❓ Question regarding the Port Coogee development, including land sale prices and the involvement of Brian Burke and Julian Grill. The Minister denies inaccuracies and blames the previous government for unfavorable sale terms.
AnsweredQoN 952Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
PORT COOGEE DEVELOPMENT
My question - Mr E.S. Ripper : It’s a long walk back! Dr S.C. THOMAS : It is. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Dr S.C. THOMAS : Thank you for your protection, Mr Speaker. I refer to the minister’s vehement opposition to the redevelopment of Leighton Beach and her subsequent backflip to support the Port Coogee development, including the reclamation of seabed. (1) Can the minister confirm that the land and seabed at the Port Coogee development were sold by her government for about $55 a square metre? (2) Can the minister confirm that the lots at the Port Coogee development are currently selling for more than $1 100 a square metre? (3) Did Brian Burke or Julian Grill have any involvement in the Port Coogee development; and, if so, what was that involvement? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN
My question - Mr E.S. Ripper : It’s a long walk back! Dr S.C. THOMAS : It is. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Dr S.C. THOMAS : Thank you for your protection, Mr Speaker. I refer to the minister’s vehement opposition to the redevelopment of Leighton Beach and her subsequent backflip to support the Port Coogee development, including the reclamation of seabed. (1) Can the minister confirm that the land and seabed at the Port Coogee development were sold by her government for about $55 a square metre? (2) Can the minister confirm that the lots at the Port Coogee development are currently selling for more than $1 100 a square metre? (3) Did Brian Burke or Julian Grill have any involvement in the Port Coogee development; and, if so, what was that involvement? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(3) That was a miscellany of complete inaccuracies, which we have come to expect from the opposition. Vehement opposition to development at Leighton, I think not. Indeed, the Labor Party certainly opposed the process that was undertaken by the previous government, as did the member for Cottesloe, the Leader of the Opposition’s mentor. Indeed, a host of people from the opposition when they were in government ultimately realised that it was a highly flawed process. We had always said that we believed there was a strong case for development on that site, but that it needed to be done pursuant to a proper planning process and that it should not be designed without the proper planning parameters being put in place. The member’s proposition that we were opponents of a development on that site is completely and utterly wrong. Secondly, I agree with the member that the terms of the sale to the Port Coogee developers were not favourable to the state. Again, alas, it was something that we inherited from the previous government. I think it might have been Doug Shave who entered into the agreement with Australand that effectively gave it a very preferential rate for the calculation of property values. From my recollection of the land issue, it was predicated on land values at a nearby estate in 1997 and was then inflated by the consumer price index. Of course, as we know and as is almost inevitably the case with properties such as this, the rate of increase has far exceeded CPI. Again, the previous government left us with a mess that we have tried to work our way through. Part of the way in which we dealt with that was to require the developer to make a much more substantial contribution to the road infrastructure than would otherwise have been the case in an effort to get a better balance between the public and private interests. However, because of reasons of sovereign risk, we were obviously requested to proceed with the deal that was transacted by the previous government. In relation to the involvement of Brian Burke and Julian Grill in this project, it has certainly been well publicised that they have been involved in the project. They were working for the proponents and I understand that at some point they were involved in the project. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : Mr Speaker, I was always a great supporter of Dr Gallop’s prohibition.
Mr E.S. Ripper : It’s a long walk back! Dr S.C. THOMAS : It is. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Dr S.C. THOMAS : Thank you for your protection, Mr Speaker. I refer to the minister’s vehement opposition to the redevelopment of Leighton Beach and her subsequent backflip to support the Port Coogee development, including the reclamation of seabed. (1) Can the minister confirm that the land and seabed at the Port Coogee development were sold by her government for about $55 a square metre? (2) Can the minister confirm that the lots at the Port Coogee development are currently selling for more than $1 100 a square metre? (3) Did Brian Burke or Julian Grill have any involvement in the Port Coogee development; and, if so, what was that involvement? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(3) That was a miscellany of complete inaccuracies, which we have come to expect from the opposition. Vehement opposition to development at Leighton, I think not. Indeed, the Labor Party certainly opposed the process that was undertaken by the previous government, as did the member for Cottesloe, the Leader of the Opposition’s mentor. Indeed, a host of people from the opposition when they were in government ultimately realised that it was a highly flawed process. We had always said that we believed there was a strong case for development on that site, but that it needed to be done pursuant to a proper planning process and that it should not be designed without the proper planning parameters being put in place. The member’s proposition that we were opponents of a development on that site is completely and utterly wrong. Secondly, I agree with the member that the terms of the sale to the Port Coogee developers were not favourable to the state. Again, alas, it was something that we inherited from the previous government. I think it might have been Doug Shave who entered into the agreement with Australand that effectively gave it a very preferential rate for the calculation of property values. From my recollection of the land issue, it was predicated on land values at a nearby estate in 1997 and was then inflated by the consumer price index. Of course, as we know and as is almost inevitably the case with properties such as this, the rate of increase has far exceeded CPI. Again, the previous government left us with a mess that we have tried to work our way through. Part of the way in which we dealt with that was to require the developer to make a much more substantial contribution to the road infrastructure than would otherwise have been the case in an effort to get a better balance between the public and private interests. However, because of reasons of sovereign risk, we were obviously requested to proceed with the deal that was transacted by the previous government. In relation to the involvement of Brian Burke and Julian Grill in this project, it has certainly been well publicised that they have been involved in the project. They were working for the proponents and I understand that at some point they were involved in the project. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : Mr Speaker, I was always a great supporter of Dr Gallop’s prohibition.
