❓ The Minister addresses concerns about land acquisitions for the Greater Bunbury Region Scheme, defending the fairness of compensation provided to landowners and highlighting bipartisan support for the scheme's original vision.
AnsweredQoN 450Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
Can the minister advise on recent sale negotiations for land affected by the greater Bunbury region scheme and confirm the protections being put in place for landowners? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for the question. Some extraordinary claims have been made in the newspaper over the past week. However, once again, the reality of the situation is quite different from that described in the “ Wild West ”. I am pleased that while this furore was going on last week, we completed two purchases as part of the public open space for the regional park. They were in the Muddy Lakes area. Let us look at how unfair these transactions were. The first property was subject to the Court Government’s rezoning in 2000 under the draft region scheme. Notwithstanding the fact that the property had been subject to this rezoning as public open space, it was sold privately for $435 000 in February 2003. I repeat that that was after the scheme had been introduced. Just last week, using the valuation principles enshrined in the planning legislation, we purchased that property for $680 000, an increase of 56 per cent in 18 months. That was hardly unfair or onerous. The second purchase that we completed in that same Muddy Lakes area involved 27 hectares of land. It was a 40-hectare property that the owner had purchased in 1997 for $450 000. We purchased two-thirds of that property for $400 000, leaving the remaining one-third, which is the portion of the property that contains all the improvements, to be sold privately. We paid $400 000 for a property that was worth around $200 000 in 1997. This is a clear demonstration that the compensation provisions within this legislation are not onerous. They contain provisions for any person who wants to dispose of his or her land. I repeat that this is not a resumptive scheme. Simply because a person’s land is zoned regional open space does not mean the person is required to sell it. I once again point out that the metropolitan region scheme was gazetted 40 years ago. Land that was at that stage zoned regional open space is still in private ownership today because the landowners are not ready to sell it. I will quote a couple of paragraphs from a very interesting media release dated 24 March 2000 from one Richard Court, the then Premier of Western Australia. It states - The future preservation of some of the South-West’s greatest natural assets received a boost today from the announcement that the State Government will create two massive regional parks to the north and south of Bunbury. . . . The two parks - to be known as the Leschenault Regional Park to the north and Bunbury Tuart Regional Park in the south - together form the Leschenault-Bunbury Regional Open Space Concept. . . . Mr Court said also that these two new parks would be the centrepiece of the upcoming greater Bunbury region scheme and would be secured under the Bunbury region scheme plan. We offered bipartisan support to the Court Government for that plan, because we recognised that it was important to ensure that the quality of life in that fast growing region was preserved into the future. However, we now find that that bipartisanship has disappeared. We note that the Leader of the National Party now has on his web site his opposition to this land grab. We will be very pleased to go to the next election with a clear policy that we respect the need to create this regional open space and we respect the vision of Richard Court and will work with that. On the other side will be the Opposition, which is opposing this important development in Bunbury.
Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for the question. Some extraordinary claims have been made in the newspaper over the past week. However, once again, the reality of the situation is quite different from that described in the “ Wild West ”. I am pleased that while this furore was going on last week, we completed two purchases as part of the public open space for the regional park. They were in the Muddy Lakes area. Let us look at how unfair these transactions were. The first property was subject to the Court Government’s rezoning in 2000 under the draft region scheme. Notwithstanding the fact that the property had been subject to this rezoning as public open space, it was sold privately for $435 000 in February 2003. I repeat that that was after the scheme had been introduced. Just last week, using the valuation principles enshrined in the planning legislation, we purchased that property for $680 000, an increase of 56 per cent in 18 months. That was hardly unfair or onerous. The second purchase that we completed in that same Muddy Lakes area involved 27 hectares of land. It was a 40-hectare property that the owner had purchased in 1997 for $450 000. We purchased two-thirds of that property for $400 000, leaving the remaining one-third, which is the portion of the property that contains all the improvements, to be sold privately. We paid $400 000 for a property that was worth around $200 000 in 1997. This is a clear demonstration that the compensation provisions within this legislation are not onerous. They contain provisions for any person who wants to dispose of his or her land. I repeat that this is not a resumptive scheme. Simply because a person’s land is zoned regional open space does not mean the person is required to sell it. I once again point out that the metropolitan region scheme was gazetted 40 years ago. Land that was at that stage zoned regional open space is still in private ownership today because the landowners are not ready to sell it. I will quote a couple of paragraphs from a very interesting media release dated 24 March 2000 from one Richard Court, the then Premier of Western Australia. It states - The future preservation of some of the South-West’s greatest natural assets received a boost today from the announcement that the State Government will create two massive regional parks to the north and south of Bunbury. . . . The two parks - to be known as the Leschenault Regional Park to the north and Bunbury Tuart Regional Park in the south - together form the Leschenault-Bunbury Regional Open Space Concept. . . . Mr Court said also that these two new parks would be the centrepiece of the upcoming greater Bunbury region scheme and would be secured under the Bunbury region scheme plan. We offered bipartisan support to the Court Government for that plan, because we recognised that it was important to ensure that the quality of life in that fast growing region was preserved into the future. However, we now find that that bipartisanship has disappeared. We note that the Leader of the National Party now has on his web site his opposition to this land grab. We will be very pleased to go to the next election with a clear policy that we respect the need to create this regional open space and we respect the vision of Richard Court and will work with that. On the other side will be the Opposition, which is opposing this important development in Bunbury.
I thank the member for the question. Some extraordinary claims have been made in the newspaper over the past week. However, once again, the reality of the situation is quite different from that described in the “ Wild West ”. I am pleased that while this furore was going on last week, we completed two purchases as part of the public open space for the regional park. They were in the Muddy Lakes area. Let us look at how unfair these transactions were. The first property was subject to the Court Government’s rezoning in 2000 under the draft region scheme. Notwithstanding the fact that the property had been subject to this rezoning as public open space, it was sold privately for $435 000 in February 2003. I repeat that that was after the scheme had been introduced. Just last week, using the valuation principles enshrined in the planning legislation, we purchased that property for $680 000, an increase of 56 per cent in 18 months. That was hardly unfair or onerous. The second purchase that we completed in that same Muddy Lakes area involved 27 hectares of land. It was a 40-hectare property that the owner had purchased in 1997 for $450 000. We purchased two-thirds of that property for $400 000, leaving the remaining one-third, which is the portion of the property that contains all the improvements, to be sold privately. We paid $400 000 for a property that was worth around $200 000 in 1997. This is a clear demonstration that the compensation provisions within this legislation are not onerous. They contain provisions for any person who wants to dispose of his or her land. I repeat that this is not a resumptive scheme. Simply because a person’s land is zoned regional open space does not mean the person is required to sell it. I once again point out that the metropolitan region scheme was gazetted 40 years ago. Land that was at that stage zoned regional open space is still in private ownership today because the landowners are not ready to sell it. I will quote a couple of paragraphs from a very interesting media release dated 24 March 2000 from one Richard Court, the then Premier of Western Australia. It states - The future preservation of some of the South-West’s greatest natural assets received a boost today from the announcement that the State Government will create two massive regional parks to the north and south of Bunbury. . . . The two parks - to be known as the Leschenault Regional Park to the north and Bunbury Tuart Regional Park in the south - together form the Leschenault-Bunbury Regional Open Space Concept. . . . Mr Court said also that these two new parks would be the centrepiece of the upcoming greater Bunbury region scheme and would be secured under the Bunbury region scheme plan. We offered bipartisan support to the Court Government for that plan, because we recognised that it was important to ensure that the quality of life in that fast growing region was preserved into the future. However, we now find that that bipartisanship has disappeared. We note that the Leader of the National Party now has on his web site his opposition to this land grab. We will be very pleased to go to the next election with a clear policy that we respect the need to create this regional open space and we respect the vision of Richard Court and will work with that. On the other side will be the Opposition, which is opposing this important development in Bunbury.
