Hansard

Motions

Select Committee into Land Development and Planning in Western Australia

Motion

Hon Neil Thomson (1:04 pm): I move:

(1) That a select committee into land development and planning in Western Australia be established.

(2) That the select committee inquire into and report on matters relating to land use planning, land transactions and development in Western Australia, with particular regard to the optimality, efficiency, integrity and probity of decisions made by the state and state agencies, including:

(a) in relation to land use planning decisions, the extent to which such decisions align with established local planning schemes, strategies, policies and frameworks, particularly where made by the Western Australian Planning Commission or development assessment panels, including but not limited to decisions made under the so-called Significant Development Pathway;

(b) in relation to land transaction decisions, the extent to which such decisions adhere to principles of probity and transparency, particularly where made by agencies such as DevelopmentWA, the Housing Authority, the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage or the Western Australian Planning Commission; and

(c) high-profile development decisions to which the government has committed or which are currently under consideration, including but not limited to the proposed Burswood motorsports facility development and the Smiths Beach development proposal.

(3) That the select committee report no later than 12 months after the date on which this motion is agreed to.

(4) That the select committee shall consist of five members.

Thank you, President. It is with great pleasure that I bring this motion to this house, and I am seeking the support of members in this place.

In the short time I have I would like to outline the reasons and motivation behind this motion. We are facing unprecedented growth challenges in Western Australia in the 21st century, particularly in our capital city of Perth, and we are seeing a time when housing affordability is at its worst. We are seeing a time when the demand and availability of new apartments and new blocks for development is probably at its worst. We are also seeing a time when the Minister for Planning and Lands has given us repeated assurances that the government is bringing in reforms that will deliver outcomes.

Hon John Carey is noted for making comments that he pulls every lever in the issue of housing and land supply. Despite that, as I said, affordability is at its worst. We have seen a massive growth in the cost of apartments and housing in Western Australia, a massive challenge with homelessness, and a whole generation of people now feeling they cannot access the sort of housing that they aspire to.

I think it is important for this place to use its opportunities and powers to provide a detailed assessment. Land use planning is a particularly complex subject, and I think it deserves a process that can look at complex matters in a dispassionate, intellectual and confidential way, with the ability to reach out to experts—all the things that committees can do. I think this is timely. We have heard the assurances of the minister for many years, but because of the challenges we are facing, and what I dare say for many people is a reduction in trust in the planning system to deliver outcomes for Western Australia in the 21st century, we should review this in a detailed way to provide recommendations that this government or a future government may choose to adopt.

I have confidence that a select committee could come up with some very meaningful recommendations after a detailed investigation into these matters. We have also seen the recent report by the Office of the Auditor General, Fraud Risks in Land Transactions by DevelopmentWA. This is not a standalone report. We have seen other reports on the operations of DevelopmentWA and other land transaction agencies such as the Western Australian Planning Commission around the valuation of land and the way it is being managed in this state. I have raised this issue in the chamber many times and not been satisfied with the answers—for example, the sale of the Landgate building in Midland. Members may disagree, but here is an opportunity for us to show that we respect the Auditor General's role. The Parliament has a scrutinising role. We should scrutinise these things in a measured, intellectual and proper way to provide the sort of comfort that the community is looking for. There is certainly no comfort in knowing that one cannot reach the step of home ownership. There is no comfort in not being able to acquire an apartment if a person is seeking one in a reasonable walking distance to their work, when they are in short supply. This is an opportunity now for the 42nd Parliament to step up and look at this in detail. That is why I call on members to support this motion.

I am passionate about planning matters. I am passionate about land use issues in this state because I believe land use and planning can unlock the economic future for our community. We know it makes such a difference in the role of those land management bodies and statutory bodies that manage our planning system. It makes a difference in the parks and gardens of our streets, streetscapes, transport options and the precious environment in which we live and breathe every day in our urban and regional towns. We need to do the very best. I will come back to that point around trust because I think trust is under strain. We have seen a minister who is quick to condemn a local government. I want to quote something from my inaugural speech, and I bring this into this place in the spirit of constructive dialogue. I said it because at that time I was shadow Minister for Planning. It states:

As shadow Minister for Planning, I will be advocating for greater community participation in land use planning decision-making processes. To this end, I am a great supporter of the role of local government.

There have been some high-profile cases, and it is easy to use the term NIMBY and talk about some of the local governments that may not be operating to their maximum efficiency. But I have found the broad range of local governments across the state to be incredibly professional and cooperative. It disturbs me somewhat when I heard what the minister recently said at the Sydney Institute:

The local government landscape across the country is littered with ill-informed debate and destructive fear mongering.

To me, that is an overly negative description of local government. Yesterday we saw on display how dysfunctional the state government is with the health system. Any government can have moments of weakness, but to say that local government is "littered with ill-informed debate and destructive fear mongering" diminishes its role and engagement with the community. For many decades, since town planning was first established in Western Australia, we have had a statutory system that has operated on the premise that local governments work in partnership with the WA Planning Commission to establish a strategic framework with their local communities. The underlying contract of that is that local communities at least get some say in the establishment of the strategic framework that determines the form and function of their local communities. Once that is established and signed off through the WA Planning Commission, with the endorsement of the minister, a more professional and what they call a quasi-judicial process is used to determine individual planning applications and to avoid the partiality of decision-making and make sure there is certainty in the system. That has been the underlying principle of our system in Western Australia. We have seen several amendments made to the legislation in the government's last term. I think maybe two or three bills were put through to make different changes to the system not only over that term but in the previous term to that. For some people at least, there is a sense that there has been an erosion of the role of that strategic framework and the reason for that is the enormous pressure on the system. Enormous pressure is being built up because of the shortage of housing.