Dr S.C. THOMAS : It is. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Dr S.C. THOMAS : Thank you for your protection, Mr Speaker. I refer to the minister’s vehement opposition to the redevelopment of Leighton Beach and her subsequent backflip to support the Port Coogee development, including the reclamation of seabed. (1) Can the minister confirm that the land and seabed at the Port Coogee development were sold by her government for about $55 a square metre? (2) Can the minister confirm that the lots at the Port Coogee development are currently selling for more than $1 100 a square metre? (3) Did Brian Burke or Julian Grill have any involvement in the Port Coogee development; and, if so, what was that involvement? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(3) That was a miscellany of complete inaccuracies, which we have come to expect from the opposition. Vehement opposition to development at Leighton, I think not. Indeed, the Labor Party certainly opposed the process that was undertaken by the previous government, as did the member for Cottesloe, the Leader of the Opposition’s mentor. Indeed, a host of people from the opposition when they were in government ultimately realised that it was a highly flawed process. We had always said that we believed there was a strong case for development on that site, but that it needed to be done pursuant to a proper planning process and that it should not be designed without the proper planning parameters being put in place. The member’s proposition that we were opponents of a development on that site is completely and utterly wrong. Secondly, I agree with the member that the terms of the sale to the Port Coogee developers were not favourable to the state. Again, alas, it was something that we inherited from the previous government. I think it might have been Doug Shave who entered into the agreement with Australand that effectively gave it a very preferential rate for the calculation of property values. From my recollection of the land issue, it was predicated on land values at a nearby estate in 1997 and was then inflated by the consumer price index. Of course, as we know and as is almost inevitably the case with properties such as this, the rate of increase has far exceeded CPI. Again, the previous government left us with a mess that we have tried to work our way through. Part of the way in which we dealt with that was to require the developer to make a much more substantial contribution to the road infrastructure than would otherwise have been the case in an effort to get a better balance between the public and private interests. However, because of reasons of sovereign risk, we were obviously requested to proceed with the deal that was transacted by the previous government. In relation to the involvement of Brian Burke and Julian Grill in this project, it has certainly been well publicised that they have been involved in the project. They were working for the proponents and I understand that at some point they were involved in the project. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : Mr Speaker, I was always a great supporter of Dr Gallop’s prohibition.
The SPEAKER : Order, members! Dr S.C. THOMAS : Thank you for your protection, Mr Speaker. I refer to the minister’s vehement opposition to the redevelopment of Leighton Beach and her subsequent backflip to support the Port Coogee development, including the reclamation of seabed. (1) Can the minister confirm that the land and seabed at the Port Coogee development were sold by her government for about $55 a square metre? (2) Can the minister confirm that the lots at the Port Coogee development are currently selling for more than $1 100 a square metre? (3) Did Brian Burke or Julian Grill have any involvement in the Port Coogee development; and, if so, what was that involvement? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(3) That was a miscellany of complete inaccuracies, which we have come to expect from the opposition. Vehement opposition to development at Leighton, I think not. Indeed, the Labor Party certainly opposed the process that was undertaken by the previous government, as did the member for Cottesloe, the Leader of the Opposition’s mentor. Indeed, a host of people from the opposition when they were in government ultimately realised that it was a highly flawed process. We had always said that we believed there was a strong case for development on that site, but that it needed to be done pursuant to a proper planning process and that it should not be designed without the proper planning parameters being put in place. The member’s proposition that we were opponents of a development on that site is completely and utterly wrong. Secondly, I agree with the member that the terms of the sale to the Port Coogee developers were not favourable to the state. Again, alas, it was something that we inherited from the previous government. I think it might have been Doug Shave who entered into the agreement with Australand that effectively gave it a very preferential rate for the calculation of property values. From my recollection of the land issue, it was predicated on land values at a nearby estate in 1997 and was then inflated by the consumer price index. Of course, as we know and as is almost inevitably the case with properties such as this, the rate of increase has far exceeded CPI. Again, the previous government left us with a mess that we have tried to work our way through. Part of the way in which we dealt with that was to require the developer to make a much more substantial contribution to the road infrastructure than would otherwise have been the case in an effort to get a better balance between the public and private interests. However, because of reasons of sovereign risk, we were obviously requested to proceed with the deal that was transacted by the previous government. In relation to the involvement of Brian Burke and Julian Grill in this project, it has certainly been well publicised that they have been involved in the project. They were working for the proponents and I understand that at some point they were involved in the project. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : Mr Speaker, I was always a great supporter of Dr Gallop’s prohibition.
