METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME AMENDMENT 1027/33 - WHITEMAN PARK AND ENVIRONS - DISALLOWANCE

Motion

Pursuant to standing order 152(b), the following motion by Hon Giz Watson was moved pro forma on 8 May –

That metropolitan region scheme amendment 1027/33, Whiteman Park and Environs, published in the Government Gazette on 30 March 2007 and tabled in the Legislative Council on 4 April 2007 under the Planning and Development Act 2005, be and is hereby disallowed.

HON GIZ WATSON (North Metropolitan) [9.13 pm]: We are dealing tonight with a disallowance motion in relation to Whiteman Park and environs. As members will know, metropolitan region scheme amendments usually include a number of specific proposals. This amendment deals with five proposals, and I intend to talk about the second proposal in some detail. This proposal has drawn opposition from a significant number of people contributing to the planning process. Of a total of 35 submissions received, 24 were opposed to the second proposal, to transfer 249 hectares of park and recreation reservation from the southern portion of Whiteman Park, referred to as the Marshall Road precinct, and 82 hectares of adjoining rural zoned land to the urban zone. It is unfortunate that when dealing with metropolitan region scheme amendment, the house has no option other than to disallow the whole amendment. It is worth noting that the first proposal in the amendment had broad support. That proposal was to transfer 1 081 hectares of rural zone land adjoining the western boundary of Whiteman Park to the parks and recreation reservation. I will talk a little more about that in a minute. That proposal seemed to have received almost universal support. It is therefore unfortunate in this process of moving a disallowance motion that that proposal will also be affected.

The rezoning of this part of the area designated as part of Whiteman Park is, in my view, a breach of the trust and understanding of the original owners who agreed to sell the land that they owned back in the early 1970s. Many who arguably are in the best position to be informed say that the payments received were reduced due to the vendor’s philanthropy. That particular argument is debateable, but it certainly is clear that there was a mutual understanding that the land they were selling was to be owned and used by the community in perpetuity. Some of the land also was bought using a federal-state scheme. The purchase of at least some of this land in this southern portion of Whiteman Park was purchased under the commonwealth-state scheme whereby land purchases for specific purposes were funded two-thirds by the commonwealth and one- third by the state. Certainly, some of the land in this area that is now proposed to be rezoned urban was bought under that scheme. I will refer specifically to it. The Whittlesea Pastoral Company sold 200 acres, or 81 hectares, of land in this particular way. I must acknowledge the hard work of some of the people who have a long-term interest in and relationship with Whiteman Park. They have done quite a lot of work to look at the history of the conditions and the processes that were undertaken when the land was originally sold to the state. It is clear that part of this agreement was this portion of the land that was bought under this federal-state agreement. Some correspondence dates back to the 1970s and refers to this agreement. For example, I have a letter with me from the then Acting Premier of , back in June 1988, addressed to the then Prime Minister, Bob Hawke, indicating that the government was reconsidering the use of this land and was wanting to be released from the requirement that if it used the land for something other than the non-urban purposes for which it was originally purchased, it would have to repay the commonwealth money. That was certainly the state government’s understanding, and the then Acting Premier

- 1 - was seeking an assurance from the then Prime Minister that the state could be relieved of that requirement. The letter states -

Land in the Santa Maria - Mussell Pool area of the Perth Metropolitan Region was purchased during the late 1970’s by the Urban Lands Council of Western Australia with Commonwealth grant assistance under programmes approved pursuant to the Urban and Regional Development (Financial Assistance) Act, 1974. It goes on to say - The purpose of the programmes was to acquire land for essentially non- urban purposes and the provisions of the agreements were and have been complied with.

It is therefore very clear from the outset that the intention was that this land was for non-urban purposes and, indeed, early in the 1970s it was firmly zoned parks and recreation. It was taken from its rural zoning into parks and recreation. The letter concludes on the urgency of the matter - that is, state cabinet wanted to look at the potential for the land to be used for residential purposes.

It states - In view of the urgency of this matter I am approaching you direct - It is lousy English, but I will let him get away with that - to request your assistance in varying the terms of the original agreements with the Commonwealth.