Therefore, I am not here to suggest in any way, despite what the minister says, that a review will be about making it harder for the development sector to produce that much-needed housing for our community—not at all. In fact, I believe that a more thorough and rigorous process will enable more certainty so people do not invest in things that cannot go forward. One of the limbs of my motion refers to the Smiths Beach development where we have seen a process called the "significant development pathway" being used allegedly to fast track a decision. That has taken several years already, and we have seen, in my view, some real challenges around the form and nature of that, given the enormous amount of work that went into the design of the strategic plans put in place after significant consultation with the community, only to see them overridden with the application currently under consideration. That issue provides a very good example of why not to use so-called fast track processes, which end up wasting everyone's time and resources. That is why it is time to make sure certainty and predictability is put back into the system. In fact, we should focus on point 2 of my motion, which states:

… with particular regard to the optimality, efficiency, integrity and probity of decisions made by the state and state agencies …

That would provide more confidence in the system. In the words of Minister Carey himself when at the Sydney Institute: there is distrust in the planning system. I think this is an opportunity for this chamber to undertake a review, be transparent about that review, assess these projects and restore more confidence and trust in the system. It might be that the review shows that many of the concerns are unwarranted and the processes are being adhered to, but I have made special mention of certain decisions that people have complained about. For example, people who live next to a development have been concerned that the spirit of the strategic instruments and schemes have not been adhered to. A review is worth doing just to build trust. This Parliament is here to create that trust, but to also take the opportunity to do this review and provide optimality and efficiency by looking at the system in its entirety and to ask the question: Is it time for a fundamental root-and-branch review of our planning system today? The creation of a select committee would be fantastic because it could bring in those people who are experts and have unimpeded contact with people such as the chair of the Western Australian Planning Commission and its relevant staff and it could talk with local governments that are involved with this issue on the front line.

Limb 2(c) of the motion specifically refers to the development decision in relation to the racetrack at Burswood. I totally sympathise with the community that feels like this decision has been made without any real consideration being given to past planning work. Of course, there is going to be anxiety about this, and this is where that issue of trust needs to be considered. It is time now for us to step back and have a cross-party committee do the work to seek the evidence and get some answers to the questions about the racetrack that many members on the crossbench, including the Greens and myself, have raised and feel we are not getting the answers to. For example, when was the Western Australian Planning Commission asked about this particular project? What advice is the minister receiving about this? This is an opportunity for transparency, and why not if the minister has nothing to hide? We know that land transactions are going to be important for that specific project because I understand that some of that track will ingress into land that is owned by Crown casino. That is a level of detail that can really only be assessed by a select committee. This is an opportunity for us because, given the Auditor General's report on the way land transactions have been managed in the state, it is only fair that the people of Western Australia have a proper investigation into this matter because so many things will hinge on the decision. I am not saying there is a link, but it is important to note that that particular organisation recently had its licence extended despite many of the recommendations of the royal commission not yet being addressed. It is important that this committee look into that matter to increase the level of integrity and probity around those decisions.

This is a real opportunity. We are facing somewhat of a crisis. We are facing a crisis of affordability and a crisis of availability. We are also facing somewhat of a crisis—I will have a question on this today during question time—in relation to the tree canopy in our urban environment. We are seeing massive challenges there, which could potentially lead to a crisis of amenity without a structured planning approach or a vision for the state. We really need to have that. The WAPC and the various planning bodies in our state, including local governments, that have developed strategies have always focused first on establishing what that vision looks like, what their dream is for the young people of the state and what kind of city we are going to live in. It is worth retaining that in our consciousness as we go forward with this because it is important for our future to have affordable, amenable homes that we can live in and that meet our requirements for both our economy and the social fabric of our state.

I implore members to support this motion. Although I have put some criticism on the table, I think it is fair criticism and I ask for support, particularly from government members, and I have also spoken to many members on the crossbench and from the Greens about this. I put that to members because this is such a complex area and probably the most important area after maintaining our health and wellbeing. Yesterday the other place discussed the immediate wellbeing and health of people. This is probably the next most important issue in terms of how we live. It is an opportunity through this very systematic approach, with the support of the staff and the experts, to present a very considered report based on these terms of reference and with a particular focus on, as I said, the details in the second part of the motion and its paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). I presented the detail of the motion in way that will make sure that this committee does not waste time. It will come together, it will get stuck straight into research and it will deal with issues that are of particular interest. I know that members and the community who are advocating for the preservation of the amenity of Burswood will be watching this. I have also had representation from people in Busselton who have been very concerned about the lack of transparency around the Smiths Beach development. I put those two references in the motion because they are excellent examples that could be looked into as a first step in this review.