Dr S.C. THOMAS : Thank you for your protection, Mr Speaker. I refer to the minister’s vehement opposition to the redevelopment of Leighton Beach and her subsequent backflip to support the Port Coogee development, including the reclamation of seabed. (1) Can the minister confirm that the land and seabed at the Port Coogee development were sold by her government for about $55 a square metre? (2) Can the minister confirm that the lots at the Port Coogee development are currently selling for more than $1 100 a square metre? (3) Did Brian Burke or Julian Grill have any involvement in the Port Coogee development; and, if so, what was that involvement? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(3) That was a miscellany of complete inaccuracies, which we have come to expect from the opposition. Vehement opposition to development at Leighton, I think not. Indeed, the Labor Party certainly opposed the process that was undertaken by the previous government, as did the member for Cottesloe, the Leader of the Opposition’s mentor. Indeed, a host of people from the opposition when they were in government ultimately realised that it was a highly flawed process. We had always said that we believed there was a strong case for development on that site, but that it needed to be done pursuant to a proper planning process and that it should not be designed without the proper planning parameters being put in place. The member’s proposition that we were opponents of a development on that site is completely and utterly wrong. Secondly, I agree with the member that the terms of the sale to the Port Coogee developers were not favourable to the state. Again, alas, it was something that we inherited from the previous government. I think it might have been Doug Shave who entered into the agreement with Australand that effectively gave it a very preferential rate for the calculation of property values. From my recollection of the land issue, it was predicated on land values at a nearby estate in 1997 and was then inflated by the consumer price index. Of course, as we know and as is almost inevitably the case with properties such as this, the rate of increase has far exceeded CPI. Again, the previous government left us with a mess that we have tried to work our way through. Part of the way in which we dealt with that was to require the developer to make a much more substantial contribution to the road infrastructure than would otherwise have been the case in an effort to get a better balance between the public and private interests. However, because of reasons of sovereign risk, we were obviously requested to proceed with the deal that was transacted by the previous government. In relation to the involvement of Brian Burke and Julian Grill in this project, it has certainly been well publicised that they have been involved in the project. They were working for the proponents and I understand that at some point they were involved in the project. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : Mr Speaker, I was always a great supporter of Dr Gallop’s prohibition.
I refer to the minister’s vehement opposition to the redevelopment of Leighton Beach and her subsequent backflip to support the Port Coogee development, including the reclamation of seabed. (1) Can the minister confirm that the land and seabed at the Port Coogee development were sold by her government for about $55 a square metre? (2) Can the minister confirm that the lots at the Port Coogee development are currently selling for more than $1 100 a square metre? (3) Did Brian Burke or Julian Grill have any involvement in the Port Coogee development; and, if so, what was that involvement? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(3) That was a miscellany of complete inaccuracies, which we have come to expect from the opposition. Vehement opposition to development at Leighton, I think not. Indeed, the Labor Party certainly opposed the process that was undertaken by the previous government, as did the member for Cottesloe, the Leader of the Opposition’s mentor. Indeed, a host of people from the opposition when they were in government ultimately realised that it was a highly flawed process. We had always said that we believed there was a strong case for development on that site, but that it needed to be done pursuant to a proper planning process and that it should not be designed without the proper planning parameters being put in place. The member’s proposition that we were opponents of a development on that site is completely and utterly wrong. Secondly, I agree with the member that the terms of the sale to the Port Coogee developers were not favourable to the state. Again, alas, it was something that we inherited from the previous government. I think it might have been Doug Shave who entered into the agreement with Australand that effectively gave it a very preferential rate for the calculation of property values. From my recollection of the land issue, it was predicated on land values at a nearby estate in 1997 and was then inflated by the consumer price index. Of course, as we know and as is almost inevitably the case with properties such as this, the rate of increase has far exceeded CPI. Again, the previous government left us with a mess that we have tried to work our way through. Part of the way in which we dealt with that was to require the developer to make a much more substantial contribution to the road infrastructure than would otherwise have been the case in an effort to get a better balance between the public and private interests. However, because of reasons of sovereign risk, we were obviously requested to proceed with the deal that was transacted by the previous government. In relation to the involvement of Brian Burke and Julian Grill in this project, it has certainly been well publicised that they have been involved in the project. They were working for the proponents and I understand that at some point they were involved in the project. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : Mr Speaker, I was always a great supporter of Dr Gallop’s prohibition.
(1) Can the minister confirm that the land and seabed at the Port Coogee development were sold by her government for about $55 a square metre? (2) Can the minister confirm that the lots at the Port Coogee development are currently selling for more than $1 100 a square metre? (3) Did Brian Burke or Julian Grill have any involvement in the Port Coogee development; and, if so, what was that involvement? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(3) That was a miscellany of complete inaccuracies, which we have come to expect from the opposition. Vehement opposition to development at Leighton, I think not. Indeed, the Labor Party certainly opposed the process that was undertaken by the previous government, as did the member for Cottesloe, the Leader of the Opposition’s mentor. Indeed, a host of people from the opposition when they were in government ultimately realised that it was a highly flawed process. We had always said that we believed there was a strong case for development on that site, but that it needed to be done pursuant to a proper planning process and that it should not be designed without the proper planning parameters being put in place. The member’s proposition that we were opponents of a development on that site is completely and utterly wrong. Secondly, I agree with the member that the terms of the sale to the Port Coogee developers were not favourable to the state. Again, alas, it was something that we inherited from the previous government. I think it might have been Doug Shave who entered into the agreement with Australand that effectively gave it a very preferential rate for the calculation of property values. From my recollection of the land issue, it was predicated on land values at a nearby estate in 1997 and was then inflated by the consumer price index. Of course, as we know and as is almost inevitably the case with properties such as this, the rate of increase has far exceeded CPI. Again, the previous government left us with a mess that we have tried to work our way through. Part of the way in which we dealt with that was to require the developer to make a much more substantial contribution to the road infrastructure than would otherwise have been the case in an effort to get a better balance between the public and private interests. However, because of reasons of sovereign risk, we were obviously requested to proceed with the deal that was transacted by the previous government. In relation to the involvement of Brian Burke and Julian Grill in this project, it has certainly been well publicised that they have been involved in the project. They were working for the proponents and I understand that at some point they were involved in the project. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : Mr Speaker, I was always a great supporter of Dr Gallop’s prohibition.
