Metropolitan Redevelopment Authority Bill 2011

Extract from Hansard
[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 28 September 2011]
p7861c-7863a
Hon Helen Morton; Hon Lynn MacLaren

METROPOLITAN REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BILL 2011

Third Reading

HON HELEN MORTON (East Metropolitan — Minister for Mental Health) [7.32 pm]: I move —
That the bill be now read a third time.

HON LYNN MacLAREN (South Metropolitan) [7.32 pm]: I will not be supporting the third reading of this
bill. It will come as no surprise to any member of this house that the Greens oppose this bill. We have been very
clear. I do not want to rehash the debate that we have just had over the last week, not only because I do not want
to, but also because it is not appropriate to do so in the third reading debate.

I advise members that I tried 84 times to make this bill acceptable to us by putting forward amendments, and on
83 occasions the government chose another way. We have certainly worked hard to try to make this bill
acceptable. The problems were accentuated to me on the weekend when I ran into a local councillor from the
City of Belmont, who said, “Oh, I want to talk to you about that metropolitan redevelopment bill.” I said, “It’s
too late, mate.” He said, “Oh, but we’re getting a briefing on Thursday!” That is exactly my point. My point has
always been that local government has not been adequately considered in the development of this bill.

Unfortunately, the bill does not have the strength that we would like to see to be able to develop an urban vision
for Western Australia. It creates too many powers for one authority, which does not have enough elected
representation on it. I think the bill is weaker because it has not taken into account the views of that local
government authority or, in fact, of all local government authorities. It has taken into account the views of the
redevelopment authorities that will be wrapped up into it. As I have said, we do not oppose the policy of the bill.

We do not oppose the idea of a Metropolitan Redevelopment Authority or the way that we are capturing the
skills and wisdom of those individuals who have tried in their various redevelopment authorities to deliver better
planning outcomes for this city. However, it is my responsibility when legislation comes before us in the upper
house to examine and review whether it is delivering what it promises, and the Metropolitan Redevelopment
Authority Bill does not deliver what it promises. Its shortcomings are many, as was expressed in the 84
amendments that I moved. A key weakness in the legislation is the lack of sustainability goals. If only we could
have put into this bill a hard code requirement to deliver better sustainability outcomes, that would have been a
good outcome for the bill, but no, we have failed in our mission.

Another point I want to bring to members’ attention—it might have escaped their notice—is that on 25
September it was the fortieth anniversary since Kelly’s Bush was saved. That was the first green ban in New
South Wales. Those who have followed the development of planning rules throughout Australia know that in the
early 1970s, to protect Sydney from widespread destruction due to bulldozers destroying heritage and precious
urban bushland, the citizens of New South Wales rose up alongside members of the Builders Labourers
Federation and worked hand in hand to stop inappropriate development. If we do not heed the call of Western
Australians for the need to develop Perth sustainably, we may run the risk of that type of uprising. I have spoken
often about the Beeliar wetlands, which are precious to my own electorate in the South Metropolitan Region. We
need to have good planning principles in this place that are reflected in our legislation so that the people of
Western Australia will have faith that we will deliver what they want for the future of the city and for their
children. That is what we have tried to do in this bill. I hope that we do not go down the road of anarchy and
chaos that resulted from the 1970s green bans in New South Wales, but we do run that risk when we cut the
entire local government sector, apart from a couple of representatives of the Western Australian Local
Government Association, out of the planning process. WALGA has been very clear about its concerns with the
bill. We even tried to send the bill to a committee for a week or two so that those concerns could be taken on
board. We know that they have not been taken on board, based on the evidence that was presented during the
committee stage. I do not support the third reading of the Metropolitan Redevelopment Authority Bill.