❓ Dr. Honey questions the Premier regarding planning reforms, alleging reduced local input and insufficient consultation. The Premier defends the changes, emphasizing job creation, housing provision, and extensive consultation, while criticizing the opposition's stance.
AnsweredQoN 96Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
PLANNING REFORM
96. Dr D.J. HONEY to the Premier:
Yesterday,
the Premier announced further changes to our planning system, embedding the
so-called COVID stimulus measures and further reducing the ability of
local communities and councils to have any say over important planning
decisions. Furthermore, the Premier claimed that these changes were the result
of wide consultation.
(1) Why does the
government believe that local communities and councils should have no say in
important planning decisions affecting their communities?
(2) Did the
Premier consult with anyone outside the property industry and, in particular,
with the Western Australian Local Government
Association, local councils and the local community groups that will be
directly affected by these infill planning decisions?
96. Dr D.J. HONEY to the Premier:
Yesterday,
the Premier announced further changes to our planning system, embedding the
so-called COVID stimulus measures and further reducing the ability of
local communities and councils to have any say over important planning
decisions. Furthermore, the Premier claimed that these changes were the result
of wide consultation.
(1) Why does the
government believe that local communities and councils should have no say in
important planning decisions affecting their communities?
(2) Did the
Premier consult with anyone outside the property industry and, in particular,
with the Western Australian Local Government
Association, local councils and the local community groups that will be
directly affected by these infill planning decisions?
AnswerView source ↗
(1)–(2) I
have just a few things to say about that. First of all, the premise of the
question is incorrect. We did, essentially,
three major things. We increased funding, but I will leave that to one side. We
made permanent the special
development assessment unit, which is a pathway for projects over $20 million
to go through the Planning Commission, which then has regard to local
town planning schemes and the like. That is because those major projects, which
basically create thousands of jobs and/or are of state or regional
significance, deserve enhanced consideration, in my view. They provide lots of
opportunities and lots of jobs. I do not think
it is appropriate to leave those sorts of projects in the hands of local
councils, but they do take account of the local planning scheme.
In terms of the development
assessment panels, some changes were made to them. DAPs were put in place by
the last Barnett Liberal–National government. John Day, I think, was
the Minister for Planning. He was a very a decent and honourable fellow who put
in place the development assessment panels. We are changing them, to a degree.
Over our time in office, we have increased and enhanced the transparency of the
DAP process, but we are basically reducing the dollar amount to $2 million and
ensuring that if it is a residential project, it is not a single residential
project. A project of more than one residence would be eligible to go to a DAP.
Just so that the member knows, the DAPs have on them representatives from the
local council. When the member says they have no say, it is factually wrong.
They have local council representatives on them, but they also have technical
advisers who take account of the rules. They do not just listen to the loudest
complainer, and that is the difference. I do not know whether the member has
been to some local council meetings. I started my career in politics in local
council. I know what happens. A few people come along and complain, and lots of
councillors go to water over it. We have to have processes that stop that from
occurring and stop the stymieing of good projects and developments that create
jobs and housing.
We constantly hear from members
opposite, as we do from others, that we need more housing in Western Australia.
Then we bring in measures to create more housing for Western Australians and
they oppose that. You cannot win with these people. They oppose everything. The
Liberal Party in this state opposes anything. I do not know what they stand
for. We stand for jobs, opportunity, housing, more affordable housing, housing for ordinary people, housing for people who
want to downsize in the member's suburb and housing for people
who own a house worth whatever in Cottesloe or Nedlands—that is not in the member's suburb; that is the member
for Nedlands' suburb. If they want to downsize, we want to provide them with that opportunity. Members opposite
want to stop them. We want them to be able to live near their relatives, like in the Blackburne developments in
the western suburbs that members opposite opposed. Those developments
provide those opportunities for people. I note that the former Leader of the
Liberal Party opposed them and then he turned up to the sod turning that I did.
There was extensive consultation
with local councils and communities. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister
for Planning undertook 13 forums around the state involving members of the
public. I would like to thank the member for Kingsley. I actually saw her out
in various communities listening to and getting feedback from councils and
members of the community. I know that the opposition seems to have a visceral
hatred of people who invest money, create jobs and do developments. It now
seems to be in the Liberal Party's DNA to hate people who create jobs,
invest money and create housing, but we want those people to be able to do that
by making it affordable and achievable and to cut through red tape to get
things done.
have just a few things to say about that. First of all, the premise of the
question is incorrect. We did, essentially,
three major things. We increased funding, but I will leave that to one side. We
made permanent the special
development assessment unit, which is a pathway for projects over $20 million
to go through the Planning Commission, which then has regard to local
town planning schemes and the like. That is because those major projects, which
basically create thousands of jobs and/or are of state or regional
significance, deserve enhanced consideration, in my view. They provide lots of
opportunities and lots of jobs. I do not think
it is appropriate to leave those sorts of projects in the hands of local
councils, but they do take account of the local planning scheme.
In terms of the development
assessment panels, some changes were made to them. DAPs were put in place by
the last Barnett Liberal–National government. John Day, I think, was
the Minister for Planning. He was a very a decent and honourable fellow who put
in place the development assessment panels. We are changing them, to a degree.
Over our time in office, we have increased and enhanced the transparency of the
DAP process, but we are basically reducing the dollar amount to $2 million and
ensuring that if it is a residential project, it is not a single residential
project. A project of more than one residence would be eligible to go to a DAP.
Just so that the member knows, the DAPs have on them representatives from the
local council. When the member says they have no say, it is factually wrong.
They have local council representatives on them, but they also have technical
advisers who take account of the rules. They do not just listen to the loudest
complainer, and that is the difference. I do not know whether the member has
been to some local council meetings. I started my career in politics in local
council. I know what happens. A few people come along and complain, and lots of
councillors go to water over it. We have to have processes that stop that from
occurring and stop the stymieing of good projects and developments that create
jobs and housing.
We constantly hear from members
opposite, as we do from others, that we need more housing in Western Australia.
Then we bring in measures to create more housing for Western Australians and
they oppose that. You cannot win with these people. They oppose everything. The
Liberal Party in this state opposes anything. I do not know what they stand
for. We stand for jobs, opportunity, housing, more affordable housing, housing for ordinary people, housing for people who
want to downsize in the member's suburb and housing for people
who own a house worth whatever in Cottesloe or Nedlands—that is not in the member's suburb; that is the member
for Nedlands' suburb. If they want to downsize, we want to provide them with that opportunity. Members opposite
want to stop them. We want them to be able to live near their relatives, like in the Blackburne developments in
the western suburbs that members opposite opposed. Those developments
provide those opportunities for people. I note that the former Leader of the
Liberal Party opposed them and then he turned up to the sod turning that I did.
There was extensive consultation
with local councils and communities. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister
for Planning undertook 13 forums around the state involving members of the
public. I would like to thank the member for Kingsley. I actually saw her out
in various communities listening to and getting feedback from councils and
members of the community. I know that the opposition seems to have a visceral
hatred of people who invest money, create jobs and do developments. It now
seems to be in the Liberal Party's DNA to hate people who create jobs,
invest money and create housing, but we want those people to be able to do that
by making it affordable and achievable and to cut through red tape to get
things done.
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.