(2) Can the minister confirm that the lots at the Port Coogee development are currently selling for more than $1 100 a square metre? (3) Did Brian Burke or Julian Grill have any involvement in the Port Coogee development; and, if so, what was that involvement? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(3) That was a miscellany of complete inaccuracies, which we have come to expect from the opposition. Vehement opposition to development at Leighton, I think not. Indeed, the Labor Party certainly opposed the process that was undertaken by the previous government, as did the member for Cottesloe, the Leader of the Opposition’s mentor. Indeed, a host of people from the opposition when they were in government ultimately realised that it was a highly flawed process. We had always said that we believed there was a strong case for development on that site, but that it needed to be done pursuant to a proper planning process and that it should not be designed without the proper planning parameters being put in place. The member’s proposition that we were opponents of a development on that site is completely and utterly wrong. Secondly, I agree with the member that the terms of the sale to the Port Coogee developers were not favourable to the state. Again, alas, it was something that we inherited from the previous government. I think it might have been Doug Shave who entered into the agreement with Australand that effectively gave it a very preferential rate for the calculation of property values. From my recollection of the land issue, it was predicated on land values at a nearby estate in 1997 and was then inflated by the consumer price index. Of course, as we know and as is almost inevitably the case with properties such as this, the rate of increase has far exceeded CPI. Again, the previous government left us with a mess that we have tried to work our way through. Part of the way in which we dealt with that was to require the developer to make a much more substantial contribution to the road infrastructure than would otherwise have been the case in an effort to get a better balance between the public and private interests. However, because of reasons of sovereign risk, we were obviously requested to proceed with the deal that was transacted by the previous government. In relation to the involvement of Brian Burke and Julian Grill in this project, it has certainly been well publicised that they have been involved in the project. They were working for the proponents and I understand that at some point they were involved in the project. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : Mr Speaker, I was always a great supporter of Dr Gallop’s prohibition.
(3) Did Brian Burke or Julian Grill have any involvement in the Port Coogee development; and, if so, what was that involvement? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(3) That was a miscellany of complete inaccuracies, which we have come to expect from the opposition. Vehement opposition to development at Leighton, I think not. Indeed, the Labor Party certainly opposed the process that was undertaken by the previous government, as did the member for Cottesloe, the Leader of the Opposition’s mentor. Indeed, a host of people from the opposition when they were in government ultimately realised that it was a highly flawed process. We had always said that we believed there was a strong case for development on that site, but that it needed to be done pursuant to a proper planning process and that it should not be designed without the proper planning parameters being put in place. The member’s proposition that we were opponents of a development on that site is completely and utterly wrong. Secondly, I agree with the member that the terms of the sale to the Port Coogee developers were not favourable to the state. Again, alas, it was something that we inherited from the previous government. I think it might have been Doug Shave who entered into the agreement with Australand that effectively gave it a very preferential rate for the calculation of property values. From my recollection of the land issue, it was predicated on land values at a nearby estate in 1997 and was then inflated by the consumer price index. Of course, as we know and as is almost inevitably the case with properties such as this, the rate of increase has far exceeded CPI. Again, the previous government left us with a mess that we have tried to work our way through. Part of the way in which we dealt with that was to require the developer to make a much more substantial contribution to the road infrastructure than would otherwise have been the case in an effort to get a better balance between the public and private interests. However, because of reasons of sovereign risk, we were obviously requested to proceed with the deal that was transacted by the previous government. In relation to the involvement of Brian Burke and Julian Grill in this project, it has certainly been well publicised that they have been involved in the project. They were working for the proponents and I understand that at some point they were involved in the project. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : Mr Speaker, I was always a great supporter of Dr Gallop’s prohibition.
Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(3) That was a miscellany of complete inaccuracies, which we have come to expect from the opposition. Vehement opposition to development at Leighton, I think not. Indeed, the Labor Party certainly opposed the process that was undertaken by the previous government, as did the member for Cottesloe, the Leader of the Opposition’s mentor. Indeed, a host of people from the opposition when they were in government ultimately realised that it was a highly flawed process. We had always said that we believed there was a strong case for development on that site, but that it needed to be done pursuant to a proper planning process and that it should not be designed without the proper planning parameters being put in place. The member’s proposition that we were opponents of a development on that site is completely and utterly wrong. Secondly, I agree with the member that the terms of the sale to the Port Coogee developers were not favourable to the state. Again, alas, it was something that we inherited from the previous government. I think it might have been Doug Shave who entered into the agreement with Australand that effectively gave it a very preferential rate for the calculation of property values. From my recollection of the land issue, it was predicated on land values at a nearby estate in 1997 and was then inflated by the consumer price index. Of course, as we know and as is almost inevitably the case with properties such as this, the rate of increase has far exceeded CPI. Again, the previous government left us with a mess that we have tried to work our way through. Part of the way in which we dealt with that was to require the developer to make a much more substantial contribution to the road infrastructure than would otherwise have been the case in an effort to get a better balance between the public and private interests. However, because of reasons of sovereign risk, we were obviously requested to proceed with the deal that was transacted by the previous government. In relation to the involvement of Brian Burke and Julian Grill in this project, it has certainly been well publicised that they have been involved in the project. They were working for the proponents and I understand that at some point they were involved in the project. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : Mr Speaker, I was always a great supporter of Dr Gallop’s prohibition.