Further correspondence took place. I have not been able to trace anything that indicated that that agreement was formally relinquished. I have spoken with the minister and the parliamentary secretary, and the advice indicates that there is more recent correspondence between the state government and the commonwealth government again seeking reassurance from the commonwealth government that the state government would not be required to pay back any money. The letter to which I referred is a letter from the then Premier Gallop to the Prime Minister, John Howard, seeking that assurance. There was no correspondence back to the then Premier to say that that has been ticked off on. The argument is that because the commonwealth government has not written back to the state government, the commonwealth government is not fussed about it. I still think a question arises. That is one aspect of this proposal.

The proposed rezoning is seen by many to be profiteering from what was clearly understood to be a public asset. As I have pointed out, in 1975 it was indicated that the area was to be rezoned from rural to parks and recreation. In June 1975, it was announced in the Government Gazette that the Minister for Urban Development and Town Planning had given preliminary approval to the amendments to the metropolitan region town planning scheme 1959-1974 relating to the land in the Shire of Swan currently zoned rural to be reserved for parks and recreation. That process was finally completed in 1977. It is clear that this land has been earmarked for parks and recreation since that time. The current move by the government to rezone the land urban raises a question about the government keeping faith with the commitment given to the original vendors. I have met a number of the descendents of the original owners of the land, who showed me around the site. It is clear that they understood that the purchase was agreed to on the condition that the land would be used for public purposes.

As I understand it, if this rezoning goes ahead and the land is used for urban purposes, the government stands to gain about $90 million, which is the estimated value of the land in the current market.

- 2 - Part of this package provides that in exchange for the proposed removal of the southern portion of Whiteman Park, an additional portion of land is to be added to the western side of Whiteman Park. That is good. That is proposal 1, which everybody seems to be happy with. However, it has been suggested to the public that that is a trade-off. There are two issues to do with the land that is currently zoned rural that adjoins the western boundary of the park. This has been on the books of the improvement plan since the 1970s. It is also interesting to note that in the report the vegetation is described as being of variable quality, although it must be acknowledged that 500 hectares of it has been identified in as a Bush Forever site and it therefore has regional significance. That is what a Bush Forever site is. Significantly, it is also under the priority 1 ground pollution control area. Page 4 of the Western Australian Planning Commission’s document on submissions on this MRS amendment with regard to proposal 1 states -

The 1081 ha area contains native vegetation of varying quality and is a ‘Priority One’ Underground Water Pollution Control Area . . . ‘Priority One’ indicates that the highest level of protection is necessary for the area. The only land uses compatible with ‘Priority One’ areas are national parks and nature reserves. All other land uses are deemed restricted or incompatible.

I would argue that there is no other purpose that the land could legitimately be designated for other than to be co-joined with Whiteman Park. It is logical. It is the only land use designation that it should ultimately have. As much as it is a welcome asset as an addition to the park, it should not be seen as a trade-off for the loss of the southern portion. The other thing is that, having Beechboro Road running through the middle of it, its value is compromised for the rest of Whiteman Park because that major road will separate the area to be added in from the existing park. That is a bit of a reduction of its value.

Although the portion of the park proposed to be rezoned is semi-cleared and subject to grazing, it is important to note that one of the reasons the area was subject to grazing was that, back in the 1970s and 1980s, the best and cheapest means of reducing any fire risk to the rest of the park was to keep it grazed and keep the grass down. Of course, that had an ongoing impact in reducing the biological value of the remnant bushland in the southern portion. The southern portion has a fence that separates the rest of Whiteman Park from the bit that is now grazed. The fact that it has been grazed does not mean that the area has no biological value. I will quote briefly from a submission from the Urban Bushland Council concerning the environmental values because it is very easy to simply say that it is a degraded area and has no environmental value. In the council’s submission to the scheme amendment it made the following points -

We do not support the rezoning of this land to ‘Urban’ because

a) parts retain significant areas of bushland and damplands;

b) the balance is open space which while degraded provides many environmental, social and economic benefits, and

c) selling of natural assets to provide funds for development and management elsewhere in the park is totally unacceptable.