Hon Dr Brad Pettitt (1:26 pm): I rise in support of this motion. At the end of my contribution I will move some amendments to the motion that I have discussed with Hon Neil Thomson and hope he will agree with. This is quite an important motion because, to be blunt, when it comes to planning in this state, we are increasingly failing. In so many ways what we are delivering is failing, but the way in which we are delivering it is not working either. I want talk to this for a moment. There are so many ways in which we could do this review and this committee will certainly have a lot of work to do, but that is for good reason because when we step back and look at planning in this state, we really have to have serious concerns. I will give members some examples.

We already know that Perth is called the longest city in the world and it is still delivering over two-thirds of its housing on the urban fridge, despite our overarching planning documents saying that we should not do that. Somehow our planning system keeps delivering exactly what our overarching planning documents say we should not be doing. In fact, if members look at Perth and Peel@3.5 million, it provides a side-by-side comparison, which I think is fascinating. It gives an example of what we should not do—that is, to deliver a city that has 70% of new houses going on the urban fringe and 30% infill. It calls that a dispersed city. It refers to the costs of that on the environment, connectivity and infrastructure. In fact, Infrastructure WA's recent Foundations for a Stronger Tomorrow: State Infrastructure Strategy states that every time we put a house on the fringe, it costs taxpayers two to four times more in infrastructure. We know that it is bad for environmental and social reasons given the billions of dollars needed to deal with the congestion associated with that project, along with the infrastructure costs. Economically, it does not work but somehow the government continues to deliver again and again. Over the last few years, we have seen our target of 47%, which I am pretty sure is the lowest in the country. We have set the bar pretty low at 47%. If we look at other states, capital city targets vary between 50% and 70%, so our target is very low. We have never met that target, not in two decades, which is pretty extraordinary. In fact, we have hovered around the high 20s and low 30s for quite a long time.

Interestingly, a document comes out every year called Urban Growth Monitor: Perth Metropolitan, Peel and Greater Bunbury Regions, which is quietly released in June. I appreciate the reason there was no fanfare over that: it was not the bearer of much good news as to where we are at. The latest one came out a couple of months ago. I will read some highlights. As I said, two-thirds of new homes continue to be built on the urban fringe. Only 21% were actually built where we want people to live—in the central sub-region. To put it another way, only 2,670 homes were built where our key strategy document said we should be building housing. The document also set some targets. Back in 2011, a whole bunch of infill targets were set for 2031. We are now three-quarters of the way there in terms of time but we have built only one-third of the dwellings needed. Something is fundamentally broken. How is it that year after year and government after government we have not delivered this? This is actually not a partisan inquiry. This is not about the failure of the Labor government; it is actually about the failure of multiple governments to deliver some of the key planning objectives of this state. Perhaps even more underwhelming is the fact that almost three-quarters of our infill comprises just single houses, duplexes or triplexes, not real infill, not the meaningful infill that we imagine. In fact, only 7% of Perth's infill dwellings were decent sized apartment buildings of 270 apartments. Frankly, that shows that the system is failing to deliver.

The planning minister recently talked about this. He went over east and presented a paper. He said that this was all the fault of—I quote him—NIMBYs, not in my backyard; BANANAs, build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything; local governments; and the Greens, apparently. Literally, that is what he said. He had to leave the state to say that! He would not dare say it to our faces because he knows we are the ones who have been pushing for infill and pushing for proper leadership in this space for a long time. In fact, it is the government that has lacked the conviction and the courage to do planning properly.

This motion is very important because, as we have seen over the last eight years, this government has walked away from planning. It has vacated the planning space and now what we have left is developer-driven ad hoc developments without a planning framework. That is why it is delivering some of the worst urban form in the world. I do not say that lightly; it is literally the worst urban form in the world. It is treeless; it is not connected; and it is a long way from public transport. It is very expensive to deliver and now it is some of the least affordable. We could not make a longer list of how many ways we are failing on this. That is why this inquiry will be so important. We must review this situation properly.

Of course, it is not just about sprawl. I have just given one example. An amendment will be made to the motion that will look at the issue more closely. We need to unpack a whole bunch of other things. Why have consecutive state governments spent many millions over the last number of years to deliver a whole bunch of plans through the strategic assessment of the Perth and Peel regions (SAPPR) on how to protect urban bushland? It was quietly shelved by the Labor government just before Christmas a couple of years ago. Again, this is another example of how we are walking away from planning. Where is the plan for transit-oriented developments and getting housing where we want it, including around train stations? The only apartments that are being built are apartments that are making people angry because they are ad hoc apartments in random locations in the suburbs rather than where they should be if we had a proper planning framework. There are so many reasons we should be doing this. That is without some of the individual projects that Hon Neil Thomson highlighted. We cannot help but talk about Burswood Park, an area that has a 20-year master plan, signed off by everybody—everyone agreed to it. It is a really good master plan that has literally just been thrown out and replaced by another ad hoc plan. This is not how we should be doing things. It is not what the community expects and it is not what we should expect. We should have a proper robust planning framework in which projects are delivered. As Hon Neil Thomson said, when we have a good robust planning framework, we can deliver projects in a timely manner and actually get on and do these things. Let us make it easier instead of letting things take longer and become more expensive or everything will become a battle because there is no planning framework around the projects that are being delivered. This is really important.