(1)-(3) That was a miscellany of complete inaccuracies, which we have come to expect from the opposition. Vehement opposition to development at Leighton, I think not. Indeed, the Labor Party certainly opposed the process that was undertaken by the previous government, as did the member for Cottesloe, the Leader of the Opposition’s mentor. Indeed, a host of people from the opposition when they were in government ultimately realised that it was a highly flawed process. We had always said that we believed there was a strong case for development on that site, but that it needed to be done pursuant to a proper planning process and that it should not be designed without the proper planning parameters being put in place. The member’s proposition that we were opponents of a development on that site is completely and utterly wrong. Secondly, I agree with the member that the terms of the sale to the Port Coogee developers were not favourable to the state. Again, alas, it was something that we inherited from the previous government. I think it might have been Doug Shave who entered into the agreement with Australand that effectively gave it a very preferential rate for the calculation of property values. From my recollection of the land issue, it was predicated on land values at a nearby estate in 1997 and was then inflated by the consumer price index. Of course, as we know and as is almost inevitably the case with properties such as this, the rate of increase has far exceeded CPI. Again, the previous government left us with a mess that we have tried to work our way through. Part of the way in which we dealt with that was to require the developer to make a much more substantial contribution to the road infrastructure than would otherwise have been the case in an effort to get a better balance between the public and private interests. However, because of reasons of sovereign risk, we were obviously requested to proceed with the deal that was transacted by the previous government. In relation to the involvement of Brian Burke and Julian Grill in this project, it has certainly been well publicised that they have been involved in the project. They were working for the proponents and I understand that at some point they were involved in the project. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : Mr Speaker, I was always a great supporter of Dr Gallop’s prohibition.
The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : Mr Speaker, I was always a great supporter of Dr Gallop’s prohibition.
Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : Mr Speaker, I was always a great supporter of Dr Gallop’s prohibition.
Mr E.S. Ripper : It’s a long walk back! Dr S.C. THOMAS : It is. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Dr S.C. THOMAS : Thank you for your protection, Mr Speaker. I refer to the minister’s vehement opposition to the redevelopment of Leighton Beach and her subsequent backflip to support the Port Coogee development, including the reclamation of seabed. (1) Can the minister confirm that the land and seabed at the Port Coogee development were sold by her government for about $55 a square metre? (2) Can the minister confirm that the lots at the Port Coogee development are currently selling for more than $1 100 a square metre? (3) Did Brian Burke or Julian Grill have any involvement in the Port Coogee development; and, if so, what was that involvement? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(3) That was a miscellany of complete inaccuracies, which we have come to expect from the opposition. Vehement opposition to development at Leighton, I think not. Indeed, the Labor Party certainly opposed the process that was undertaken by the previous government, as did the member for Cottesloe, the Leader of the Opposition’s mentor. Indeed, a host of people from the opposition when they were in government ultimately realised that it was a highly flawed process. We had always said that we believed there was a strong case for development on that site, but that it needed to be done pursuant to a proper planning process and that it should not be designed without the proper planning parameters being put in place. The member’s proposition that we were opponents of a development on that site is completely and utterly wrong. Secondly, I agree with the member that the terms of the sale to the Port Coogee developers were not favourable to the state. Again, alas, it was something that we inherited from the previous government. I think it might have been Doug Shave who entered into the agreement with Australand that effectively gave it a very preferential rate for the calculation of property values. From my recollection of the land issue, it was predicated on land values at a nearby estate in 1997 and was then inflated by the consumer price index. Of course, as we know and as is almost inevitably the case with properties such as this, the rate of increase has far exceeded CPI. Again, the previous government left us with a mess that we have tried to work our way through. Part of the way in which we dealt with that was to require the developer to make a much more substantial contribution to the road infrastructure than would otherwise have been the case in an effort to get a better balance between the public and private interests. However, because of reasons of sovereign risk, we were obviously requested to proceed with the deal that was transacted by the previous government. In relation to the involvement of Brian Burke and Julian Grill in this project, it has certainly been well publicised that they have been involved in the project. They were working for the proponents and I understand that at some point they were involved in the project. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : Mr Speaker, I was always a great supporter of Dr Gallop’s prohibition.
Dr S.C. THOMAS : It is. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Dr S.C. THOMAS : Thank you for your protection, Mr Speaker. I refer to the minister’s vehement opposition to the redevelopment of Leighton Beach and her subsequent backflip to support the Port Coogee development, including the reclamation of seabed. (1) Can the minister confirm that the land and seabed at the Port Coogee development were sold by her government for about $55 a square metre? (2) Can the minister confirm that the lots at the Port Coogee development are currently selling for more than $1 100 a square metre? (3) Did Brian Burke or Julian Grill have any involvement in the Port Coogee development; and, if so, what was that involvement? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(3) That was a miscellany of complete inaccuracies, which we have come to expect from the opposition. Vehement opposition to development at Leighton, I think not. Indeed, the Labor Party certainly opposed the process that was undertaken by the previous government, as did the member for Cottesloe, the Leader of the Opposition’s mentor. Indeed, a host of people from the opposition when they were in government ultimately realised that it was a highly flawed process. We had always said that we believed there was a strong case for development on that site, but that it needed to be done pursuant to a proper planning process and that it should not be designed without the proper planning parameters being put in place. The member’s proposition that we were opponents of a development on that site is completely and utterly wrong. Secondly, I agree with the member that the terms of the sale to the Port Coogee developers were not favourable to the state. Again, alas, it was something that we inherited from the previous government. I think it might have been Doug Shave who entered into the agreement with Australand that effectively gave it a very preferential rate for the calculation of property values. From my recollection of the land issue, it was predicated on land values at a nearby estate in 1997 and was then inflated by the consumer price index. Of course, as we know and as is almost inevitably the case with properties such as this, the rate of increase has far exceeded CPI. Again, the previous government left us with a mess that we have tried to work our way through. Part of the way in which we dealt with that was to require the developer to make a much more substantial contribution to the road infrastructure than would otherwise have been the case in an effort to get a better balance between the public and private interests. However, because of reasons of sovereign risk, we were obviously requested to proceed with the deal that was transacted by the previous government. In relation to the involvement of Brian Burke and Julian Grill in this project, it has certainly been well publicised that they have been involved in the project. They were working for the proponents and I understand that at some point they were involved in the project. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : Mr Speaker, I was always a great supporter of Dr Gallop’s prohibition.
