❓ Mr Marlborough asks about the status of the previous government's High Court appeal regarding the CBH grain silos in Fremantle. Dr Edwards responds that the appeal has been dropped, saving taxpayer money, and signals a new approach to heritage matters.
AnsweredQoN 410Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
CBH GRAIN SILOS, FREMANTLE 410. Mr MARLBOROUGH to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage: Will the minister explain to the House the current status of the High Court appeal by the previous State Government on the CBH grain silos in Fremantle? Dr EDWARDS
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for the question. I will explain to members some of the background of this issue before I explain the current status. In February 2000, the then Minister for Heritage decided not to enter on to the register of heritage places the CBH grain silos. That was despite a lot of support for the registration from the Heritage Council, the National Trust, the Royal Australian Institute of Architects and the current Leader of the Opposition. Mr Barnett: For the hospital silo, not the whole structure. Dr EDWARDS: That is right. Subsequently, the City of Fremantle challenged the then minister’s decision in the Supreme Court. It argued that the minister took into consideration other values besides heritage when he made his decision. The Supreme Court quashed the heritage minister’s decision and concluded that he had been wrong under section 47 of the Act. Unfortunately, by then the silos had been demolished, which is part of the tragedy of this issue. Not to be outdone, the then heritage minister appealed against the Supreme Court ruling. Today, I am pleased to inform the House that following my instructions to the Crown Solicitor, the State has dropped that appeal. We have stopped a trail of taxpayers’ money that had been wasted in pursuit of that issue. The costs to date have been more than $37 000. That does not take into account the costs incurred by the Fremantle Port Authority, which participated in the action. Nothing will bring back those silos. I thank the member for his question and signal to the House that, on heritage matters, the Government is determined to progress in cooperation and consultation rather than in conflict like the previous minister.
CBH GRAIN SILOS, FREMANTLE
Will the minister explain to the House the current status of the High Court appeal by the previous State Government on the CBH grain silos in Fremantle? Dr EDWARDS replied: I thank the member for the question. I will explain to members some of the background of this issue before I explain the current status. In February 2000, the then Minister for Heritage decided not to enter on to the register of heritage places the CBH grain silos. That was despite a lot of support for the registration from the Heritage Council, the National Trust, the Royal Australian Institute of Architects and the current Leader of the Opposition. Mr Barnett: For the hospital silo, not the whole structure. Dr EDWARDS: That is right. Subsequently, the City of Fremantle challenged the then minister’s decision in the Supreme Court. It argued that the minister took into consideration other values besides heritage when he made his decision. The Supreme Court quashed the heritage minister’s decision and concluded that he had been wrong under section 47 of the Act. Unfortunately, by then the silos had been demolished, which is part of the tragedy of this issue. Not to be outdone, the then heritage minister appealed against the Supreme Court ruling. Today, I am pleased to inform the House that following my instructions to the Crown Solicitor, the State has dropped that appeal. We have stopped a trail of taxpayers’ money that had been wasted in pursuit of that issue. The costs to date have been more than $37 000. That does not take into account the costs incurred by the Fremantle Port Authority, which participated in the action. Nothing will bring back those silos. I thank the member for his question and signal to the House that, on heritage matters, the Government is determined to progress in cooperation and consultation rather than in conflict like the previous minister.
Dr EDWARDS replied: I thank the member for the question. I will explain to members some of the background of this issue before I explain the current status. In February 2000, the then Minister for Heritage decided not to enter on to the register of heritage places the CBH grain silos. That was despite a lot of support for the registration from the Heritage Council, the National Trust, the Royal Australian Institute of Architects and the current Leader of the Opposition. Mr Barnett: For the hospital silo, not the whole structure. Dr EDWARDS: That is right. Subsequently, the City of Fremantle challenged the then minister’s decision in the Supreme Court. It argued that the minister took into consideration other values besides heritage when he made his decision. The Supreme Court quashed the heritage minister’s decision and concluded that he had been wrong under section 47 of the Act. Unfortunately, by then the silos had been demolished, which is part of the tragedy of this issue. Not to be outdone, the then heritage minister appealed against the Supreme Court ruling. Today, I am pleased to inform the House that following my instructions to the Crown Solicitor, the State has dropped that appeal. We have stopped a trail of taxpayers’ money that had been wasted in pursuit of that issue. The costs to date have been more than $37 000. That does not take into account the costs incurred by the Fremantle Port Authority, which participated in the action. Nothing will bring back those silos. I thank the member for his question and signal to the House that, on heritage matters, the Government is determined to progress in cooperation and consultation rather than in conflict like the previous minister.