I will quote a couple of paragraphs from a very interesting media release dated 24 March 2000 from one Richard Court, the then Premier of Western Australia. It states - The future preservation of some of the South-West’s greatest natural assets received a boost today from the announcement that the State Government will create two massive regional parks to the north and south of Bunbury. . . . The two parks - to be known as the Leschenault Regional Park to the north and Bunbury Tuart Regional Park in the south - together form the Leschenault-Bunbury Regional Open Space Concept. . . . Mr Court said also that these two new parks would be the centrepiece of the upcoming greater Bunbury region scheme and would be secured under the Bunbury region scheme plan. We offered bipartisan support to the Court Government for that plan, because we recognised that it was important to ensure that the quality of life in that fast growing region was preserved into the future. However, we now find that that bipartisanship has disappeared. We note that the Leader of the National Party now has on his web site his opposition to this land grab. We will be very pleased to go to the next election with a clear policy that we respect the need to create this regional open space and we respect the vision of Richard Court and will work with that. On the other side will be the Opposition, which is opposing this important development in Bunbury.
The two parks - to be known as the Leschenault Regional Park to the north and Bunbury Tuart Regional Park in the south - together form the Leschenault-Bunbury Regional Open Space Concept. . . .
Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for the question. Some extraordinary claims have been made in the newspaper over the past week. However, once again, the reality of the situation is quite different from that described in the “ Wild West ”. I am pleased that while this furore was going on last week, we completed two purchases as part of the public open space for the regional park. They were in the Muddy Lakes area. Let us look at how unfair these transactions were. The first property was subject to the Court Government’s rezoning in 2000 under the draft region scheme. Notwithstanding the fact that the property had been subject to this rezoning as public open space, it was sold privately for $435 000 in February 2003. I repeat that that was after the scheme had been introduced. Just last week, using the valuation principles enshrined in the planning legislation, we purchased that property for $680 000, an increase of 56 per cent in 18 months. That was hardly unfair or onerous. The second purchase that we completed in that same Muddy Lakes area involved 27 hectares of land. It was a 40-hectare property that the owner had purchased in 1997 for $450 000. We purchased two-thirds of that property for $400 000, leaving the remaining one-third, which is the portion of the property that contains all the improvements, to be sold privately. We paid $400 000 for a property that was worth around $200 000 in 1997. This is a clear demonstration that the compensation provisions within this legislation are not onerous. They contain provisions for any person who wants to dispose of his or her land. I repeat that this is not a resumptive scheme. Simply because a person’s land is zoned regional open space does not mean the person is required to sell it. I once again point out that the metropolitan region scheme was gazetted 40 years ago. Land that was at that stage zoned regional open space is still in private ownership today because the landowners are not ready to sell it. I will quote a couple of paragraphs from a very interesting media release dated 24 March 2000 from one Richard Court, the then Premier of Western Australia. It states - The future preservation of some of the South-West’s greatest natural assets received a boost today from the announcement that the State Government will create two massive regional parks to the north and south of Bunbury. . . . The two parks - to be known as the Leschenault Regional Park to the north and Bunbury Tuart Regional Park in the south - together form the Leschenault-Bunbury Regional Open Space Concept. . . . Mr Court said also that these two new parks would be the centrepiece of the upcoming greater Bunbury region scheme and would be secured under the Bunbury region scheme plan. We offered bipartisan support to the Court Government for that plan, because we recognised that it was important to ensure that the quality of life in that fast growing region was preserved into the future. However, we now find that that bipartisanship has disappeared. We note that the Leader of the National Party now has on his web site his opposition to this land grab. We will be very pleased to go to the next election with a clear policy that we respect the need to create this regional open space and we respect the vision of Richard Court and will work with that. On the other side will be the Opposition, which is opposing this important development in Bunbury.