The SPEAKER : Order, members! Dr S.C. THOMAS : Thank you for your protection, Mr Speaker. I refer to the minister’s vehement opposition to the redevelopment of Leighton Beach and her subsequent backflip to support the Port Coogee development, including the reclamation of seabed. (1) Can the minister confirm that the land and seabed at the Port Coogee development were sold by her government for about $55 a square metre? (2) Can the minister confirm that the lots at the Port Coogee development are currently selling for more than $1 100 a square metre? (3) Did Brian Burke or Julian Grill have any involvement in the Port Coogee development; and, if so, what was that involvement? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(3) That was a miscellany of complete inaccuracies, which we have come to expect from the opposition. Vehement opposition to development at Leighton, I think not. Indeed, the Labor Party certainly opposed the process that was undertaken by the previous government, as did the member for Cottesloe, the Leader of the Opposition’s mentor. Indeed, a host of people from the opposition when they were in government ultimately realised that it was a highly flawed process. We had always said that we believed there was a strong case for development on that site, but that it needed to be done pursuant to a proper planning process and that it should not be designed without the proper planning parameters being put in place. The member’s proposition that we were opponents of a development on that site is completely and utterly wrong. Secondly, I agree with the member that the terms of the sale to the Port Coogee developers were not favourable to the state. Again, alas, it was something that we inherited from the previous government. I think it might have been Doug Shave who entered into the agreement with Australand that effectively gave it a very preferential rate for the calculation of property values. From my recollection of the land issue, it was predicated on land values at a nearby estate in 1997 and was then inflated by the consumer price index. Of course, as we know and as is almost inevitably the case with properties such as this, the rate of increase has far exceeded CPI. Again, the previous government left us with a mess that we have tried to work our way through. Part of the way in which we dealt with that was to require the developer to make a much more substantial contribution to the road infrastructure than would otherwise have been the case in an effort to get a better balance between the public and private interests. However, because of reasons of sovereign risk, we were obviously requested to proceed with the deal that was transacted by the previous government. In relation to the involvement of Brian Burke and Julian Grill in this project, it has certainly been well publicised that they have been involved in the project. They were working for the proponents and I understand that at some point they were involved in the project. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : Mr Speaker, I was always a great supporter of Dr Gallop’s prohibition.
Dr S.C. THOMAS : Thank you for your protection, Mr Speaker. I refer to the minister’s vehement opposition to the redevelopment of Leighton Beach and her subsequent backflip to support the Port Coogee development, including the reclamation of seabed. (1) Can the minister confirm that the land and seabed at the Port Coogee development were sold by her government for about $55 a square metre? (2) Can the minister confirm that the lots at the Port Coogee development are currently selling for more than $1 100 a square metre? (3) Did Brian Burke or Julian Grill have any involvement in the Port Coogee development; and, if so, what was that involvement? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(3) That was a miscellany of complete inaccuracies, which we have come to expect from the opposition. Vehement opposition to development at Leighton, I think not. Indeed, the Labor Party certainly opposed the process that was undertaken by the previous government, as did the member for Cottesloe, the Leader of the Opposition’s mentor. Indeed, a host of people from the opposition when they were in government ultimately realised that it was a highly flawed process. We had always said that we believed there was a strong case for development on that site, but that it needed to be done pursuant to a proper planning process and that it should not be designed without the proper planning parameters being put in place. The member’s proposition that we were opponents of a development on that site is completely and utterly wrong. Secondly, I agree with the member that the terms of the sale to the Port Coogee developers were not favourable to the state. Again, alas, it was something that we inherited from the previous government. I think it might have been Doug Shave who entered into the agreement with Australand that effectively gave it a very preferential rate for the calculation of property values. From my recollection of the land issue, it was predicated on land values at a nearby estate in 1997 and was then inflated by the consumer price index. Of course, as we know and as is almost inevitably the case with properties such as this, the rate of increase has far exceeded CPI. Again, the previous government left us with a mess that we have tried to work our way through. Part of the way in which we dealt with that was to require the developer to make a much more substantial contribution to the road infrastructure than would otherwise have been the case in an effort to get a better balance between the public and private interests. However, because of reasons of sovereign risk, we were obviously requested to proceed with the deal that was transacted by the previous government. In relation to the involvement of Brian Burke and Julian Grill in this project, it has certainly been well publicised that they have been involved in the project. They were working for the proponents and I understand that at some point they were involved in the project. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : Mr Speaker, I was always a great supporter of Dr Gallop’s prohibition.