I thank the member for the question. I will explain to members some of the background of this issue before I explain the current status. In February 2000, the then Minister for Heritage decided not to enter on to the register of heritage places the CBH grain silos. That was despite a lot of support for the registration from the Heritage Council, the National Trust, the Royal Australian Institute of Architects and the current Leader of the Opposition. Mr Barnett: For the hospital silo, not the whole structure. Dr EDWARDS: That is right. Subsequently, the City of Fremantle challenged the then minister’s decision in the Supreme Court. It argued that the minister took into consideration other values besides heritage when he made his decision. The Supreme Court quashed the heritage minister’s decision and concluded that he had been wrong under section 47 of the Act. Unfortunately, by then the silos had been demolished, which is part of the tragedy of this issue. Not to be outdone, the then heritage minister appealed against the Supreme Court ruling. Today, I am pleased to inform the House that following my instructions to the Crown Solicitor, the State has dropped that appeal. We have stopped a trail of taxpayers’ money that had been wasted in pursuit of that issue. The costs to date have been more than $37 000. That does not take into account the costs incurred by the Fremantle Port Authority, which participated in the action. Nothing will bring back those silos. I thank the member for his question and signal to the House that, on heritage matters, the Government is determined to progress in cooperation and consultation rather than in conflict like the previous minister.
In February 2000, the then Minister for Heritage decided not to enter on to the register of heritage places the CBH grain silos. That was despite a lot of support for the registration from the Heritage Council, the National Trust, the Royal Australian Institute of Architects and the current Leader of the Opposition. Mr Barnett: For the hospital silo, not the whole structure. Dr EDWARDS: That is right. Subsequently, the City of Fremantle challenged the then minister’s decision in the Supreme Court. It argued that the minister took into consideration other values besides heritage when he made his decision. The Supreme Court quashed the heritage minister’s decision and concluded that he had been wrong under section 47 of the Act. Unfortunately, by then the silos had been demolished, which is part of the tragedy of this issue. Not to be outdone, the then heritage minister appealed against the Supreme Court ruling. Today, I am pleased to inform the House that following my instructions to the Crown Solicitor, the State has dropped that appeal. We have stopped a trail of taxpayers’ money that had been wasted in pursuit of that issue. The costs to date have been more than $37 000. That does not take into account the costs incurred by the Fremantle Port Authority, which participated in the action. Nothing will bring back those silos. I thank the member for his question and signal to the House that, on heritage matters, the Government is determined to progress in cooperation and consultation rather than in conflict like the previous minister.
Mr Barnett: For the hospital silo, not the whole structure. Dr EDWARDS: That is right. Subsequently, the City of Fremantle challenged the then minister’s decision in the Supreme Court. It argued that the minister took into consideration other values besides heritage when he made his decision. The Supreme Court quashed the heritage minister’s decision and concluded that he had been wrong under section 47 of the Act. Unfortunately, by then the silos had been demolished, which is part of the tragedy of this issue. Not to be outdone, the then heritage minister appealed against the Supreme Court ruling. Today, I am pleased to inform the House that following my instructions to the Crown Solicitor, the State has dropped that appeal. We have stopped a trail of taxpayers’ money that had been wasted in pursuit of that issue. The costs to date have been more than $37 000. That does not take into account the costs incurred by the Fremantle Port Authority, which participated in the action. Nothing will bring back those silos. I thank the member for his question and signal to the House that, on heritage matters, the Government is determined to progress in cooperation and consultation rather than in conflict like the previous minister.
Dr EDWARDS: That is right. Subsequently, the City of Fremantle challenged the then minister’s decision in the Supreme Court. It argued that the minister took into consideration other values besides heritage when he made his decision. The Supreme Court quashed the heritage minister’s decision and concluded that he had been wrong under section 47 of the Act. Unfortunately, by then the silos had been demolished, which is part of the tragedy of this issue. Not to be outdone, the then heritage minister appealed against the Supreme Court ruling. Today, I am pleased to inform the House that following my instructions to the Crown Solicitor, the State has dropped that appeal. We have stopped a trail of taxpayers’ money that had been wasted in pursuit of that issue. The costs to date have been more than $37 000. That does not take into account the costs incurred by the Fremantle Port Authority, which participated in the action. Nothing will bring back those silos. I thank the member for his question and signal to the House that, on heritage matters, the Government is determined to progress in cooperation and consultation rather than in conflict like the previous minister.
