling it in the House.
Mr Kobelke: That is what I had to do. Mr KIERATH: The member may have had to do that with past ministers, but not with me. In all cases, except for third party information, there has not been one knock-back. The member for Armadale asked me why sometimes I reject decisions of commissioners and other people, and the question gives me an opportunity to explain to the House the issue of planning appeals. Mrs Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER: The member for Midland will come to order! Mr KIERATH: The correct, legal way of ensuring a council’s wishes are met is to amend its town planning scheme, which requires the council to go through a proper process. That process involves receiving submissions from the public, local government, the Western Australian Planning Commission and the minister of the day. The process must run its full course. That is the right way to put any restrictions in place. In most decisions I make, often there are no provisions in the scheme or a council has not moved to change its scheme. Often councils or commissioners attempt to impose obligations via policy instead of through the proper process of amending their town planning schemes. I simplified that by saying they must use either the front door method or the back door method. If they want to sneak around and use the back door method of policies instead of amending their town planning schemes, I will uphold the rights of individuals as espoused in the town planning scheme, which is subsidiary legislation of this House. I am obligated to do so as I took an oath to uphold that legislation. I do not participate in the dirty, sneaky practices practised by the Opposition when it was in government, doing deals behind closed doors with its mates and friends. If the Opposition wants me to dig out those reports and table them in this House, I am prepared to do so, particularly the report of the officer on which I based my decision. However, I again remind the member, and any other member who is interested, that my decision letter contains all the matters that I took into consideration in making that decision. That is enough for most people when they read that letter. If the member for Armadale requires more information, she knows she can get it through FOI legislation; however, I will consider tabling it in the House.
Mr KIERATH: The member may have had to do that with past ministers, but not with me. In all cases, except for third party information, there has not been one knock-back. The member for Armadale asked me why sometimes I reject decisions of commissioners and other people, and the question gives me an opportunity to explain to the House the issue of planning appeals. Mrs Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER: The member for Midland will come to order! Mr KIERATH: The correct, legal way of ensuring a council’s wishes are met is to amend its town planning scheme, which requires the council to go through a proper process. That process involves receiving submissions from the public, local government, the Western Australian Planning Commission and the minister of the day. The process must run its full course. That is the right way to put any restrictions in place. In most decisions I make, often there are no provisions in the scheme or a council has not moved to change its scheme. Often councils or commissioners attempt to impose obligations via policy instead of through the proper process of amending their town planning schemes. I simplified that by saying they must use either the front door method or the back door method. If they want to sneak around and use the back door method of policies instead of amending their town planning schemes, I will uphold the rights of individuals as espoused in the town planning scheme, which is subsidiary legislation of this House. I am obligated to do so as I took an oath to uphold that legislation. I do not participate in the dirty, sneaky practices practised by the Opposition when it was in government, doing deals behind closed doors with its mates and friends. If the Opposition wants me to dig out those reports and table them in this House, I am prepared to do so, particularly the report of the officer on which I based my decision. However, I again remind the member, and any other member who is interested, that my decision letter contains all the matters that I took into consideration in making that decision. That is enough for most people when they read that letter. If the member for Armadale requires more information, she knows she can get it through FOI legislation; however, I will consider tabling it in the House.
Mrs Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER: The member for Midland will come to order! Mr KIERATH: The correct, legal way of ensuring a council’s wishes are met is to amend its town planning scheme, which requires the council to go through a proper process. That process involves receiving submissions from the public, local government, the Western Australian Planning Commission and the minister of the day. The process must run its full course. That is the right way to put any restrictions in place. In most decisions I make, often there are no provisions in the scheme or a council has not moved to change its scheme. Often councils or commissioners attempt to impose obligations via policy instead of through the proper process of amending their town planning schemes. I simplified that by saying they must use either the front door method or the back door method. If they want to sneak around and use the back door method of policies instead of amending their town planning schemes, I will uphold the rights of individuals as espoused in the town planning scheme, which is subsidiary legislation of this House. I am obligated to do so as I took an oath to uphold that legislation. I do not participate in the dirty, sneaky practices practised by the Opposition when it was in government, doing deals behind closed doors with its mates and friends. If the Opposition wants me to dig out those reports and table them in this House, I am prepared to do so, particularly the report of the officer on which I based my decision. However, I again remind the member, and any other member who is interested, that my decision letter contains all the matters that I took into consideration in making that decision. That is enough for most people when they read that letter. If the member for Armadale requires more information, she knows she can get it through FOI legislation; however, I will consider tabling it in the House.
