❓ A parliamentary question regarding the potential for abuse and detriment to proper planning processes due to third-party involvement in planning appeals. The Minister's answer strongly opposes such involvement, citing potential for increased costs, delays, and corruption of the planning system.
AnsweredQoN 171Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
Some notice of this question has been given. Is the third party involvement in planning appeals, as advocated by the Opposition, open to abuse and detrimental to proper planning processes? Mr KIERATH
AnswerView source ↗
Yesterday I indicated that the Opposition’s policy of allowing almost unlimited third party involvement in the appeal process was a recipe for disaster. It shows that the Opposition is more interested in pandering to small minority groups than in looking at the whole picture. Yesterday I attempted to explain to the House that it was the Opposition's policy to run around scoring cheap political points and not to look at the broad picture. Yesterday I think we exposed what has been the Opposition’s strategy for the past 15 years. The member should know that consultation occurs with third parties through the appeals process, but in an informal way. What happens if we take that further and expand that third party involvement? As I pointed out yesterday, experience elsewhere shows that when we allow that to happen, we create a recipe for an increase in costs and for delays. It allows people to introduce possible commercial motives that we might not want. Someone might want another development. I know that has been the case in the United Kingdom. A housing developer will initiate a whole range of third party appeals because it does not want another development going ahead in preference to its development. Point of Order Ms MacTIERNAN: The minister seems to be labouring under some sort of misapprehension that the Labor Party has a policy of introducing third party appeals. I do not know from where he got that idea. So that the minister does not waste the time of the House, I assure him that we have never said that we will introduce third party appeals. Ms Warnock: An excellent point of order. The SPEAKER: I had better not comment on that, because if the member were in this position, she would reflect on that comment. That is not a point of order, it is a point of view, and the member for Armadale has taken an opportunity which she should not do too often. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr KIERATH: I was attempting to point out the pitfalls of allowing third party involvement in appeals. It is pertinent to point out to the House that some town planning schemes in this State were subject to third party appeals. As I mentioned yesterday to the member for Vasse, that provision has been removed from the town planning scheme because experience has shown it has been an unmitigated disaster. It often allowed people with developments that had been approved to cause delays and use legal involvement to prevent approval being given to other developments. If we allow third party involvement, we allow for corruption of the planning system. The point I made yesterday was that everyone in the United Kingdom who was involved in this area, regardless of their political views, said to us in Western Australia, “Whatever you do, do not allow any third party involvement, whether it be in the planning approval system or the appeal system. It makes no difference; do not allow formal third party approval.” Why? Because all it does is delay the inevitable. It frustrates the system, increases costs and often denies natural justice. I want to pick up on that phrase, because the member for Armadale has raised the issue of a real denial of natural justice. She is used to that phrase. If third party involvement is allowed, whether it be in the appeals system or in the planning system, those people who are involved will be denied natural justice. In the lead-up to an election, when people’s interest in these matters is heightened, there would be a lot of frivolous objections and frivolous third party appeals, whether they be in the appeals system or in the planning system, and that would be an unmitigated disaster. I agree with the point of view of the member for Armadale. The Labor Party does not have a policy on this. It pinched most of our planning Bill, and it loaded into that the legal involvement, which allows third parties to be involved and which allows an increase in cost and an increase in the time taken to arrive at decisions. That can only be an unmitigated disaster for all people in the planning system who have used it effectively up to date.