Today, I am pleased to inform the House that following my instructions to the Crown Solicitor, the State has dropped that appeal. We have stopped a trail of taxpayers’ money that had been wasted in pursuit of that issue. The costs to date have been more than $37 000. That does not take into account the costs incurred by the Fremantle Port Authority, which participated in the action. Nothing will bring back those silos. I thank the member for his question and signal to the House that, on heritage matters, the Government is determined to progress in cooperation and consultation rather than in conflict like the previous minister.
CBH GRAIN SILOS, FREMANTLE
Will the minister explain to the House the current status of the High Court appeal by the previous State Government on the CBH grain silos in Fremantle? Dr EDWARDS replied: I thank the member for the question. I will explain to members some of the background of this issue before I explain the current status. In February 2000, the then Minister for Heritage decided not to enter on to the register of heritage places the CBH grain silos. That was despite a lot of support for the registration from the Heritage Council, the National Trust, the Royal Australian Institute of Architects and the current Leader of the Opposition. Mr Barnett: For the hospital silo, not the whole structure. Dr EDWARDS: That is right. Subsequently, the City of Fremantle challenged the then minister’s decision in the Supreme Court. It argued that the minister took into consideration other values besides heritage when he made his decision. The Supreme Court quashed the heritage minister’s decision and concluded that he had been wrong under section 47 of the Act. Unfortunately, by then the silos had been demolished, which is part of the tragedy of this issue. Not to be outdone, the then heritage minister appealed against the Supreme Court ruling. Today, I am pleased to inform the House that following my instructions to the Crown Solicitor, the State has dropped that appeal. We have stopped a trail of taxpayers’ money that had been wasted in pursuit of that issue. The costs to date have been more than $37 000. That does not take into account the costs incurred by the Fremantle Port Authority, which participated in the action. Nothing will bring back those silos. I thank the member for his question and signal to the House that, on heritage matters, the Government is determined to progress in cooperation and consultation rather than in conflict like the previous minister.
Dr EDWARDS replied: I thank the member for the question. I will explain to members some of the background of this issue before I explain the current status. In February 2000, the then Minister for Heritage decided not to enter on to the register of heritage places the CBH grain silos. That was despite a lot of support for the registration from the Heritage Council, the National Trust, the Royal Australian Institute of Architects and the current Leader of the Opposition. Mr Barnett: For the hospital silo, not the whole structure. Dr EDWARDS: That is right. Subsequently, the City of Fremantle challenged the then minister’s decision in the Supreme Court. It argued that the minister took into consideration other values besides heritage when he made his decision. The Supreme Court quashed the heritage minister’s decision and concluded that he had been wrong under section 47 of the Act. Unfortunately, by then the silos had been demolished, which is part of the tragedy of this issue. Not to be outdone, the then heritage minister appealed against the Supreme Court ruling. Today, I am pleased to inform the House that following my instructions to the Crown Solicitor, the State has dropped that appeal. We have stopped a trail of taxpayers’ money that had been wasted in pursuit of that issue. The costs to date have been more than $37 000. That does not take into account the costs incurred by the Fremantle Port Authority, which participated in the action. Nothing will bring back those silos. I thank the member for his question and signal to the House that, on heritage matters, the Government is determined to progress in cooperation and consultation rather than in conflict like the previous minister.