I have another amendment that suggests we also look at what will be the next really big project for this state. We know about Metronet—the $13 billion to $14 billion project. Westport will be a project of similar scale and price. We need to get serious about the planning around that and ask why it is being planned in the way it currently is and why there is an absolute lack of transparency around some of the key numbers in that area. We need to unpack that before we go too far down a route and we spend many billions of dollars delivering a project that will have both environmental and economic ramifications for many decades.

The other key amendment, which I hope members will see as being quite sensible, relates to allowing the committee to provide interim reports. For example, we have had the Burswood Park project. Obviously, the committee may take quite a long time to deliver a final report. We want to make sure that in the interim we can make recommendations on some of the projects that might be moving quite quickly and ensure we really focus on those.

This is a really good bit of work. It is a sensible bit of work. I am quite excited because I really think we can get this right. One of the things I like about the committee is that we can take the politics out of it and start to look at the evidence. I am pretty sure that the evidence will back up what I have been saying around the fact that things need to be done differently. We have an opportunity to really do that, bring it back to Parliament and shine a light on an issue that has frankly been neglected for too long.

I would now like to move an amendment to the motion. I apologise in advance for the fact that it is quite long, but it was the simplest way of doing it.

Amendment to motion

Hon Dr Brad Pettitt: I move to amend the motion as follows:

(1) To delete paragraph (2) and insert:

(2) That the select committee inquire into and report on matters relating to land use planning, land transactions, and development in Western Australia, with particular regard to the optimality, efficiency, integrity, and probity of decisions made by the state and state agencies, including:

(a) in relation to land use planning decisions, the extent to which such decisions align with established local planning schemes, strategies, policies, and frameworks, particularly where made by the Western Australian Planning Commission or development assessment panels, including but not limited to decisions made under the so-called significant development pathway;

(b) how decisions are aligned with elements of key strategic planning documents such as Perth and Peel@3.5 million, including meeting infill targets;

(c) in relation to land transaction decisions, the extent to which such decisions adhere to principles of probity and transparency, particularly where made by agencies such as DevelopmentWA, the Housing Authority, the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage, or the Western Australian Planning Commission; and

(d) high-profile development decisions to which the government has committed or which are currently under consideration, including but not limited to the proposed Burswood motorsports facility development, the Smiths Beach development proposal, and the Westport project (including associated land use planning matters related to transport, industry and infrastructure).

(3) That the select committee is able to provide interim reports to the WA Parliament on some matters, including urgent matters, where appropriate.

(2) That all other paragraphs of the motion be renumbered accordingly.

The President: Members, the question now is that the words to be deleted be deleted. Is anybody seeking the call or are we just kind of playing statues?

Hon Neil Thomson (1:39 pm): For the record, I think those amendments are acceptable. I know that behind the chair we had some discussion on them and I think the additional change in the strategic planning frameworks, which have been added, add value to the motion that I put forward. We will be supporting the amendment as presented. Thank you, President.

Amendment (deletion of words) put and passed.

The President: The question now is that the words to be inserted be inserted.

Hon Anthony Spagnolo (1:41 pm): Thank you, President and I will make sure I call for you properly. I rise today to support the motion for the establishment of a select committee into land development and planning in Western Australia.

The President: Order, member. You need to speak to the words that are being inserted. We have already agreed that the words to be deleted be deleted. You either need to speak to the words being inserted or you can seek the call if the amendment is successful and we will then read the motion as amended and you may seek the call for that. I just want to be clear that you are seeking the call for later—yes.

Amendment (insertion of words) put and passed.

Motion, as amended

The President: The amended motion now reads:

(1) That a select committee into land development and planning in Western Australia be established.

(2) That the select committee inquire into and report on matters relating to land use planning, land transactions, and development in Western Australia, with particular regard to the optimality, efficiency, integrity, and probity of decisions made by the state and state agencies, including:

(a) in relation to land use planning decisions, the extent to which such decisions align with established local planning schemes, strategies, policies, and frameworks, particularly where made by the Western Australian Planning Commission or development assessment panels, including but not limited to decisions made under the so-called significant development pathway;

(b) how decisions are aligned with elements of key strategic planning documents such as Perth and Peel@3.5 Million, including meeting infill targets;

(c) in relation to land transaction decisions, the extent to which such decisions adhere to principles of probity and transparency, particularly where made by agencies such as DevelopmentWA, the Housing Authority, the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage, or the Western Australian Planning Commission; and

(d) high-profile development decisions to which the government has committed or which are currently under consideration, including but not limited to the proposed Burswood motorsports facility development, the Smith's Beach development proposal, and the Westport Project, including associated land use planning matters for related to transport, industry and infrastructure.

(3) That the select committee is able to provide interim reports to the Western Australian Parliament on some matters, including urgent matters, where appropriate.

(4) That the select committee report no later than 12 months after the date on which this motion is agreed to.

(5) That the select committee shall consist of five members.

The question is the motion, as amended, be agreed to.