It goes on to state - With regard to a) we are aware of the research that has been undertaken by the North East Catchment Committee, largely through flora survey work of the Bennett Brook and surrounding catchments. As well as Whiteman Park one survey site is the area to the west of the bottom of

- 3 - Whiteman Park, north of Marshall Road. Here there are significant bushland and wetland remnants. The group has so far identified 164 native flora taxa, including some species of interest, with many more expected to be found. As much as I acknowledge that the government is drawing on the fact that the Environmental Protection Authority has declined to give any formal assessment, I indicate that when there are community groups who have the time, energy and expertise to go out and work on the ground, we will often find that such areas do not meet the standard of being listed for Bush Forever - which has to be bushland of regional significance - but they still have significant value in terms of local conservation attributes. We know that these areas can be rehabilitated. Indeed, one of the outcomes we envisage is that the southern area could be a proper buffer between the true park and the high-quality bush and the cleared area to the south.

I will just touch on water issues. We are aware that the area was originally listed as a priority one water area and that there has been a redrawing of boundaries. It is interesting to see that the boundary now exactly matches a cadastral line on the map. I raise some question marks about that because, although I am not a groundwater expert, straight lines are not all that common in natural systems such as groundwater systems. It is also worth noting that in the Water Corporation’s submission to the amendment it had some concerns. It stated that it would like to continue to use the existing bores in the area. That is rather fascinating to me, given that it is not supposed to be a priority 1 water area, and on the other hand the Water Corporation is saying water is there that it wants to continue to pump. It seems to me that that needs further investigation because those two things seem to contradict each other. I am aware that we have been given a very short time to debate this so I will wind up pretty quickly.

I argue also that there is no urgent need for this land for urban purposes. Numerous subdivisions are being progressed in the area. I am aware of three that will come on stream in the next five years; namely, Albion Town, West Swan Estate and the Caversham airstrip. I understand also that the Ellenbrook development has not been fully taken up; therefore, the argument that this land is desperately needed at this time for urban development is difficult to mount.

Suggestions have been made that the money raised by the sale of the land would be used for the park itself. I acknowledge that the minister has suggested various concessions and made suggestions to me, and perhaps other members, that might make this proposition more palatable. Unfortunately, we need a bit more reassurance than that before we give our support to this proposal. The government should be congratulated also for the submissions and community input on the Network City discussions and consulting the community on the planning in the way it did because that was a good process. One of the clear indications from that was that people did not want to sell off their parks and recreation reserves and their bushland to fund the rest of the bushland. People were very clear that they did not want any more of it to be lost. I acknowledge that the minister has also suggested that this area should properly become an A-class reserve and its tenure secured, and that it should be brought in under the auspices of the Botanic Gardens and Parks Authority. Those are the sorts of outcomes that would be acceptable to the community and to the Parliament. However, I am not willing to trade off the southern portion for an area that has been put aside for parks and recreation to achieve that. We want to see a positive outcome from this area and the southern portion of that park’s conservation values enhanced. That would be the best way of ensuring there is no further deterioration of the Bennett Brook catchment. Those are the reasons the Greens (WA) are pursuing this disallowance. I will now sit down and let other members speak.

- 4 - HON SIMON O’BRIEN (South Metropolitan) [9.32 pm]: I am not the opposition spokesman on planning, but I am responsible for planning matters in the upper house on behalf of the opposition. The Liberal Party has formulated its position on this matter after a great deal of consultation and discussion in the internal forums of the party. In the very limited time that is now available, because the government needs and certainly wants the opportunity to put its position, I will faithfully convey the opposition’s position to the house as succinctly as I can, having regard for the fact that the mover of the motion has already advanced a great deal of the case and the relevant facts that touch upon this matter. Amendment 1027/33, Whiteman Park and Environs, contains a number of proposals. The opposition looked with interest at the nature of these proposals, which cover some five distinct propositions. We looked at the report on submissions, and we discovered that the only proposal of the five to attract any real opposition, or, on balance, a majority of opposition from those who did make submissions, was proposal 2, which received three submissions in support and 24 against. Members will also be aware from correspondence that has reached them in their electorate offices and by other means that there is also a great deal of community interest, not only from people in the immediate vicinity of Whiteman Park, but also from other people further abroad. All the interest and representations that I have received, I think, are about proposal 2.