The SPEAKER: The member for Midland will come to order! Mr KIERATH: The correct, legal way of ensuring a council’s wishes are met is to amend its town planning scheme, which requires the council to go through a proper process. That process involves receiving submissions from the public, local government, the Western Australian Planning Commission and the minister of the day. The process must run its full course. That is the right way to put any restrictions in place. In most decisions I make, often there are no provisions in the scheme or a council has not moved to change its scheme. Often councils or commissioners attempt to impose obligations via policy instead of through the proper process of amending their town planning schemes. I simplified that by saying they must use either the front door method or the back door method. If they want to sneak around and use the back door method of policies instead of amending their town planning schemes, I will uphold the rights of individuals as espoused in the town planning scheme, which is subsidiary legislation of this House. I am obligated to do so as I took an oath to uphold that legislation. I do not participate in the dirty, sneaky practices practised by the Opposition when it was in government, doing deals behind closed doors with its mates and friends. If the Opposition wants me to dig out those reports and table them in this House, I am prepared to do so, particularly the report of the officer on which I based my decision. However, I again remind the member, and any other member who is interested, that my decision letter contains all the matters that I took into consideration in making that decision. That is enough for most people when they read that letter. If the member for Armadale requires more information, she knows she can get it through FOI legislation; however, I will consider tabling it in the House.
Mr KIERATH: The correct, legal way of ensuring a council’s wishes are met is to amend its town planning scheme, which requires the council to go through a proper process. That process involves receiving submissions from the public, local government, the Western Australian Planning Commission and the minister of the day. The process must run its full course. That is the right way to put any restrictions in place. In most decisions I make, often there are no provisions in the scheme or a council has not moved to change its scheme. Often councils or commissioners attempt to impose obligations via policy instead of through the proper process of amending their town planning schemes. I simplified that by saying they must use either the front door method or the back door method. If they want to sneak around and use the back door method of policies instead of amending their town planning schemes, I will uphold the rights of individuals as espoused in the town planning scheme, which is subsidiary legislation of this House. I am obligated to do so as I took an oath to uphold that legislation. I do not participate in the dirty, sneaky practices practised by the Opposition when it was in government, doing deals behind closed doors with its mates and friends. If the Opposition wants me to dig out those reports and table them in this House, I am prepared to do so, particularly the report of the officer on which I based my decision. However, I again remind the member, and any other member who is interested, that my decision letter contains all the matters that I took into consideration in making that decision. That is enough for most people when they read that letter. If the member for Armadale requires more information, she knows she can get it through FOI legislation; however, I will consider tabling it in the House.
Often councils or commissioners attempt to impose obligations via policy instead of through the proper process of amending their town planning schemes. I simplified that by saying they must use either the front door method or the back door method. If they want to sneak around and use the back door method of policies instead of amending their town planning schemes, I will uphold the rights of individuals as espoused in the town planning scheme, which is subsidiary legislation of this House. I am obligated to do so as I took an oath to uphold that legislation. I do not participate in the dirty, sneaky practices practised by the Opposition when it was in government, doing deals behind closed doors with its mates and friends. If the Opposition wants me to dig out those reports and table them in this House, I am prepared to do so, particularly the report of the officer on which I based my decision. However, I again remind the member, and any other member who is interested, that my decision letter contains all the matters that I took into consideration in making that decision. That is enough for most people when they read that letter. If the member for Armadale requires more information, she knows she can get it through FOI legislation; however, I will consider tabling it in the House.