Hon Anthony Spagnolo (1:44 pm): I rise today to speak in support of the amended motion for the establishment of a select committee into land development and planning in Western Australia. This committee will inquire into critical matters concerning land use planning, land transactions and development in our state. It will look closely at the efficiency, integrity and probity of decisions made by the state and its agencies, agencies like the Western Australian Planning Commission and DevelopmentWA. I want to thank Hon Dr Brad Pettitt and Hon Neil Thomson for their remarks prior to my comments. They covered a range of issues, all of which I think are important. I will add some of my own views as well. I think it is really important that we are certain that our land use planning systems operate with complete transparency and accountability. As mentioned by previous speakers and as mentioned by the minister in his speech to the Sydney Institute, there is mistrust in the planning system and the solution to that, of course, is always to have transparency. This is about making sure that decisions that shape our communities are made for the right reasons and that the interests of the people of Western Australia are considered as well. Prior to this motion being moved today, the minister has been on the front foot and made some public commentary about the potential of this chamber passing this motion today. He made comments in the press that referred to this proposal as a "harebrained idea". First of all, I want to say I think that those comments are disappointing. I think it is disrespectful and it speaks to a minister who is very focused on the theatre of politics, enjoys making public commentary like that, but is not focused enough on fixing the actual problems the system faces. I listened to question time briefly in the other place yesterday and caught some of the theatre in relation to this matter as well. Words were chucked around like the "no-alition" and all sorts of provocative comments like that. Again, it plays to the theatre, but it is not playing to fixing the problem. I think a lot of this commentary really is quite boring and quite lame and unoriginal.

I know the minister sits in the other place, but through you, President, I want to remind the government that the Premier has made repeated urgings to his colleagues that it is really important for government members to be humble. He said that during the election campaign. He said that after the election campaign. He asked his ministers to be humble. I think calling motions like this "harebrained" and using the rhetoric we have heard is anything but humble. I just remind the minister, through you, President, of that.

I also want to comment on the minister's speech to the Sydney Institute, which I know Hon Dr Brad Pettitt and Hon Neil Thomson also mentioned. I want to build on a point made by Hon Dr Brad Pettitt. It is really disappointing to have a minister fly to Sydney to lecture us about our planning system—to go to Sydney, to drink a couple of glasses of chardonnay at the Sydney Institute and stand at a lectern and start referring to communities in this state as NIMBYs. It is cynical and sneering commentary, and frankly, beneath a minister in this state. I do not think that is appropriate commentary at all. I want to be clear, there are many communities that approach all of us as members of this place expressing concerns about the planning system. Those communities deserve to be treated with respect, whether it is people in the South West—the minister needs to remember those individuals are not NIMBYs; they are Western Australians. Whether it is people concerned about the Burswood Park proposal; they are not NIMBYs, they are Western Australians. Whether it is people in the constituency where I focus on in the Perth hills who often raise concerns; these are not NIMBYs, these are Western Australians who deserve to be treated with respect and listened to.

I also want to talk a bit more broadly about the state of housing in this state. We have obviously been through a tumultuous period with the pandemic a couple of years ago. We have seen 40% rises in construction costs, material constraints and constraints on the labour force for a range of reasons. It has been a really tough time for the construction sector in a range of ways.

A lot of the impacts are also the result of government decisions. Yesterday, my colleague Hon Dr Steve Thomas talked about the peak in infrastructure in the state. As I have said previously in this place, when the government peaks infrastructure spending during an inflation crisis, it crowds out the private sector, puts upward pressure on prices and pushes up the cost of housing. Many in this place, whether it is in our inaugural speeches or in other utterances, talk about our love of this state and in particular the egalitarian nature of not just Western Australians but also Australians. One of the really disappointing elements of where housing is at is the impact that we know the rapid rise in housing prices will have on future generations, particularly young people. For those who are home owners, on paper at least we have benefited from house price increases, but for those in the community who do not own a house, and certainly our kids and future grandkids in my instance who obviously do not own a house, the impact of almost doubled house prices in the eight years that Labor has been in power is significant. For many Western Australians, the biggest expense that they will have in life, whether it is through paying rent or paying a mortgage, will be the cost of their house. When the cost of that house doubles, they are poorer and their living standards go down. That should concern all of us. It is time for the minister to stop lecturing us from Sydney and start engaging meaningfully with the planning policies and processes that directly affect people's lives in Western Australia.

Let us be honest: the housing crisis we face today is the direct result of policy failures. For years the government has been warned about the pressures on housing supply, affordability and so on and yet here we are. Given this crisis, the minister should be welcoming this inquiry with open arms. Instead, he is opposing it. That tells me that he is more interested in protecting his department and his government from scrutiny than actually fixing the system. I mentioned before that he called Western Australians and many concerned local community groups "NIMBYs", which I thought was a disappointing and diminishing label, as mentioned by other speakers in this debate. I want to offer the minister a new acronym: NFTP. NFTP is the acronym he should be focusing on, and that is "not fixing the problem", because that is what he has been doing. We have had lots of theatre, lots of fancy press releases and lots of fancy words et cetera. It is almost like the minister thinks he is performing an opera sometimes. That is all a bit of fun, but this is not some game. This is the real thing. The decisions he makes affect real people and real communities in Western Australia, and when he gets it wrong, people's standards of living and their ability to pursue their hopes, dreams and aspirations, and do the things that they want to do for their families, is diminished. The consequences are very serious.