Mr KIERATH replied: Yesterday I indicated that the Opposition’s policy of allowing almost unlimited third party involvement in the appeal process was a recipe for disaster. It shows that the Opposition is more interested in pandering to small minority groups than in looking at the whole picture. Yesterday I attempted to explain to the House that it was the Opposition's policy to run around scoring cheap political points and not to look at the broad picture. Yesterday I think we exposed what has been the Opposition’s strategy for the past 15 years. The member should know that consultation occurs with third parties through the appeals process, but in an informal way. What happens if we take that further and expand that third party involvement? As I pointed out yesterday, experience elsewhere shows that when we allow that to happen, we create a recipe for an increase in costs and for delays. It allows people to introduce possible commercial motives that we might not want. Someone might want another development. I know that has been the case in the United Kingdom. A housing developer will initiate a whole range of third party appeals because it does not want another development going ahead in preference to its development. Point of Order Ms MacTIERNAN: The minister seems to be labouring under some sort of misapprehension that the Labor Party has a policy of introducing third party appeals. I do not know from where he got that idea. So that the minister does not waste the time of the House, I assure him that we have never said that we will introduce third party appeals. Ms Warnock: An excellent point of order. The SPEAKER: I had better not comment on that, because if the member were in this position, she would reflect on that comment. That is not a point of order, it is a point of view, and the member for Armadale has taken an opportunity which she should not do too often. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr KIERATH: I was attempting to point out the pitfalls of allowing third party involvement in appeals. It is pertinent to point out to the House that some town planning schemes in this State were subject to third party appeals. As I mentioned yesterday to the member for Vasse, that provision has been removed from the town planning scheme because experience has shown it has been an unmitigated disaster. It often allowed people with developments that had been approved to cause delays and use legal involvement to prevent approval being given to other developments. If we allow third party involvement, we allow for corruption of the planning system. The point I made yesterday was that everyone in the United Kingdom who was involved in this area, regardless of their political views, said to us in Western Australia, “Whatever you do, do not allow any third party involvement, whether it be in the planning approval system or the appeal system. It makes no difference; do not allow formal third party approval.” Why? Because all it does is delay the inevitable. It frustrates the system, increases costs and often denies natural justice. I want to pick up on that phrase, because the member for Armadale has raised the issue of a real denial of natural justice. She is used to that phrase. If third party involvement is allowed, whether it be in the appeals system or in the planning system, those people who are involved will be denied natural justice. In the lead-up to an election, when people’s interest in these matters is heightened, there would be a lot of frivolous objections and frivolous third party appeals, whether they be in the appeals system or in the planning system, and that would be an unmitigated disaster. I agree with the point of view of the member for Armadale. The Labor Party does not have a policy on this. It pinched most of our planning Bill, and it loaded into that the legal involvement, which allows third parties to be involved and which allows an increase in cost and an increase in the time taken to arrive at decisions. That can only be an unmitigated disaster for all people in the planning system who have used it effectively up to date.
Yesterday I indicated that the Opposition’s policy of allowing almost unlimited third party involvement in the appeal process was a recipe for disaster. It shows that the Opposition is more interested in pandering to small minority groups than in looking at the whole picture. Yesterday I attempted to explain to the House that it was the Opposition's policy to run around scoring cheap political points and not to look at the broad picture. Yesterday I think we exposed what has been the Opposition’s strategy for the past 15 years. The member should know that consultation occurs with third parties through the appeals process, but in an informal way. What happens if we take that further and expand that third party involvement? As I pointed out yesterday, experience elsewhere shows that when we allow that to happen, we create a recipe for an increase in costs and for delays. It allows people to introduce possible commercial motives that we might not want. Someone might want another development. I know that has been the case in the United Kingdom. A housing developer will initiate a whole range of third party appeals because it does not want another development going ahead in preference to its development. Point of Order Ms MacTIERNAN: The minister seems to be labouring under some sort of misapprehension that the Labor Party has a policy of introducing third party appeals. I do not know from where he got that idea. So that the minister does not waste the time of the House, I assure him that we have never said that we will introduce third party appeals. Ms Warnock: An excellent point of order. The SPEAKER: I had better not comment on that, because if the member were in this position, she would reflect on that comment. That is not a point of order, it is a point of view, and the member for Armadale has taken an opportunity which she should not do too often. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr KIERATH: I was attempting to point out the pitfalls of allowing third party involvement in appeals. It is pertinent to point out to the House that some town planning schemes in this State were subject to third party appeals. As I mentioned yesterday to the member for Vasse, that provision has been removed from the town planning scheme because experience has shown it has been an unmitigated disaster. It often allowed people with developments that had been approved to cause delays and use legal involvement to prevent approval being given to other developments. If we allow third party involvement, we allow for corruption of the planning system. The point I made yesterday was that everyone in the United Kingdom who was involved in this area, regardless of their political views, said to us in Western Australia, “Whatever you do, do not allow any third party involvement, whether it be in the planning approval system or the appeal system. It makes no difference; do not allow formal third party approval.” Why? Because all it does is delay the inevitable. It frustrates the system, increases costs and often denies natural justice. I want to pick up on that phrase, because the member for Armadale has raised the issue of a real denial of natural justice. She is used to that phrase. If third party involvement is allowed, whether it be in the appeals system or in the planning system, those people who are involved will be denied natural justice. In the lead-up to an election, when people’s interest in these matters is heightened, there would be a lot of frivolous objections and frivolous third party appeals, whether they be in the appeals system or in the planning system, and that would be an unmitigated disaster. I agree with the point of view of the member for Armadale. The Labor Party does not have a policy on this. It pinched most of our planning Bill, and it loaded into that the legal involvement, which allows third parties to be involved and which allows an increase in cost and an increase in the time taken to arrive at decisions. That can only be an unmitigated disaster for all people in the planning system who have used it effectively up to date.
The member should know that consultation occurs with third parties through the appeals process, but in an informal way. What happens if we take that further and expand that third party involvement? As I pointed out yesterday, experience elsewhere shows that when we allow that to happen, we create a recipe for an increase in costs and for delays. It allows people to introduce possible commercial motives that we might not want. Someone might want another development. I know that has been the case in the United Kingdom. A housing developer will initiate a whole range of third party appeals because it does not want another development going ahead in preference to its development. Point of Order Ms MacTIERNAN: The minister seems to be labouring under some sort of misapprehension that the Labor Party has a policy of introducing third party appeals. I do not know from where he got that idea. So that the minister does not waste the time of the House, I assure him that we have never said that we will introduce third party appeals. Ms Warnock: An excellent point of order. The SPEAKER: I had better not comment on that, because if the member were in this position, she would reflect on that comment. That is not a point of order, it is a point of view, and the member for Armadale has taken an opportunity which she should not do too often. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr KIERATH: I was attempting to point out the pitfalls of allowing third party involvement in appeals. It is pertinent to point out to the House that some town planning schemes in this State were subject to third party appeals. As I mentioned yesterday to the member for Vasse, that provision has been removed from the town planning scheme because experience has shown it has been an unmitigated disaster. It often allowed people with developments that had been approved to cause delays and use legal involvement to prevent approval being given to other developments. If we allow third party involvement, we allow for corruption of the planning system. The point I made yesterday was that everyone in the United Kingdom who was involved in this area, regardless of their political views, said to us in Western Australia, “Whatever you do, do not allow any third party involvement, whether it be in the planning approval system or the appeal system. It makes no difference; do not allow formal third party approval.” Why? Because all it does is delay the inevitable. It frustrates the system, increases costs and often denies natural justice. I want to pick up on that phrase, because the member for Armadale has raised the issue of a real denial of natural justice. She is used to that phrase. If third party involvement is allowed, whether it be in the appeals system or in the planning system, those people who are involved will be denied natural justice. In the lead-up to an election, when people’s interest in these matters is heightened, there would be a lot of frivolous objections and frivolous third party appeals, whether they be in the appeals system or in the planning system, and that would be an unmitigated disaster. I agree with the point of view of the member for Armadale. The Labor Party does not have a policy on this. It pinched most of our planning Bill, and it loaded into that the legal involvement, which allows third parties to be involved and which allows an increase in cost and an increase in the time taken to arrive at decisions. That can only be an unmitigated disaster for all people in the planning system who have used it effectively up to date.