I refer to the minister’s vehement opposition to the redevelopment of Leighton Beach and her subsequent backflip to support the Port Coogee development, including the reclamation of seabed. (1) Can the minister confirm that the land and seabed at the Port Coogee development were sold by her government for about $55 a square metre? (2) Can the minister confirm that the lots at the Port Coogee development are currently selling for more than $1 100 a square metre? (3) Did Brian Burke or Julian Grill have any involvement in the Port Coogee development; and, if so, what was that involvement? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(3) That was a miscellany of complete inaccuracies, which we have come to expect from the opposition. Vehement opposition to development at Leighton, I think not. Indeed, the Labor Party certainly opposed the process that was undertaken by the previous government, as did the member for Cottesloe, the Leader of the Opposition’s mentor. Indeed, a host of people from the opposition when they were in government ultimately realised that it was a highly flawed process. We had always said that we believed there was a strong case for development on that site, but that it needed to be done pursuant to a proper planning process and that it should not be designed without the proper planning parameters being put in place. The member’s proposition that we were opponents of a development on that site is completely and utterly wrong. Secondly, I agree with the member that the terms of the sale to the Port Coogee developers were not favourable to the state. Again, alas, it was something that we inherited from the previous government. I think it might have been Doug Shave who entered into the agreement with Australand that effectively gave it a very preferential rate for the calculation of property values. From my recollection of the land issue, it was predicated on land values at a nearby estate in 1997 and was then inflated by the consumer price index. Of course, as we know and as is almost inevitably the case with properties such as this, the rate of increase has far exceeded CPI. Again, the previous government left us with a mess that we have tried to work our way through. Part of the way in which we dealt with that was to require the developer to make a much more substantial contribution to the road infrastructure than would otherwise have been the case in an effort to get a better balance between the public and private interests. However, because of reasons of sovereign risk, we were obviously requested to proceed with the deal that was transacted by the previous government. In relation to the involvement of Brian Burke and Julian Grill in this project, it has certainly been well publicised that they have been involved in the project. They were working for the proponents and I understand that at some point they were involved in the project. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : Mr Speaker, I was always a great supporter of Dr Gallop’s prohibition.
(1) Can the minister confirm that the land and seabed at the Port Coogee development were sold by her government for about $55 a square metre? (2) Can the minister confirm that the lots at the Port Coogee development are currently selling for more than $1 100 a square metre? (3) Did Brian Burke or Julian Grill have any involvement in the Port Coogee development; and, if so, what was that involvement? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(3) That was a miscellany of complete inaccuracies, which we have come to expect from the opposition. Vehement opposition to development at Leighton, I think not. Indeed, the Labor Party certainly opposed the process that was undertaken by the previous government, as did the member for Cottesloe, the Leader of the Opposition’s mentor. Indeed, a host of people from the opposition when they were in government ultimately realised that it was a highly flawed process. We had always said that we believed there was a strong case for development on that site, but that it needed to be done pursuant to a proper planning process and that it should not be designed without the proper planning parameters being put in place. The member’s proposition that we were opponents of a development on that site is completely and utterly wrong. Secondly, I agree with the member that the terms of the sale to the Port Coogee developers were not favourable to the state. Again, alas, it was something that we inherited from the previous government. I think it might have been Doug Shave who entered into the agreement with Australand that effectively gave it a very preferential rate for the calculation of property values. From my recollection of the land issue, it was predicated on land values at a nearby estate in 1997 and was then inflated by the consumer price index. Of course, as we know and as is almost inevitably the case with properties such as this, the rate of increase has far exceeded CPI. Again, the previous government left us with a mess that we have tried to work our way through. Part of the way in which we dealt with that was to require the developer to make a much more substantial contribution to the road infrastructure than would otherwise have been the case in an effort to get a better balance between the public and private interests. However, because of reasons of sovereign risk, we were obviously requested to proceed with the deal that was transacted by the previous government. In relation to the involvement of Brian Burke and Julian Grill in this project, it has certainly been well publicised that they have been involved in the project. They were working for the proponents and I understand that at some point they were involved in the project. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : Mr Speaker, I was always a great supporter of Dr Gallop’s prohibition.
(2) Can the minister confirm that the lots at the Port Coogee development are currently selling for more than $1 100 a square metre? (3) Did Brian Burke or Julian Grill have any involvement in the Port Coogee development; and, if so, what was that involvement? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(3) That was a miscellany of complete inaccuracies, which we have come to expect from the opposition. Vehement opposition to development at Leighton, I think not. Indeed, the Labor Party certainly opposed the process that was undertaken by the previous government, as did the member for Cottesloe, the Leader of the Opposition’s mentor. Indeed, a host of people from the opposition when they were in government ultimately realised that it was a highly flawed process. We had always said that we believed there was a strong case for development on that site, but that it needed to be done pursuant to a proper planning process and that it should not be designed without the proper planning parameters being put in place. The member’s proposition that we were opponents of a development on that site is completely and utterly wrong. Secondly, I agree with the member that the terms of the sale to the Port Coogee developers were not favourable to the state. Again, alas, it was something that we inherited from the previous government. I think it might have been Doug Shave who entered into the agreement with Australand that effectively gave it a very preferential rate for the calculation of property values. From my recollection of the land issue, it was predicated on land values at a nearby estate in 1997 and was then inflated by the consumer price index. Of course, as we know and as is almost inevitably the case with properties such as this, the rate of increase has far exceeded CPI. Again, the previous government left us with a mess that we have tried to work our way through. Part of the way in which we dealt with that was to require the developer to make a much more substantial contribution to the road infrastructure than would otherwise have been the case in an effort to get a better balance between the public and private interests. However, because of reasons of sovereign risk, we were obviously requested to proceed with the deal that was transacted by the previous government. In relation to the involvement of Brian Burke and Julian Grill in this project, it has certainly been well publicised that they have been involved in the project. They were working for the proponents and I understand that at some point they were involved in the project. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : Mr Speaker, I was always a great supporter of Dr Gallop’s prohibition.