I also want to speak to some of the systemic issues that were mentioned in the Auditor General's recent report, Fraud Risks in Land Transactions by Development WA. This was a forensic audit of DevelopmentWA's land transactions between 2017 and 2022. The findings should concern every member of this chamber. The Auditor General found that in 30% of sales reviewed, at least one essential document like evaluation, a sales release plan or an approval memorandum was missing. In one case, land valued at $800,000 sold for just $385,000 with no explanation, no alternative valuation and no document to provide justification. Under the COVID era temporary incentivising regional land pricing policy, nearly half of the 1,100 properties did not comply with the approved pricing methods. The very register meant to guard against undue influence, conflicts of interests, gifts and hospitality were incomplete, inconsistent and lacking critical detail. This is not an isolated problem. This is a breakdown of governance in one of the state's key development agencies and DevelopmentWA is just one agency. The Housing Authority, the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage and the Western Australian Planning Commission all make multimillion-dollar land transaction decisions. If this is happening in one agency, what confidence can we have that this is not happening in others? Again, it highlights why this joint select committee, this motion, is so important, because it adds transparency that should build trust in the system.

Although the overall motion covers several areas, I want to emphasise paragraph (c) of the amended motion, the investigation into land transaction decisions and adherence to probity and transparency. This goes to the heart of how we manage the public's assets. It is about whether we can guarantee that when state agencies sell or acquire land, they are doing it in a way that protects value, follows the rules and stands up to public scrutiny. What happens if we do not adopt this motion? We send the wrong message. We say that loose processes, missing documentation and unexplained discounts are acceptable. We tell agencies that they can operate without robust scrutiny and we leave the door open to the same cultural weaknesses, the same tendency to put expediency ahead of accountability that we have seen in other parts of government. The financial risk is enormous, but just as damaging is the risk to public trust. Once people lose faith that the government is managing its assets fairly and transparently, it is incredibly hard to win that trust back.

This motion is about protecting public assets. It is about restoring public trust and ensuring our land development and planning systems operate with complete transparency and integrity. It also asserts the role that this very chamber plays in our system of government. This chamber has proportional representation. It is the method of election to this place, as we all full well know. What that means is that it is very unusual for one party to have a majority and it usually means that we have a healthy crossbench, which I note is an aspect of this Parliament—but that is not some mere accident. That is actually the reason that that method of election was designed; it is meant to achieve that outcome so it gives a broader set of voices input into debate. For the minister to refer to the people supporting this motion as a "no-alition" and to call this a harebrained idea, as I said earlier, is not only disappointing, but also diminishing to the very role of the Legislative Council. Our role is to act as a check on excessive use of power of the executive, and it is our role to help get the best outcomes for the state. That is why I am supporting this motion.

Hon Dr Katrina Stratton (Parliamentary Secretary) (1:57 pm): I rise today to talk to the motion on a select committee into land development and planning in Western Australia. We can all agree that housing markets are under pressure, not just in Western Australia, but also around the world. Western Australia is seeing extraordinary growth in our population and of course with that comes greater housing demand. We in fact experienced the fastest growth rate in the country last year at 2.4%. We also know that it is only the Cook Labor government that is committed to tackling that housing challenge head on, and we are doing that in a multitude of ways, including cutting unnecessary red tape, streamlining our planning system and coordinating infrastructure delivery to unlock more housing opportunities across Western Australia. I am going to go through each aspect of this motion in further detail shortly, but I want to start off by saying that Western Australia is proud to be a national leader when it comes to planning reform and we are firmly aligned with the National Cabinet's planning reform blueprint and the ambitious target of delivering 1.2 million homes nationally. WA, it is fair to say, is stepping up to do its share. That is why we have committed to developing and delivering around 130,000 homes by June 2029, and we are backing that commitment with a whole-of-government approach that includes major reforms to planning, housing and infrastructure, as well as investment in infrastructure, and education and training for our construction industry. Whether it is indeed our housing diversity pipeline, reforms to the residential design codes or strategic coordination of land release and infrastructure, we are driving an agenda to meet the needs of our growing communities now and into the future.

It is fair to say as well that only the Cook Labor government is concerned with the diversity of housing needs in Western Australia, for those not just at the high end of town, but also who need access to public, social and affordable housing. Let us be really clear: the Cook Labor government is delivering for all those different populations—all Western Australians. We have committed more than $5.8 billion to housing and homelessness measures. This is a record investment for Western Australia. We also had a target to deliver 3,300 new houses by mid-2025, and we have delivered on that commitment. None of this would have been possible without our government's commitment to streamlining the planning system and making more land available for housing. We are tackling this challenge head-on.

As I have said, we are proud to be a national leader when it comes to planning reform. We have committed to delivering 130,000 homes—our share of the target of 1.2 million homes nationally. We are driving the most significant planning reform in decades to ensure that Western Australians have a planning system that is transparent, fair and, most importantly, is focused on good outcomes for all West Australians. The goal is not just for faster approvals at the expense of good outcomes; nor is it growth without regard for community, and all members of our community. It is about delivering clear, consistent and timely decisions and providing certainty to communities and industry, no matter where you live and no matter what kind of housing you need to access, and not at the whim of various local governments.

These reforms are grounded in values—values of fairness, responsibility, partnership and, yes, ambition. We are continuing to cut unnecessary red tape while at the same time strengthening integrity and transparency in decision-making. We have guaranteed that decision-making is guided by qualified professionals who have genuine expertise in planning, rather than elected officials. We have also clarified the role of the WA Planning Commission as an expert adviser and an independent decision-making body with the skills and experience needed to lead such strategic land use planning. By embedding integrity and efficiency at every stage, we are creating a planning system that is responsive to growth and that delivers for the people of Western Australia. Our nation-leading reforms have made our planning system simpler, faster and more transparent than that of any other state in the country, and we are proud of that record. These reforms are about more than just processes; they are about outcomes—and, as I said, outcomes for all Western Australians.