Before I turn substantially to proposal 2, I will canvass the amendment in its entirety and note the following: in respect of proposal 1, I do not know that anyone is particularly offended - certainly, not from our point of view - by the proposal to transfer 1 081 hectares of rural zoned land adjoining the western boundary of Whiteman Park into that reservation, and we would not object to the government doing it. In relation to proposal 3, again we do not have a difficulty with the transferral of 16 hectares of primary regional roads reservation for Tonkin Highway north of Marshall Road to Hepburn Avenue and a two-hectare area of rural zoned land to the other regional roads reservation. We can see merit in what the government is seeking to do. In relation to proposal 4, again we have no objection to the transferring of the area of the Tonkin Highway primary regional roads reservation north of Hepburn Avenue to Woollcott Avenue, an area of 17 hectares, to the rural zone. Finally, we do not have overwhelming concerns with proposal 5, which deals with transferring certain portions of lots 96, 100 and 101 from the rural zone to the public purposes reservations and the relevant zoning, noting that they are reservations for Western Power and Water Corporation requirements and for a future transit link.

That leaves us with proposal 2, which I have already indicated in my opening remarks is that part of this metropolitan region scheme amendment that is causing the controversy, the public representation and the balance of opposition, which is noticeable, in contrast with the general acceptance of the other four proposals. Proposal 2 relates to the transferring of 249 hectares of parks and recreation reservation from the southern portion of Whiteman Park, referred to as the Marshall Road precinct, and 82 hectares of adjoining rural zoned land to the urban zone. The problem within proposal 2 is about the excision of a large chunk of parks and recreation reserve from the southern portion of Whiteman Park. This is a conundrum that has confronted the house, as the mover of the motion would acknowledge, on a number of occasions over the years, because what we end up with is an amendment to the metropolitan region scheme that, like the curate’s egg, is good in parts. I am about to come out with another cliché soon, and members all know what it is, so they can keep score if they want to; they know it is coming.

Hon Sue Ellery: You’ve ruined the fun of it now.

Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I will try to recapture some of the joy of it for the minister, so if she just sits there and hugs herself in delicious anticipation, we will get there quickly, so that I can allow the other members who may wish to make a brief contribution to do so.

- 5 - Hon Sue Ellery: I’ll shut up then.

Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: The day has not been a complete loss! I do not know what I did, but if I could retrieve it and bottle it, I would do so, and use it on other occasions.

However, this is a serious matter, and I know that a lot of people in the community are very concerned about the outcome of this MRS amendment. The problem that arises is: what do we do when we have an omnibus amendment - this is not an omnibus amendment by definition - or when we have an amendment that deals with a number of distinct parts or elements and we find that one element offends? How do we weigh the relative merits of the argument? We are left with the problem, and the house has explored this on a number of occasions over the years, whereby it is not possible for a member to move for a partial disallowance of an MRS amendment, as I think there would be a mood to do among members generally on this occasion. That is my reading of it. Proposal 2 is the part that contains the concerns and there is even another part of proposal 2 that probably does not excite those same concerns. I say to the Minister for Child Protection it is a case of do we throw the baby out with the bathwater? That is the situation that confronts us now and has confronted us in the past.

This is a difficult question for this opposition and, I am sure, any opposition of the day. Does the presence in the proposed amendment of measures that are progressive and acceptable outweigh the proposal that offends? In this case, are all the acceptable and progressive proposals I have mentioned on balance so valuable that we dare not reject the proposal that is causing so much consternation, which is to excise 249 hectares out of parks and recreation from a part of Whiteman Park? Hon Giz Watson reminded the house of the history of the site and I do not propose to revisit that. That is the conundrum that faces us now and we have to weigh up as an opposition, as the house must do ultimately, whether a certain number of worthy proposals outweigh one that is not, or whether we accept the view that where we have an established resource, with its history over the past 30 years of being put there for particular public purposes, it should not be taken away from public purposes for some commercial or residential development. Is that something we should endorse?