Ms Warnock: An excellent point of order. The SPEAKER: I had better not comment on that, because if the member were in this position, she would reflect on that comment. That is not a point of order, it is a point of view, and the member for Armadale has taken an opportunity which she should not do too often. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr KIERATH: I was attempting to point out the pitfalls of allowing third party involvement in appeals. It is pertinent to point out to the House that some town planning schemes in this State were subject to third party appeals. As I mentioned yesterday to the member for Vasse, that provision has been removed from the town planning scheme because experience has shown it has been an unmitigated disaster. It often allowed people with developments that had been approved to cause delays and use legal involvement to prevent approval being given to other developments. If we allow third party involvement, we allow for corruption of the planning system. The point I made yesterday was that everyone in the United Kingdom who was involved in this area, regardless of their political views, said to us in Western Australia, “Whatever you do, do not allow any third party involvement, whether it be in the planning approval system or the appeal system. It makes no difference; do not allow formal third party approval.” Why? Because all it does is delay the inevitable. It frustrates the system, increases costs and often denies natural justice. I want to pick up on that phrase, because the member for Armadale has raised the issue of a real denial of natural justice. She is used to that phrase. If third party involvement is allowed, whether it be in the appeals system or in the planning system, those people who are involved will be denied natural justice. In the lead-up to an election, when people’s interest in these matters is heightened, there would be a lot of frivolous objections and frivolous third party appeals, whether they be in the appeals system or in the planning system, and that would be an unmitigated disaster. I agree with the point of view of the member for Armadale. The Labor Party does not have a policy on this. It pinched most of our planning Bill, and it loaded into that the legal involvement, which allows third parties to be involved and which allows an increase in cost and an increase in the time taken to arrive at decisions. That can only be an unmitigated disaster for all people in the planning system who have used it effectively up to date.
The SPEAKER: I had better not comment on that, because if the member were in this position, she would reflect on that comment. That is not a point of order, it is a point of view, and the member for Armadale has taken an opportunity which she should not do too often. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr KIERATH: I was attempting to point out the pitfalls of allowing third party involvement in appeals. It is pertinent to point out to the House that some town planning schemes in this State were subject to third party appeals. As I mentioned yesterday to the member for Vasse, that provision has been removed from the town planning scheme because experience has shown it has been an unmitigated disaster. It often allowed people with developments that had been approved to cause delays and use legal involvement to prevent approval being given to other developments. If we allow third party involvement, we allow for corruption of the planning system. The point I made yesterday was that everyone in the United Kingdom who was involved in this area, regardless of their political views, said to us in Western Australia, “Whatever you do, do not allow any third party involvement, whether it be in the planning approval system or the appeal system. It makes no difference; do not allow formal third party approval.” Why? Because all it does is delay the inevitable. It frustrates the system, increases costs and often denies natural justice. I want to pick up on that phrase, because the member for Armadale has raised the issue of a real denial of natural justice. She is used to that phrase. If third party involvement is allowed, whether it be in the appeals system or in the planning system, those people who are involved will be denied natural justice. In the lead-up to an election, when people’s interest in these matters is heightened, there would be a lot of frivolous objections and frivolous third party appeals, whether they be in the appeals system or in the planning system, and that would be an unmitigated disaster. I agree with the point of view of the member for Armadale. The Labor Party does not have a policy on this. It pinched most of our planning Bill, and it loaded into that the legal involvement, which allows third parties to be involved and which allows an increase in cost and an increase in the time taken to arrive at decisions. That can only be an unmitigated disaster for all people in the planning system who have used it effectively up to date.
I agree with the point of view of the member for Armadale. The Labor Party does not have a policy on this. It pinched most of our planning Bill, and it loaded into that the legal involvement, which allows third parties to be involved and which allows an increase in cost and an increase in the time taken to arrive at decisions. That can only be an unmitigated disaster for all people in the planning system who have used it effectively up to date.