However, I again remind the member, and any other member who is interested, that my decision letter contains all the matters that I took into consideration in making that decision. That is enough for most people when they read that letter. If the member for Armadale requires more information, she knows she can get it through FOI legislation; however, I will consider tabling it in the House.
(1) How does the minister justify approving this unprecedented development which has been rejected not only by the council, but also by the commissioners for Wanneroo, and which is vehemently opposed by the local community? (2) What was the nature of the submissions made to the Minister for Planning by Hon George Cash and the member for Wanneroo in relation to this matter? (3) Will the minister table those submissions? (4) Will the minister table a report prepared for him by a member of the Town Planning Appeal Committee? Mr KIERATH replied: If the member had given me some notice of the question, I would have brought along the information. I am happy to table my letter of decision, as it has been made public, which outlines all the reasons for the decision. If the member wants other reports, the normal process is to seek access under the provisions of the freedom of information legislation. Mr Kobelke: You mean go to the Supreme Court to get them? Mr KIERATH: No. Mr Kobelke: That is what I had to do. Mr KIERATH: The member may have had to do that with past ministers, but not with me. In all cases, except for third party information, there has not been one knock-back. The member for Armadale asked me why sometimes I reject decisions of commissioners and other people, and the question gives me an opportunity to explain to the House the issue of planning appeals. Mrs Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER: The member for Midland will come to order! Mr KIERATH: The correct, legal way of ensuring a council’s wishes are met is to amend its town planning scheme, which requires the council to go through a proper process. That process involves receiving submissions from the public, local government, the Western Australian Planning Commission and the minister of the day. The process must run its full course. That is the right way to put any restrictions in place. In most decisions I make, often there are no provisions in the scheme or a council has not moved to change its scheme. Often councils or commissioners attempt to impose obligations via policy instead of through the proper process of amending their town planning schemes. I simplified that by saying they must use either the front door method or the back door method. If they want to sneak around and use the back door method of policies instead of amending their town planning schemes, I will uphold the rights of individuals as espoused in the town planning scheme, which is subsidiary legislation of this House. I am obligated to do so as I took an oath to uphold that legislation. I do not participate in the dirty, sneaky practices practised by the Opposition when it was in government, doing deals behind closed doors with its mates and friends. If the Opposition wants me to dig out those reports and table them in this House, I am prepared to do so, particularly the report of the officer on which I based my decision. However, I again remind the member, and any other member who is interested, that my decision letter contains all the matters that I took into consideration in making that decision. That is enough for most people when they read that letter. If the member for Armadale requires more information, she knows she can get it through FOI legislation; however, I will consider tabling it in the House.
(2) What was the nature of the submissions made to the Minister for Planning by Hon George Cash and the member for Wanneroo in relation to this matter? (3) Will the minister table those submissions? (4) Will the minister table a report prepared for him by a member of the Town Planning Appeal Committee? Mr KIERATH replied: If the member had given me some notice of the question, I would have brought along the information. I am happy to table my letter of decision, as it has been made public, which outlines all the reasons for the decision. If the member wants other reports, the normal process is to seek access under the provisions of the freedom of information legislation. Mr Kobelke: You mean go to the Supreme Court to get them? Mr KIERATH: No. Mr Kobelke: That is what I had to do. Mr KIERATH: The member may have had to do that with past ministers, but not with me. In all cases, except for third party information, there has not been one knock-back. The member for Armadale asked me why sometimes I reject decisions of commissioners and other people, and the question gives me an opportunity to explain to the House the issue of planning appeals. Mrs Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER: The member for Midland will come to order! Mr KIERATH: The correct, legal way of ensuring a council’s wishes are met is to amend its town planning scheme, which requires the council to go through a proper process. That process involves receiving submissions from the public, local government, the Western Australian Planning Commission and the minister of the day. The process must run its full course. That is the right way to put any restrictions in place. In most decisions I make, often there are no provisions in the scheme or a council has not moved to change its scheme. Often councils or commissioners attempt to impose obligations via policy instead of through the proper process of amending their town planning schemes. I simplified that by saying they must use either the front door method or the back door method. If they want to sneak around and use the back door method of policies instead of amending their town planning schemes, I will uphold the rights of individuals as espoused in the town planning scheme, which is subsidiary legislation of this House. I am obligated to do so as I took an oath to uphold that legislation. I do not participate in the dirty, sneaky practices practised by the Opposition when it was in government, doing deals behind closed doors with its mates and friends. If the Opposition wants me to dig out those reports and table them in this House, I am prepared to do so, particularly the report of the officer on which I based my decision. However, I again remind the member, and any other member who is interested, that my decision letter contains all the matters that I took into consideration in making that decision. That is enough for most people when they read that letter. If the member for Armadale requires more information, she knows she can get it through FOI legislation; however, I will consider tabling it in the House.