A key part of the reform delivered in our last term of government was the modernisation of the development assessment panels, better known as DAPs. We have consolidated the previous five-panel system into three strategic panels, which has increased the consistency and quality of decision-making. We have broadened DAP eligibility to capture a wider range of projects while also ensuring greater transparency, streamlined assessment and improved community engagement. We know that the reforms to DAP processes are cutting assessment timeframes, enhancing the roles of expert members and improving reporting and data sharing to support continuous improvement. Again, this enables faster, fairer decisions that better reflect contemporary expectations for quality development, as well as community outcomes. In the 2024–25 financial year, that resulted in nearly $6.4 billion worth of projects being approved through the system.

We have also established a permanent significant development pathway and invested in cross-agency coordination. From 1 March 2024, the permanent significant development pathway became operational and since then, the WAPC has determined an additional eight projects through this new permanent pathway, with a combined value of nearly $300 million. Any project that includes a minimum of 5% social or affordable housing in designated areas, with access to public transportation and amenities, may also choose this pathway.

Most importantly, the WAPC has greater discretion in planning decisions about built form, in situations in which a local government scheme is out of date. I may live in such a neighbourhood! In the past, this was another way in which local governments stifled developments, by not doing any of the basic work on underlying planning frameworks. Now, an out-of-date scheme may mean more discretion in built form outcomes. It is about working smarter and about saying yes to good development in the right places. We cannot afford to allow red tape and duplicated approvals processes to unreasonably delay new projects. We also cannot afford a few loud and organised voices to cause delay—delay that, to be fair, does not impact on their access to housing or recreation, but that denies future generations, including my kids, access to housing and recreation. It also, sadly, denies on a daily basis access to social and affordable housing for those who need it.

As I said, WA is aligned with a number of national reforms, and all jurisdictions, including WA, have committed to planning reform under the federal government's National Planning Reform Blueprint, which aims to improve transparency, consistency and efficiency in planning systems across the country. Our planning reforms align with this project. They have been agreed to by national cabinet, and they complement our government's record investment of over $5.8 billion in housing and homelessness measures. We are in lockstep with the national cabinet's National Planning Reform Blueprint, which all states and territories have agreed to.

Importantly, DAPs operate independently, as they were designed to by the previous Liberal–National government. Ministers and local members have no role to play in these decisions. Post-COVID, more than ever we need a planning system that is fast, fair and, most importantly, future-focused—a system that actively enables housing supply and embraces higher density along our Metronet train lines and existing train precincts, because we understand that planning is not just about policy and regulation. It is not about having intellectual oversight. It is about getting the settings right, because this is about real people, real homes and real jobs into the future.

This ambition is deeply in line with the aspirations of National Cabinet, which has prioritised regulatory reform of planning systems across the country to accelerate the delivery of much-needed housing. In fact, both sides of federal politics have recognised this need. As current federal Minister for Housing Clare O'Neil recently noted, it is too hard to build a house in our country today, and one of the reasons for that is that over a 40-year period, commonwealth, state, territorial and local governments have been putting in place rules and regulations that are slowing us down and holding us back from building the housing we need. She noted that builders face a ridiculous thicket of red tape. Last year, Senator Andrew Bragg—now the shadow Minister for Housing—said that nimbyism is poison for young people. He said that when we see councils and states block developments, particularly apartment buildings, it is a disaster for young people. He said that the planning system is not run in Canberra, but that we have to find a way to get local councils and states to actually do the heavy lifting here. I will just note that that is the first and only time I will use the term "NIMBY", as I quote the federal shadow minister!

We see that the Liberals and Greens in WA are now banding together to undo these nation-leading reforms. This motion shows that they do not actually care about housing, and they do not care about Western Australians having a roof over their heads, now or into the future.

Several members interjected.

The Acting President: Order! The member on her feet is patiently waiting to return to her contribution. Thanks, members.

Hon Dr Katrina Stratton: We do not just care about people who live in certain electorates, certain neighbourhoods or certain postcodes; as I said, we care about those who need to access public, social and affordable housing.

I want to turn briefly to land transfers. It is actually very curious for the member to have included land transaction decisions in this motion. As he well knows, the Auditor General has recently completed two detailed reports into this issue. Perhaps the member needs time and expert assistance to understand those reports. I particularly want to look at the Bentley land transfer.

Hon Nick Goiran interjected.

Hon Dr Katrina Stratton: Our government inherited the Bentley project from the Liberal–Nationals, who left Brownlie Towers—a place that I have spent a lot of time in—half-empty and dilapidated, and the rest of the project isolated and undeveloped. I think that also says something about their care of people in need of public, social and affordable housing—a population that our government cares about deeply. We were left to make the tough decision to demolish Brownlie Towers and get on with the job of redeveloping that entire precinct.