Mr KIERATH replied: Yesterday I indicated that the Opposition’s policy of allowing almost unlimited third party involvement in the appeal process was a recipe for disaster. It shows that the Opposition is more interested in pandering to small minority groups than in looking at the whole picture. Yesterday I attempted to explain to the House that it was the Opposition's policy to run around scoring cheap political points and not to look at the broad picture. Yesterday I think we exposed what has been the Opposition’s strategy for the past 15 years. The member should know that consultation occurs with third parties through the appeals process, but in an informal way. What happens if we take that further and expand that third party involvement? As I pointed out yesterday, experience elsewhere shows that when we allow that to happen, we create a recipe for an increase in costs and for delays. It allows people to introduce possible commercial motives that we might not want. Someone might want another development. I know that has been the case in the United Kingdom. A housing developer will initiate a whole range of third party appeals because it does not want another development going ahead in preference to its development. Point of Order Ms MacTIERNAN: The minister seems to be labouring under some sort of misapprehension that the Labor Party has a policy of introducing third party appeals. I do not know from where he got that idea. So that the minister does not waste the time of the House, I assure him that we have never said that we will introduce third party appeals. Ms Warnock: An excellent point of order. The SPEAKER: I had better not comment on that, because if the member were in this position, she would reflect on that comment. That is not a point of order, it is a point of view, and the member for Armadale has taken an opportunity which she should not do too often. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr KIERATH: I was attempting to point out the pitfalls of allowing third party involvement in appeals. It is pertinent to point out to the House that some town planning schemes in this State were subject to third party appeals. As I mentioned yesterday to the member for Vasse, that provision has been removed from the town planning scheme because experience has shown it has been an unmitigated disaster. It often allowed people with developments that had been approved to cause delays and use legal involvement to prevent approval being given to other developments. If we allow third party involvement, we allow for corruption of the planning system. The point I made yesterday was that everyone in the United Kingdom who was involved in this area, regardless of their political views, said to us in Western Australia, “Whatever you do, do not allow any third party involvement, whether it be in the planning approval system or the appeal system. It makes no difference; do not allow formal third party approval.” Why? Because all it does is delay the inevitable. It frustrates the system, increases costs and often denies natural justice. I want to pick up on that phrase, because the member for Armadale has raised the issue of a real denial of natural justice. She is used to that phrase. If third party involvement is allowed, whether it be in the appeals system or in the planning system, those people who are involved will be denied natural justice. In the lead-up to an election, when people’s interest in these matters is heightened, there would be a lot of frivolous objections and frivolous third party appeals, whether they be in the appeals system or in the planning system, and that would be an unmitigated disaster. I agree with the point of view of the member for Armadale. The Labor Party does not have a policy on this. It pinched most of our planning Bill, and it loaded into that the legal involvement, which allows third parties to be involved and which allows an increase in cost and an increase in the time taken to arrive at decisions. That can only be an unmitigated disaster for all people in the planning system who have used it effectively up to date.
Yesterday I indicated that the Opposition’s policy of allowing almost unlimited third party involvement in the appeal process was a recipe for disaster. It shows that the Opposition is more interested in pandering to small minority groups than in looking at the whole picture. Yesterday I attempted to explain to the House that it was the Opposition's policy to run around scoring cheap political points and not to look at the broad picture. Yesterday I think we exposed what has been the Opposition’s strategy for the past 15 years. The member should know that consultation occurs with third parties through the appeals process, but in an informal way. What happens if we take that further and expand that third party involvement? As I pointed out yesterday, experience elsewhere shows that when we allow that to happen, we create a recipe for an increase in costs and for delays. It allows people to introduce possible commercial motives that we might not want. Someone might want another development. I know that has been the case in the United Kingdom. A housing developer will initiate a whole range of third party appeals because it does not want another development going ahead in preference to its development. Point of Order Ms MacTIERNAN: The minister seems to be labouring under some sort of misapprehension that the Labor Party has a policy of introducing third party appeals. I do not know from where he got that idea. So that the minister does not waste the time of the House, I assure him that we have never said that we will introduce third party appeals. Ms Warnock: An excellent point of order. The SPEAKER: I had better not comment on that, because if the member were in this position, she would reflect on that comment. That is not a point of order, it is a point of view, and the member for Armadale has taken an opportunity which she should not do too often. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr KIERATH: I was attempting to point out the pitfalls of allowing third party involvement in appeals. It is pertinent to point out to the House that some town planning schemes in this State were subject to third party appeals. As I mentioned yesterday to the member for Vasse, that provision has been removed from the town planning scheme because experience has shown it has been an unmitigated disaster. It often allowed people with developments that had been approved to cause delays and use legal involvement to prevent approval being given to other developments. If we allow third party involvement, we allow for corruption of the planning system. The point I made yesterday was that everyone in the United Kingdom who was involved in this area, regardless of their political views, said to us in Western Australia, “Whatever you do, do not allow any third party involvement, whether it be in the planning approval system or the appeal system. It makes no difference; do not allow formal third party approval.” Why? Because all it does is delay the inevitable. It frustrates the system, increases costs and often denies natural justice. I want to pick up on that phrase, because the member for Armadale has raised the issue of a real denial of natural justice. She is used to that phrase. If third party involvement is allowed, whether it be in the appeals system or in the planning system, those people who are involved will be denied natural justice. In the lead-up to an election, when people’s interest in these matters is heightened, there would be a lot of frivolous objections and frivolous third party appeals, whether they be in the appeals system or in the planning system, and that would be an unmitigated disaster. I agree with the point of view of the member for Armadale. The Labor Party does not have a policy on this. It pinched most of our planning Bill, and it loaded into that the legal involvement, which allows third parties to be involved and which allows an increase in cost and an increase in the time taken to arrive at decisions. That can only be an unmitigated disaster for all people in the planning system who have used it effectively up to date.
The member should know that consultation occurs with third parties through the appeals process, but in an informal way. What happens if we take that further and expand that third party involvement? As I pointed out yesterday, experience elsewhere shows that when we allow that to happen, we create a recipe for an increase in costs and for delays. It allows people to introduce possible commercial motives that we might not want. Someone might want another development. I know that has been the case in the United Kingdom. A housing developer will initiate a whole range of third party appeals because it does not want another development going ahead in preference to its development. Point of Order Ms MacTIERNAN: The minister seems to be labouring under some sort of misapprehension that the Labor Party has a policy of introducing third party appeals. I do not know from where he got that idea. So that the minister does not waste the time of the House, I assure him that we have never said that we will introduce third party appeals. Ms Warnock: An excellent point of order. The SPEAKER: I had better not comment on that, because if the member were in this position, she would reflect on that comment. That is not a point of order, it is a point of view, and the member for Armadale has taken an opportunity which she should not do too often. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr KIERATH: I was attempting to point out the pitfalls of allowing third party involvement in appeals. It is pertinent to point out to the House that some town planning schemes in this State were subject to third party appeals. As I mentioned yesterday to the member for Vasse, that provision has been removed from the town planning scheme because experience has shown it has been an unmitigated disaster. It often allowed people with developments that had been approved to cause delays and use legal involvement to prevent approval being given to other developments. If we allow third party involvement, we allow for corruption of the planning system. The point I made yesterday was that everyone in the United Kingdom who was involved in this area, regardless of their political views, said to us in Western Australia, “Whatever you do, do not allow any third party involvement, whether it be in the planning approval system or the appeal system. It makes no difference; do not allow formal third party approval.” Why? Because all it does is delay the inevitable. It frustrates the system, increases costs and often denies natural justice. I want to pick up on that phrase, because the member for Armadale has raised the issue of a real denial of natural justice. She is used to that phrase. If third party involvement is allowed, whether it be in the appeals system or in the planning system, those people who are involved will be denied natural justice. In the lead-up to an election, when people’s interest in these matters is heightened, there would be a lot of frivolous objections and frivolous third party appeals, whether they be in the appeals system or in the planning system, and that would be an unmitigated disaster. I agree with the point of view of the member for Armadale. The Labor Party does not have a policy on this. It pinched most of our planning Bill, and it loaded into that the legal involvement, which allows third parties to be involved and which allows an increase in cost and an increase in the time taken to arrive at decisions. That can only be an unmitigated disaster for all people in the planning system who have used it effectively up to date.