(3) Will the minister table those submissions? (4) Will the minister table a report prepared for him by a member of the Town Planning Appeal Committee? Mr KIERATH replied: If the member had given me some notice of the question, I would have brought along the information. I am happy to table my letter of decision, as it has been made public, which outlines all the reasons for the decision. If the member wants other reports, the normal process is to seek access under the provisions of the freedom of information legislation. Mr Kobelke: You mean go to the Supreme Court to get them? Mr KIERATH: No. Mr Kobelke: That is what I had to do. Mr KIERATH: The member may have had to do that with past ministers, but not with me. In all cases, except for third party information, there has not been one knock-back. The member for Armadale asked me why sometimes I reject decisions of commissioners and other people, and the question gives me an opportunity to explain to the House the issue of planning appeals. Mrs Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER: The member for Midland will come to order! Mr KIERATH: The correct, legal way of ensuring a council’s wishes are met is to amend its town planning scheme, which requires the council to go through a proper process. That process involves receiving submissions from the public, local government, the Western Australian Planning Commission and the minister of the day. The process must run its full course. That is the right way to put any restrictions in place. In most decisions I make, often there are no provisions in the scheme or a council has not moved to change its scheme. Often councils or commissioners attempt to impose obligations via policy instead of through the proper process of amending their town planning schemes. I simplified that by saying they must use either the front door method or the back door method. If they want to sneak around and use the back door method of policies instead of amending their town planning schemes, I will uphold the rights of individuals as espoused in the town planning scheme, which is subsidiary legislation of this House. I am obligated to do so as I took an oath to uphold that legislation. I do not participate in the dirty, sneaky practices practised by the Opposition when it was in government, doing deals behind closed doors with its mates and friends. If the Opposition wants me to dig out those reports and table them in this House, I am prepared to do so, particularly the report of the officer on which I based my decision. However, I again remind the member, and any other member who is interested, that my decision letter contains all the matters that I took into consideration in making that decision. That is enough for most people when they read that letter. If the member for Armadale requires more information, she knows she can get it through FOI legislation; however, I will consider tabling it in the House.
(4) Will the minister table a report prepared for him by a member of the Town Planning Appeal Committee? Mr KIERATH replied: If the member had given me some notice of the question, I would have brought along the information. I am happy to table my letter of decision, as it has been made public, which outlines all the reasons for the decision. If the member wants other reports, the normal process is to seek access under the provisions of the freedom of information legislation. Mr Kobelke: You mean go to the Supreme Court to get them? Mr KIERATH: No. Mr Kobelke: That is what I had to do. Mr KIERATH: The member may have had to do that with past ministers, but not with me. In all cases, except for third party information, there has not been one knock-back. The member for Armadale asked me why sometimes I reject decisions of commissioners and other people, and the question gives me an opportunity to explain to the House the issue of planning appeals. Mrs Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER: The member for Midland will come to order! Mr KIERATH: The correct, legal way of ensuring a council’s wishes are met is to amend its town planning scheme, which requires the council to go through a proper process. That process involves receiving submissions from the public, local government, the Western Australian Planning Commission and the minister of the day. The process must run its full course. That is the right way to put any restrictions in place. In most decisions I make, often there are no provisions in the scheme or a council has not moved to change its scheme. Often councils or commissioners attempt to impose obligations via policy instead of through the proper process of amending their town planning schemes. I simplified that by saying they must use either the front door method or the back door method. If they want to sneak around and use the back door method of policies instead of amending their town planning schemes, I will uphold the rights of individuals as espoused in the town planning scheme, which is subsidiary legislation of this House. I am obligated to do so as I took an oath to uphold that legislation. I do not participate in the dirty, sneaky practices practised by the Opposition when it was in government, doing deals behind closed doors with its mates and friends. If the Opposition wants me to dig out those reports and table them in this House, I am prepared to do so, particularly the report of the officer on which I based my decision. However, I again remind the member, and any other member who is interested, that my decision letter contains all the matters that I took into consideration in making that decision. That is enough for most people when they read that letter. If the member for Armadale requires more information, she knows she can get it through FOI legislation; however, I will consider tabling it in the House.