(3) Did Brian Burke or Julian Grill have any involvement in the Port Coogee development; and, if so, what was that involvement? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(3) That was a miscellany of complete inaccuracies, which we have come to expect from the opposition. Vehement opposition to development at Leighton, I think not. Indeed, the Labor Party certainly opposed the process that was undertaken by the previous government, as did the member for Cottesloe, the Leader of the Opposition’s mentor. Indeed, a host of people from the opposition when they were in government ultimately realised that it was a highly flawed process. We had always said that we believed there was a strong case for development on that site, but that it needed to be done pursuant to a proper planning process and that it should not be designed without the proper planning parameters being put in place. The member’s proposition that we were opponents of a development on that site is completely and utterly wrong. Secondly, I agree with the member that the terms of the sale to the Port Coogee developers were not favourable to the state. Again, alas, it was something that we inherited from the previous government. I think it might have been Doug Shave who entered into the agreement with Australand that effectively gave it a very preferential rate for the calculation of property values. From my recollection of the land issue, it was predicated on land values at a nearby estate in 1997 and was then inflated by the consumer price index. Of course, as we know and as is almost inevitably the case with properties such as this, the rate of increase has far exceeded CPI. Again, the previous government left us with a mess that we have tried to work our way through. Part of the way in which we dealt with that was to require the developer to make a much more substantial contribution to the road infrastructure than would otherwise have been the case in an effort to get a better balance between the public and private interests. However, because of reasons of sovereign risk, we were obviously requested to proceed with the deal that was transacted by the previous government. In relation to the involvement of Brian Burke and Julian Grill in this project, it has certainly been well publicised that they have been involved in the project. They were working for the proponents and I understand that at some point they were involved in the project. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : Mr Speaker, I was always a great supporter of Dr Gallop’s prohibition.
Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(3) That was a miscellany of complete inaccuracies, which we have come to expect from the opposition. Vehement opposition to development at Leighton, I think not. Indeed, the Labor Party certainly opposed the process that was undertaken by the previous government, as did the member for Cottesloe, the Leader of the Opposition’s mentor. Indeed, a host of people from the opposition when they were in government ultimately realised that it was a highly flawed process. We had always said that we believed there was a strong case for development on that site, but that it needed to be done pursuant to a proper planning process and that it should not be designed without the proper planning parameters being put in place. The member’s proposition that we were opponents of a development on that site is completely and utterly wrong. Secondly, I agree with the member that the terms of the sale to the Port Coogee developers were not favourable to the state. Again, alas, it was something that we inherited from the previous government. I think it might have been Doug Shave who entered into the agreement with Australand that effectively gave it a very preferential rate for the calculation of property values. From my recollection of the land issue, it was predicated on land values at a nearby estate in 1997 and was then inflated by the consumer price index. Of course, as we know and as is almost inevitably the case with properties such as this, the rate of increase has far exceeded CPI. Again, the previous government left us with a mess that we have tried to work our way through. Part of the way in which we dealt with that was to require the developer to make a much more substantial contribution to the road infrastructure than would otherwise have been the case in an effort to get a better balance between the public and private interests. However, because of reasons of sovereign risk, we were obviously requested to proceed with the deal that was transacted by the previous government. In relation to the involvement of Brian Burke and Julian Grill in this project, it has certainly been well publicised that they have been involved in the project. They were working for the proponents and I understand that at some point they were involved in the project. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : Mr Speaker, I was always a great supporter of Dr Gallop’s prohibition.
(1)-(3) That was a miscellany of complete inaccuracies, which we have come to expect from the opposition. Vehement opposition to development at Leighton, I think not. Indeed, the Labor Party certainly opposed the process that was undertaken by the previous government, as did the member for Cottesloe, the Leader of the Opposition’s mentor. Indeed, a host of people from the opposition when they were in government ultimately realised that it was a highly flawed process. We had always said that we believed there was a strong case for development on that site, but that it needed to be done pursuant to a proper planning process and that it should not be designed without the proper planning parameters being put in place. The member’s proposition that we were opponents of a development on that site is completely and utterly wrong. Secondly, I agree with the member that the terms of the sale to the Port Coogee developers were not favourable to the state. Again, alas, it was something that we inherited from the previous government. I think it might have been Doug Shave who entered into the agreement with Australand that effectively gave it a very preferential rate for the calculation of property values. From my recollection of the land issue, it was predicated on land values at a nearby estate in 1997 and was then inflated by the consumer price index. Of course, as we know and as is almost inevitably the case with properties such as this, the rate of increase has far exceeded CPI. Again, the previous government left us with a mess that we have tried to work our way through. Part of the way in which we dealt with that was to require the developer to make a much more substantial contribution to the road infrastructure than would otherwise have been the case in an effort to get a better balance between the public and private interests. However, because of reasons of sovereign risk, we were obviously requested to proceed with the deal that was transacted by the previous government. In relation to the involvement of Brian Burke and Julian Grill in this project, it has certainly been well publicised that they have been involved in the project. They were working for the proponents and I understand that at some point they were involved in the project. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : Mr Speaker, I was always a great supporter of Dr Gallop’s prohibition.
The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : Mr Speaker, I was always a great supporter of Dr Gallop’s prohibition.
Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : Mr Speaker, I was always a great supporter of Dr Gallop’s prohibition.
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.