The view that has been formed in the forums of the Liberal Party on this occasion is the basic reality that if we just excise bits of land from parks and recreation reserves because it is convenient to do so in this decade, that is wrong, wrong, wrong! No amount of other convenience makes it right. This is a view that has been put forward very strongly by our local members on behalf of their constituents. I refer to Hon Donna Faragher and Hon Helen Morton, and I am sure the community would thank them for their interest and their advocacy. I think it is a pity that the government, knowing about the concerns over this part of proposal 2, did not take it upon itself to divide this MRS amendment and have that proposal as part of a second amendment and simply allow the rest of it to go through unencumbered.

I am sure the government will find some reason to blame us for mucking up its amendment if this amendment is ultimately defeated with the support of the opposition. Nonetheless, we have arrived at the position that we will support this disallowance. We support the retention of parks and recreation reserves that have been established for decades, for good public purposes, whether it be Kings Park, the Majestic Hotel site that the previous Labor government sold off, Wireless Hill, or, in this case, Whiteman Park. I have briefly outlined our position on this rather complex matter. Although it gives us no pleasure to throw out the baby with the bath water, on this occasion we will be voting to uphold the disallowance. I do not know if any of my colleagues want to make a further contribution to the debate. I am aware that the government needs a good 10 or 12 minutes to respond to this motion. That is our position.

- 6 - HON HELEN MORTON (East Metropolitan) [9.46 pm]: I support the comments that have been made by both the mover of the motion and Hon Simon O’Brien. I have had an enormous amount of contact with people on this matter. Many families, people who use the park for recreation, and people who are involved in the conservation movement, are very unhappy about proposal 2 of the amendment. Not one person has made contact with me in support of the amendment. The only people who have made contact with me are people who do want proposal 2 to go through. Actually, the people who are against proposal 2 are very much in favour of the other four parts of the amendment going ahead. However, as Hon Simon O’Brien has said, their feeling about wanting to disallow proposal 2 is so strong that they are prepared to disallow the whole of this major amendment if that is what is required. I, along with others, sought advice about whether we could go down the track of a partial disallowance. However, I was advised that that was not possible. Therefore, I certainly support the disallowance of the whole amendment.

I will not go over the information that has been already put, because I do not have the time to do that. However, I would like to mention a couple of concerns about the impact of this amendment on the environment. Although the environmental report has suggested otherwise, many people are concerned that this land is right on the boundary of, and forms a buffer to, the Gnangara mound water reserve. Another concern is that this amendment is being proposed at a time when this state is facing a major water crisis. People are concerned about the proposal to build housing in wetlands in which the groundwater levels are close to the surface. People are also concerned that because that housing will be placed on very poor Bassendean sand, any fertilisers that are put onto that soil will go straight into the groundwater. Another concern is that because this area is bisected by drainage tributaries from the Bennett Brook area, the urbanisation of the area may result in nutrients entering the Swan River, via Bennett Brook, which will be the detriment of that river. Another concern is that drainage from the site will need to be treated with nutrient stripping ponds and basins before it enters into the Emu Swamp area and the main drains of Marshall Road.

I will not go over the history of Whiteman Park, because that has been discussed by other members, but I would like to mention the deceptive way in which this amendment has been marketed to the community. The government has suggested that the inclusion of some land on the eastern side of Whiteman Park will somehow make up the difference for the land that is proposed to be transferred by this amendment. Nothing can make up for taking this part of the park away from the community. This is the only area in which people can develop parklands and recreation grounds etc. I have statements that suggest the minister is not at all concerned about the availability of urban land. The minister has on a few occasions stated that she does not believe there is a problem because with the number of lots that are available to the community it is possible to buy land at a reasonable price in the outlying suburbs, and because the development industry considers there are plenty of lots available; therefore, it will continue to develop them.

I am getting a big wind-up call. I will not have the chance to say half the things I wanted to. I support this disallowance motion.

HON ADELE FARINA (South West - Parliamentary Secretary) [9.50 pm]: I have only five minutes to put the government’s position, but a few statements that have been made need to be corrected. Members have said that the land that is the subject of proposal 2 in the southern portion of improvement plan 8 forms part of Whiteman Park. It does not; it is south of Whiteman Park. It has also been said that improvement plan 8 identifies land for parks and recreation and future government uses. The land that forms part of proposal 2 is identified under improvement plan 8 for future government uses;

- 7 - not parks and recreation. It is not, and never has been, part of Whiteman Park. It is very important that I correct that statement.