Mr KIERATH replied: If the member had given me some notice of the question, I would have brought along the information. I am happy to table my letter of decision, as it has been made public, which outlines all the reasons for the decision. If the member wants other reports, the normal process is to seek access under the provisions of the freedom of information legislation. Mr Kobelke: You mean go to the Supreme Court to get them? Mr KIERATH: No. Mr Kobelke: That is what I had to do. Mr KIERATH: The member may have had to do that with past ministers, but not with me. In all cases, except for third party information, there has not been one knock-back. The member for Armadale asked me why sometimes I reject decisions of commissioners and other people, and the question gives me an opportunity to explain to the House the issue of planning appeals. Mrs Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER: The member for Midland will come to order! Mr KIERATH: The correct, legal way of ensuring a council’s wishes are met is to amend its town planning scheme, which requires the council to go through a proper process. That process involves receiving submissions from the public, local government, the Western Australian Planning Commission and the minister of the day. The process must run its full course. That is the right way to put any restrictions in place. In most decisions I make, often there are no provisions in the scheme or a council has not moved to change its scheme. Often councils or commissioners attempt to impose obligations via policy instead of through the proper process of amending their town planning schemes. I simplified that by saying they must use either the front door method or the back door method. If they want to sneak around and use the back door method of policies instead of amending their town planning schemes, I will uphold the rights of individuals as espoused in the town planning scheme, which is subsidiary legislation of this House. I am obligated to do so as I took an oath to uphold that legislation. I do not participate in the dirty, sneaky practices practised by the Opposition when it was in government, doing deals behind closed doors with its mates and friends. If the Opposition wants me to dig out those reports and table them in this House, I am prepared to do so, particularly the report of the officer on which I based my decision. However, I again remind the member, and any other member who is interested, that my decision letter contains all the matters that I took into consideration in making that decision. That is enough for most people when they read that letter. If the member for Armadale requires more information, she knows she can get it through FOI legislation; however, I will consider tabling it in the House.
If the member had given me some notice of the question, I would have brought along the information. I am happy to table my letter of decision, as it has been made public, which outlines all the reasons for the decision. If the member wants other reports, the normal process is to seek access under the provisions of the freedom of information legislation. Mr Kobelke: You mean go to the Supreme Court to get them? Mr KIERATH: No. Mr Kobelke: That is what I had to do. Mr KIERATH: The member may have had to do that with past ministers, but not with me. In all cases, except for third party information, there has not been one knock-back. The member for Armadale asked me why sometimes I reject decisions of commissioners and other people, and the question gives me an opportunity to explain to the House the issue of planning appeals. Mrs Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER: The member for Midland will come to order! Mr KIERATH: The correct, legal way of ensuring a council’s wishes are met is to amend its town planning scheme, which requires the council to go through a proper process. That process involves receiving submissions from the public, local government, the Western Australian Planning Commission and the minister of the day. The process must run its full course. That is the right way to put any restrictions in place. In most decisions I make, often there are no provisions in the scheme or a council has not moved to change its scheme. Often councils or commissioners attempt to impose obligations via policy instead of through the proper process of amending their town planning schemes. I simplified that by saying they must use either the front door method or the back door method. If they want to sneak around and use the back door method of policies instead of amending their town planning schemes, I will uphold the rights of individuals as espoused in the town planning scheme, which is subsidiary legislation of this House. I am obligated to do so as I took an oath to uphold that legislation. I do not participate in the dirty, sneaky practices practised by the Opposition when it was in government, doing deals behind closed doors with its mates and friends. If the Opposition wants me to dig out those reports and table them in this House, I am prepared to do so, particularly the report of the officer on which I based my decision. However, I again remind the member, and any other member who is interested, that my decision letter contains all the matters that I took into consideration in making that decision. That is enough for most people when they read that letter. If the member for Armadale requires more information, she knows she can get it through FOI legislation; however, I will consider tabling it in the House.