I thank the member for the question. I will explain to members some of the background of this issue before I explain the current status. In February 2000, the then Minister for Heritage decided not to enter on to the register of heritage places the CBH grain silos. That was despite a lot of support for the registration from the Heritage Council, the National Trust, the Royal Australian Institute of Architects and the current Leader of the Opposition. Mr Barnett: For the hospital silo, not the whole structure. Dr EDWARDS: That is right. Subsequently, the City of Fremantle challenged the then minister’s decision in the Supreme Court. It argued that the minister took into consideration other values besides heritage when he made his decision. The Supreme Court quashed the heritage minister’s decision and concluded that he had been wrong under section 47 of the Act. Unfortunately, by then the silos had been demolished, which is part of the tragedy of this issue. Not to be outdone, the then heritage minister appealed against the Supreme Court ruling. Today, I am pleased to inform the House that following my instructions to the Crown Solicitor, the State has dropped that appeal. We have stopped a trail of taxpayers’ money that had been wasted in pursuit of that issue. The costs to date have been more than $37 000. That does not take into account the costs incurred by the Fremantle Port Authority, which participated in the action. Nothing will bring back those silos. I thank the member for his question and signal to the House that, on heritage matters, the Government is determined to progress in cooperation and consultation rather than in conflict like the previous minister.
In February 2000, the then Minister for Heritage decided not to enter on to the register of heritage places the CBH grain silos. That was despite a lot of support for the registration from the Heritage Council, the National Trust, the Royal Australian Institute of Architects and the current Leader of the Opposition. Mr Barnett: For the hospital silo, not the whole structure. Dr EDWARDS: That is right. Subsequently, the City of Fremantle challenged the then minister’s decision in the Supreme Court. It argued that the minister took into consideration other values besides heritage when he made his decision. The Supreme Court quashed the heritage minister’s decision and concluded that he had been wrong under section 47 of the Act. Unfortunately, by then the silos had been demolished, which is part of the tragedy of this issue. Not to be outdone, the then heritage minister appealed against the Supreme Court ruling. Today, I am pleased to inform the House that following my instructions to the Crown Solicitor, the State has dropped that appeal. We have stopped a trail of taxpayers’ money that had been wasted in pursuit of that issue. The costs to date have been more than $37 000. That does not take into account the costs incurred by the Fremantle Port Authority, which participated in the action. Nothing will bring back those silos. I thank the member for his question and signal to the House that, on heritage matters, the Government is determined to progress in cooperation and consultation rather than in conflict like the previous minister.
Mr Barnett: For the hospital silo, not the whole structure. Dr EDWARDS: That is right. Subsequently, the City of Fremantle challenged the then minister’s decision in the Supreme Court. It argued that the minister took into consideration other values besides heritage when he made his decision. The Supreme Court quashed the heritage minister’s decision and concluded that he had been wrong under section 47 of the Act. Unfortunately, by then the silos had been demolished, which is part of the tragedy of this issue. Not to be outdone, the then heritage minister appealed against the Supreme Court ruling. Today, I am pleased to inform the House that following my instructions to the Crown Solicitor, the State has dropped that appeal. We have stopped a trail of taxpayers’ money that had been wasted in pursuit of that issue. The costs to date have been more than $37 000. That does not take into account the costs incurred by the Fremantle Port Authority, which participated in the action. Nothing will bring back those silos. I thank the member for his question and signal to the House that, on heritage matters, the Government is determined to progress in cooperation and consultation rather than in conflict like the previous minister.
Dr EDWARDS: That is right. Subsequently, the City of Fremantle challenged the then minister’s decision in the Supreme Court. It argued that the minister took into consideration other values besides heritage when he made his decision. The Supreme Court quashed the heritage minister’s decision and concluded that he had been wrong under section 47 of the Act. Unfortunately, by then the silos had been demolished, which is part of the tragedy of this issue. Not to be outdone, the then heritage minister appealed against the Supreme Court ruling. Today, I am pleased to inform the House that following my instructions to the Crown Solicitor, the State has dropped that appeal. We have stopped a trail of taxpayers’ money that had been wasted in pursuit of that issue. The costs to date have been more than $37 000. That does not take into account the costs incurred by the Fremantle Port Authority, which participated in the action. Nothing will bring back those silos. I thank the member for his question and signal to the House that, on heritage matters, the Government is determined to progress in cooperation and consultation rather than in conflict like the previous minister.
Today, I am pleased to inform the House that following my instructions to the Crown Solicitor, the State has dropped that appeal. We have stopped a trail of taxpayers’ money that had been wasted in pursuit of that issue. The costs to date have been more than $37 000. That does not take into account the costs incurred by the Fremantle Port Authority, which participated in the action. Nothing will bring back those silos. I thank the member for his question and signal to the House that, on heritage matters, the Government is determined to progress in cooperation and consultation rather than in conflict like the previous minister.
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.