It is also important to note that the area in question is not within the priority 1 water catchment area. It has been suggested that it falls within that area; it does not. It is very important to get that right.

This proposal has not been dreamed up overnight. It is the result of detailed community consultation and consideration at a planning level and is the result of a 30-year strategic plan that was developed for Whiteman Park in 1999 by the previous government. The proposal to excise this land from improvement plan 8 and rezone it from rural to urban was identified and endorsed by the previous government in 1999. It is important for members to accept that that is the case. It is not something new that has been proposed by this government or has not been given detailed planning consideration.

The other issue I will address refers to the comments made by Hon Giz Watson about this state’s agreement with the federal government. The state government wrote to the Prime Minister on 15 September 2003 informing the federal government of the government’s proposal to rezone the land. My understanding is that the state government did not receive a response - there was certainly no objection - from the federal government. Four years have passed since that letter was written by former Premier Geoff Gallop to the Prime Minister, in which time the federal government has had ample opportunity to raise its objection to this proposal.

It is also important to understand that allowing urban development within the southern area that has been identified in improvement plan 8 and through the metropolitan region scheme amendment will enable the government to provide social infrastructure in that residential portion of land north of the Reid Highway. Currently, there is not enough mass to provide the social infrastructure that is required in that area, and this urban development will help achieve that. It will also help to fulfil the effect that has been identified by government in the Network City strategy. Hon Giz Watson raised concerns about the conservation values of that portion of land. It is important for members to remember that the metropolitan region scheme process is a broadbrush planning instrument. It will identify broadly the zoning for that parcel. We are then required to go through a town planning scheme amendment, which will also involve extensive community consultation. It will require environmental assessment and a structure plan to be prepared before any development of that land. The conservation concerns that Hon Giz Watson has raised can be adequately addressed and are more appropriately addressed through those processes. Just because the land has been zoned as urban does not mean that all of it will be available for urban development. It may be that, through the town planning scheme amendments, the development of a structure plan and the environmental assessments for urban development, portions of that land will not be committed to urban development. All those assessments are yet to be undertaken, and occur subsequent to the MRS amendment. The MRS amendment is the first step that needs to be taken.

In relation to the Water Corporation’s concerns about its current production bore fields, members will note from the report on submissions that the Western Australian Planning Commission has indicated that those issues can be addressed as part of the detailed structure planning and that there is no implication that Water Corporation access arrangements will change as a result of the amendment. There is no issue on that point at all.

Again, I emphasise that this whole MRS amendment doubles the size of Whiteman Park and provides important social infrastructure opportunities for the residential development wedged between the Reid Highway and Whiteman Park. This whole

- 8 - proposal is part of a 30-year strategic plan for Whiteman Park that was endorsed by the previous government in 1999. The intention to excise this land from the rural zoning and change it to urban was also endorsed by the previous government. No objection has been raised by the federal government. I believe that this amendment will provide a very good outcome for not only the long-term future and the protection of Whiteman Park but also providing some much-needed land for urban development to consolidate that residential cell. I ask members to oppose the disallowance motion.

Question put and a division taken with the following result -

Ayes (14)

Hon Hon Anthony Fels Hon Robyn McSweeney Hon Giz Watson Hon Peter Collier Hon Ray Halligan Hon Norman Moore Hon Bruce Donaldson

(Teller) Hon Murray Criddle Hon Barry House Hon Helen Morton Hon Donna Faragher Hon Paul Llewellyn Hon Simon O’Brien

Noes (12)

Hon Shelley Archer Hon Kate Doust Hon Graham Giffard Hon Sally Talbot Hon Matt Benson-Lidholm Hon Sue Ellery Hon Louise Pratt Hon Hon Kim Chance Hon Adele Farina Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich Hon Ed Dermer (Teller)

Pairs

Hon Ken Baston Hon Vincent Catania Hon Barbara Scott Hon Jon Ford Hon Nigel Hallett Hon Sheila Mills

Question thus passed.

- 9 -