Mr Kobelke: You mean go to the Supreme Court to get them? Mr KIERATH: No. Mr Kobelke: That is what I had to do. Mr KIERATH: The member may have had to do that with past ministers, but not with me. In all cases, except for third party information, there has not been one knock-back. The member for Armadale asked me why sometimes I reject decisions of commissioners and other people, and the question gives me an opportunity to explain to the House the issue of planning appeals. Mrs Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER: The member for Midland will come to order! Mr KIERATH: The correct, legal way of ensuring a council’s wishes are met is to amend its town planning scheme, which requires the council to go through a proper process. That process involves receiving submissions from the public, local government, the Western Australian Planning Commission and the minister of the day. The process must run its full course. That is the right way to put any restrictions in place. In most decisions I make, often there are no provisions in the scheme or a council has not moved to change its scheme. Often councils or commissioners attempt to impose obligations via policy instead of through the proper process of amending their town planning schemes. I simplified that by saying they must use either the front door method or the back door method. If they want to sneak around and use the back door method of policies instead of amending their town planning schemes, I will uphold the rights of individuals as espoused in the town planning scheme, which is subsidiary legislation of this House. I am obligated to do so as I took an oath to uphold that legislation. I do not participate in the dirty, sneaky practices practised by the Opposition when it was in government, doing deals behind closed doors with its mates and friends. If the Opposition wants me to dig out those reports and table them in this House, I am prepared to do so, particularly the report of the officer on which I based my decision. However, I again remind the member, and any other member who is interested, that my decision letter contains all the matters that I took into consideration in making that decision. That is enough for most people when they read that letter. If the member for Armadale requires more information, she knows she can get it through FOI legislation; however, I will consider tabling it in the House.
Mr KIERATH: No. Mr Kobelke: That is what I had to do. Mr KIERATH: The member may have had to do that with past ministers, but not with me. In all cases, except for third party information, there has not been one knock-back. The member for Armadale asked me why sometimes I reject decisions of commissioners and other people, and the question gives me an opportunity to explain to the House the issue of planning appeals. Mrs Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER: The member for Midland will come to order! Mr KIERATH: The correct, legal way of ensuring a council’s wishes are met is to amend its town planning scheme, which requires the council to go through a proper process. That process involves receiving submissions from the public, local government, the Western Australian Planning Commission and the minister of the day. The process must run its full course. That is the right way to put any restrictions in place. In most decisions I make, often there are no provisions in the scheme or a council has not moved to change its scheme. Often councils or commissioners attempt to impose obligations via policy instead of through the proper process of amending their town planning schemes. I simplified that by saying they must use either the front door method or the back door method. If they want to sneak around and use the back door method of policies instead of amending their town planning schemes, I will uphold the rights of individuals as espoused in the town planning scheme, which is subsidiary legislation of this House. I am obligated to do so as I took an oath to uphold that legislation. I do not participate in the dirty, sneaky practices practised by the Opposition when it was in government, doing deals behind closed doors with its mates and friends. If the Opposition wants me to dig out those reports and table them in this House, I am prepared to do so, particularly the report of the officer on which I based my decision. However, I again remind the member, and any other member who is interested, that my decision letter contains all the matters that I took into consideration in making that decision. That is enough for most people when they read that letter. If the member for Armadale requires more information, she knows she can get it through FOI legislation; however, I will consider tabling it in the House.