Ms Warnock: An excellent point of order. The SPEAKER: I had better not comment on that, because if the member were in this position, she would reflect on that comment. That is not a point of order, it is a point of view, and the member for Armadale has taken an opportunity which she should not do too often. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr KIERATH: I was attempting to point out the pitfalls of allowing third party involvement in appeals. It is pertinent to point out to the House that some town planning schemes in this State were subject to third party appeals. As I mentioned yesterday to the member for Vasse, that provision has been removed from the town planning scheme because experience has shown it has been an unmitigated disaster. It often allowed people with developments that had been approved to cause delays and use legal involvement to prevent approval being given to other developments. If we allow third party involvement, we allow for corruption of the planning system. The point I made yesterday was that everyone in the United Kingdom who was involved in this area, regardless of their political views, said to us in Western Australia, “Whatever you do, do not allow any third party involvement, whether it be in the planning approval system or the appeal system. It makes no difference; do not allow formal third party approval.” Why? Because all it does is delay the inevitable. It frustrates the system, increases costs and often denies natural justice. I want to pick up on that phrase, because the member for Armadale has raised the issue of a real denial of natural justice. She is used to that phrase. If third party involvement is allowed, whether it be in the appeals system or in the planning system, those people who are involved will be denied natural justice. In the lead-up to an election, when people’s interest in these matters is heightened, there would be a lot of frivolous objections and frivolous third party appeals, whether they be in the appeals system or in the planning system, and that would be an unmitigated disaster. I agree with the point of view of the member for Armadale. The Labor Party does not have a policy on this. It pinched most of our planning Bill, and it loaded into that the legal involvement, which allows third parties to be involved and which allows an increase in cost and an increase in the time taken to arrive at decisions. That can only be an unmitigated disaster for all people in the planning system who have used it effectively up to date.
The SPEAKER: I had better not comment on that, because if the member were in this position, she would reflect on that comment. That is not a point of order, it is a point of view, and the member for Armadale has taken an opportunity which she should not do too often. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr KIERATH: I was attempting to point out the pitfalls of allowing third party involvement in appeals. It is pertinent to point out to the House that some town planning schemes in this State were subject to third party appeals. As I mentioned yesterday to the member for Vasse, that provision has been removed from the town planning scheme because experience has shown it has been an unmitigated disaster. It often allowed people with developments that had been approved to cause delays and use legal involvement to prevent approval being given to other developments. If we allow third party involvement, we allow for corruption of the planning system. The point I made yesterday was that everyone in the United Kingdom who was involved in this area, regardless of their political views, said to us in Western Australia, “Whatever you do, do not allow any third party involvement, whether it be in the planning approval system or the appeal system. It makes no difference; do not allow formal third party approval.” Why? Because all it does is delay the inevitable. It frustrates the system, increases costs and often denies natural justice. I want to pick up on that phrase, because the member for Armadale has raised the issue of a real denial of natural justice. She is used to that phrase. If third party involvement is allowed, whether it be in the appeals system or in the planning system, those people who are involved will be denied natural justice. In the lead-up to an election, when people’s interest in these matters is heightened, there would be a lot of frivolous objections and frivolous third party appeals, whether they be in the appeals system or in the planning system, and that would be an unmitigated disaster. I agree with the point of view of the member for Armadale. The Labor Party does not have a policy on this. It pinched most of our planning Bill, and it loaded into that the legal involvement, which allows third parties to be involved and which allows an increase in cost and an increase in the time taken to arrive at decisions. That can only be an unmitigated disaster for all people in the planning system who have used it effectively up to date.
I agree with the point of view of the member for Armadale. The Labor Party does not have a policy on this. It pinched most of our planning Bill, and it loaded into that the legal involvement, which allows third parties to be involved and which allows an increase in cost and an increase in the time taken to arrive at decisions. That can only be an unmitigated disaster for all people in the planning system who have used it effectively up to date.
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.