I thank the member for the question. Some extraordinary claims have been made in the newspaper over the past week. However, once again, the reality of the situation is quite different from that described in the “ Wild West ”. I am pleased that while this furore was going on last week, we completed two purchases as part of the public open space for the regional park. They were in the Muddy Lakes area. Let us look at how unfair these transactions were. The first property was subject to the Court Government’s rezoning in 2000 under the draft region scheme. Notwithstanding the fact that the property had been subject to this rezoning as public open space, it was sold privately for $435 000 in February 2003. I repeat that that was after the scheme had been introduced. Just last week, using the valuation principles enshrined in the planning legislation, we purchased that property for $680 000, an increase of 56 per cent in 18 months. That was hardly unfair or onerous. The second purchase that we completed in that same Muddy Lakes area involved 27 hectares of land. It was a 40-hectare property that the owner had purchased in 1997 for $450 000. We purchased two-thirds of that property for $400 000, leaving the remaining one-third, which is the portion of the property that contains all the improvements, to be sold privately. We paid $400 000 for a property that was worth around $200 000 in 1997. This is a clear demonstration that the compensation provisions within this legislation are not onerous. They contain provisions for any person who wants to dispose of his or her land. I repeat that this is not a resumptive scheme. Simply because a person’s land is zoned regional open space does not mean the person is required to sell it. I once again point out that the metropolitan region scheme was gazetted 40 years ago. Land that was at that stage zoned regional open space is still in private ownership today because the landowners are not ready to sell it. I will quote a couple of paragraphs from a very interesting media release dated 24 March 2000 from one Richard Court, the then Premier of Western Australia. It states - The future preservation of some of the South-West’s greatest natural assets received a boost today from the announcement that the State Government will create two massive regional parks to the north and south of Bunbury. . . . The two parks - to be known as the Leschenault Regional Park to the north and Bunbury Tuart Regional Park in the south - together form the Leschenault-Bunbury Regional Open Space Concept. . . . Mr Court said also that these two new parks would be the centrepiece of the upcoming greater Bunbury region scheme and would be secured under the Bunbury region scheme plan. We offered bipartisan support to the Court Government for that plan, because we recognised that it was important to ensure that the quality of life in that fast growing region was preserved into the future. However, we now find that that bipartisanship has disappeared. We note that the Leader of the National Party now has on his web site his opposition to this land grab. We will be very pleased to go to the next election with a clear policy that we respect the need to create this regional open space and we respect the vision of Richard Court and will work with that. On the other side will be the Opposition, which is opposing this important development in Bunbury.
I will quote a couple of paragraphs from a very interesting media release dated 24 March 2000 from one Richard Court, the then Premier of Western Australia. It states - The future preservation of some of the South-West’s greatest natural assets received a boost today from the announcement that the State Government will create two massive regional parks to the north and south of Bunbury. . . . The two parks - to be known as the Leschenault Regional Park to the north and Bunbury Tuart Regional Park in the south - together form the Leschenault-Bunbury Regional Open Space Concept. . . . Mr Court said also that these two new parks would be the centrepiece of the upcoming greater Bunbury region scheme and would be secured under the Bunbury region scheme plan. We offered bipartisan support to the Court Government for that plan, because we recognised that it was important to ensure that the quality of life in that fast growing region was preserved into the future. However, we now find that that bipartisanship has disappeared. We note that the Leader of the National Party now has on his web site his opposition to this land grab. We will be very pleased to go to the next election with a clear policy that we respect the need to create this regional open space and we respect the vision of Richard Court and will work with that. On the other side will be the Opposition, which is opposing this important development in Bunbury.
The two parks - to be known as the Leschenault Regional Park to the north and Bunbury Tuart Regional Park in the south - together form the Leschenault-Bunbury Regional Open Space Concept. . . .
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.