Mr Kobelke: That is what I had to do. Mr KIERATH: The member may have had to do that with past ministers, but not with me. In all cases, except for third party information, there has not been one knock-back. The member for Armadale asked me why sometimes I reject decisions of commissioners and other people, and the question gives me an opportunity to explain to the House the issue of planning appeals. Mrs Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER: The member for Midland will come to order! Mr KIERATH: The correct, legal way of ensuring a council’s wishes are met is to amend its town planning scheme, which requires the council to go through a proper process. That process involves receiving submissions from the public, local government, the Western Australian Planning Commission and the minister of the day. The process must run its full course. That is the right way to put any restrictions in place. In most decisions I make, often there are no provisions in the scheme or a council has not moved to change its scheme. Often councils or commissioners attempt to impose obligations via policy instead of through the proper process of amending their town planning schemes. I simplified that by saying they must use either the front door method or the back door method. If they want to sneak around and use the back door method of policies instead of amending their town planning schemes, I will uphold the rights of individuals as espoused in the town planning scheme, which is subsidiary legislation of this House. I am obligated to do so as I took an oath to uphold that legislation. I do not participate in the dirty, sneaky practices practised by the Opposition when it was in government, doing deals behind closed doors with its mates and friends. If the Opposition wants me to dig out those reports and table them in this House, I am prepared to do so, particularly the report of the officer on which I based my decision. However, I again remind the member, and any other member who is interested, that my decision letter contains all the matters that I took into consideration in making that decision. That is enough for most people when they read that letter. If the member for Armadale requires more information, she knows she can get it through FOI legislation; however, I will consider tabling it in the House.
Mr KIERATH: The member may have had to do that with past ministers, but not with me. In all cases, except for third party information, there has not been one knock-back. The member for Armadale asked me why sometimes I reject decisions of commissioners and other people, and the question gives me an opportunity to explain to the House the issue of planning appeals. Mrs Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER: The member for Midland will come to order! Mr KIERATH: The correct, legal way of ensuring a council’s wishes are met is to amend its town planning scheme, which requires the council to go through a proper process. That process involves receiving submissions from the public, local government, the Western Australian Planning Commission and the minister of the day. The process must run its full course. That is the right way to put any restrictions in place. In most decisions I make, often there are no provisions in the scheme or a council has not moved to change its scheme. Often councils or commissioners attempt to impose obligations via policy instead of through the proper process of amending their town planning schemes. I simplified that by saying they must use either the front door method or the back door method. If they want to sneak around and use the back door method of policies instead of amending their town planning schemes, I will uphold the rights of individuals as espoused in the town planning scheme, which is subsidiary legislation of this House. I am obligated to do so as I took an oath to uphold that legislation. I do not participate in the dirty, sneaky practices practised by the Opposition when it was in government, doing deals behind closed doors with its mates and friends. If the Opposition wants me to dig out those reports and table them in this House, I am prepared to do so, particularly the report of the officer on which I based my decision. However, I again remind the member, and any other member who is interested, that my decision letter contains all the matters that I took into consideration in making that decision. That is enough for most people when they read that letter. If the member for Armadale requires more information, she knows she can get it through FOI legislation; however, I will consider tabling it in the House.
Mrs Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER: The member for Midland will come to order! Mr KIERATH: The correct, legal way of ensuring a council’s wishes are met is to amend its town planning scheme, which requires the council to go through a proper process. That process involves receiving submissions from the public, local government, the Western Australian Planning Commission and the minister of the day. The process must run its full course. That is the right way to put any restrictions in place. In most decisions I make, often there are no provisions in the scheme or a council has not moved to change its scheme. Often councils or commissioners attempt to impose obligations via policy instead of through the proper process of amending their town planning schemes. I simplified that by saying they must use either the front door method or the back door method. If they want to sneak around and use the back door method of policies instead of amending their town planning schemes, I will uphold the rights of individuals as espoused in the town planning scheme, which is subsidiary legislation of this House. I am obligated to do so as I took an oath to uphold that legislation. I do not participate in the dirty, sneaky practices practised by the Opposition when it was in government, doing deals behind closed doors with its mates and friends. If the Opposition wants me to dig out those reports and table them in this House, I am prepared to do so, particularly the report of the officer on which I based my decision. However, I again remind the member, and any other member who is interested, that my decision letter contains all the matters that I took into consideration in making that decision. That is enough for most people when they read that letter. If the member for Armadale requires more information, she knows she can get it through FOI legislation; however, I will consider tabling it in the House.
The SPEAKER: The member for Midland will come to order! Mr KIERATH: The correct, legal way of ensuring a council’s wishes are met is to amend its town planning scheme, which requires the council to go through a proper process. That process involves receiving submissions from the public, local government, the Western Australian Planning Commission and the minister of the day. The process must run its full course. That is the right way to put any restrictions in place. In most decisions I make, often there are no provisions in the scheme or a council has not moved to change its scheme. Often councils or commissioners attempt to impose obligations via policy instead of through the proper process of amending their town planning schemes. I simplified that by saying they must use either the front door method or the back door method. If they want to sneak around and use the back door method of policies instead of amending their town planning schemes, I will uphold the rights of individuals as espoused in the town planning scheme, which is subsidiary legislation of this House. I am obligated to do so as I took an oath to uphold that legislation. I do not participate in the dirty, sneaky practices practised by the Opposition when it was in government, doing deals behind closed doors with its mates and friends. If the Opposition wants me to dig out those reports and table them in this House, I am prepared to do so, particularly the report of the officer on which I based my decision. However, I again remind the member, and any other member who is interested, that my decision letter contains all the matters that I took into consideration in making that decision. That is enough for most people when they read that letter. If the member for Armadale requires more information, she knows she can get it through FOI legislation; however, I will consider tabling it in the House.
Mr KIERATH: The correct, legal way of ensuring a council’s wishes are met is to amend its town planning scheme, which requires the council to go through a proper process. That process involves receiving submissions from the public, local government, the Western Australian Planning Commission and the minister of the day. The process must run its full course. That is the right way to put any restrictions in place. In most decisions I make, often there are no provisions in the scheme or a council has not moved to change its scheme. Often councils or commissioners attempt to impose obligations via policy instead of through the proper process of amending their town planning schemes. I simplified that by saying they must use either the front door method or the back door method. If they want to sneak around and use the back door method of policies instead of amending their town planning schemes, I will uphold the rights of individuals as espoused in the town planning scheme, which is subsidiary legislation of this House. I am obligated to do so as I took an oath to uphold that legislation. I do not participate in the dirty, sneaky practices practised by the Opposition when it was in government, doing deals behind closed doors with its mates and friends. If the Opposition wants me to dig out those reports and table them in this House, I am prepared to do so, particularly the report of the officer on which I based my decision. However, I again remind the member, and any other member who is interested, that my decision letter contains all the matters that I took into consideration in making that decision. That is enough for most people when they read that letter. If the member for Armadale requires more information, she knows she can get it through FOI legislation; however, I will consider tabling it in the House.
Often councils or commissioners attempt to impose obligations via policy instead of through the proper process of amending their town planning schemes. I simplified that by saying they must use either the front door method or the back door method. If they want to sneak around and use the back door method of policies instead of amending their town planning schemes, I will uphold the rights of individuals as espoused in the town planning scheme, which is subsidiary legislation of this House. I am obligated to do so as I took an oath to uphold that legislation. I do not participate in the dirty, sneaky practices practised by the Opposition when it was in government, doing deals behind closed doors with its mates and friends. If the Opposition wants me to dig out those reports and table them in this House, I am prepared to do so, particularly the report of the officer on which I based my decision. However, I again remind the member, and any other member who is interested, that my decision letter contains all the matters that I took into consideration in making that decision. That is enough for most people when they read that letter. If the member for Armadale requires more information, she knows she can get it through FOI legislation; however, I will consider tabling it in the House.
However, I again remind the member, and any other member who is interested, that my decision letter contains all the matters that I took into consideration in making that decision. That is enough for most people when they read that letter. If the member for Armadale requires more information, she knows she can get it through FOI legislation; however, I will consider tabling it in the House.
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.