Our government supports a consistent way for government agencies to transfer land. However, of course, accounting standards must be followed. The Auditor General's report made clear that operational decisions around land transfers between government agencies were made at the appropriate level with all relevant stakeholders and done so transparently. Although the Office of the Auditor General has highlighted this transfer, it is important to note that these transfers are between government agencies. The OAG was clear that the treatment is in line with relevant processes and procedures. Page 29 of the financial audit results report states:

Our audit procedures concluded that the inputs used to determine the value of—

The transfer—

$2.65 million were aligned with the methodology agreed between the parties.

The methodology used to guide the completed transfer of land between the Department of Communities and DevelopmentWA was agreed between the two agencies in consultation with the Department of Treasury and was based on technical advice received from the Office of the Auditor General and applicable accounting standards. The audit findings ultimately determine that the agreed transfer process was followed, including all relevant disclosures, and the land was ultimately transferred at $2.65 million. This value reflects the intended future use of the land, inclusive of the costs required to facilitate the redevelopment—costs that have radically shifted in the post-pandemic construction world from the value that was recorded in the books of Communities. But, most importantly, this land transfer means that our government can get on with the job of delivering housing.

Late last year, works commenced on the Bentley redevelopment project, marking the first step to deliver up to 1,000 new homes in that suburb. The works underway will also deliver over 40 residential lots, public amenity, and two mixed use development sites, creating a vibrant community.

If I could shift to the regions now, it is no secret that serviced land is the building block that facilitates the growth of regional communities. In 2020, the Cook government invested $166 million into the Regional Land Booster initiative, a state recovery plan action to recover from the impacts of COVID-19 and revive residential sales activity and local economies in 61 towns across the state which had seen zero sales in the preceding two years. Essentially, the Regional Land Booster included measures to stimulate sales, including temporarily offering discounts or construction incentives of up to 25% off the lease price, not to be lower than valuations or appraisals, and setting a new temporary Regional Development Assistance program minimum lot price based on the age of the lot and to be the greater of market valuation or the specific minimum price. The Regional Land Booster has been a significant success. Since its introduction, 1,035 lots in 90 towns have been contracted for $228 million. Given the initial state government investment of $166 million, this outcome has resulted in significant value for money for the Western Australian economy, and even greater value to the people and families living in those communities.

It is important that the people of Western Australia have confidence that processes exist. The CEO and board of DevelopmentWA have engaged with the OAG's audit and are taking on the recommendations in the report as an opportunity to further strengthen their processes. The report notes that a significant cultural shift has already been undertaken at DevelopmentWA under the current leadership. DevelopmentWA has strengthened processes since the period examined by this audit, and that process will continue.

Part of DevelopmentWA's remit is to step in where markets fail and deliver on government priorities like developing housing and industrial land in regional markets. In the case studies referenced, DevelopmentWA is explicitly not trying to maximise returns at the direction of government, but rather to achieve a social and economic benefit to the people of Western Australia.

DevelopmentWA has put in place a governance steering committee to oversee the Regional Land Booster program. The board has significant oversight of the program and provides a clearly defined delegated authority to management. The board was regularly called upon to make decisions that rightly sat at that elevated level. DevelopmentWA has clear policies and processes that outline how decisions are to be made and by whom and will continue to strengthen processes.

I am not really sure who would try to undermine land transfers of this nature. The Office of the Auditor General findings ultimately determined that the land transfers were appropriate, and, as always, the government is committed to working through the recommendations made by the OAG in these reports. Audits like these support best practice and governance across government agencies, and they continue to engage. The Office of the Auditor General is the appropriate office to investigate these matters independently, not the honourable member.

Hon Nick Goiran: It's going to be a parliamentary committee!

Hon Dr Katrina Stratton: That actually has not been decided yet.

Several members interjected.

Hon Dr Katrina Stratton: It has not been yet, so if you could let me continue speaking.

Several members interjected.

The Acting President (Hon Sandra Carr): Order! I invite the member on her feet to direct her comments to the chair.

Hon Dr Katrina Stratton: Thank you. In the last minute or so that I now have left, I think it is not theatre to say that we currently have state and federal Labor governments trying to build more homes to alleviate pressure on the housing market and to help Australians get into the property market. It is not theatre to say that it is too hard to get homes built in Western Australia and Australia more broadly right now. It is not theatre to say that if we want to get more homes built and into the system, we need to allow planning approvals to be dealt with promptly and transparently. It is also not theatre to say that our government's reforms have been welcomed by industry and housing advocates alike. However, they have been opposed by the Liberal Party and the Greens, who cannot have it both ways. The Liberals claim to industry that they want to cut red tape, and then, when talking to their base, promise to make our planning framework so cumbersome that it will slow home construction to a snail's pace. The Greens say that they care about housing and homelessness and want to ease cost pressures, but here they are, siding with the Liberals to undermine our planning reforms that are precisely about getting more homes built quicker. We cannot afford for the recalcitrant "my way or the highway" negotiations when we are talking about getting more homes built. Instead, we ask the opposition to let us get on with the business of planning and developing housing.

Hon Maryka Groenewald (2:17 pm): I am pleased to rise to support the honourable member's motion today. I, too, have had several emails over the last couple of months from people feeling that they have been excluded from a consultation or planning process, and I really think that land development needs should focus on what local communities want rather than what developers demand. I think that is a really important thing to do. During the election I was talking to families. We want them to be able to plan and thrive—not delay having families because there are limited options or they cannot afford a home. That is a heartbreaking situation to be in. Perhaps, like me, they are looking at a tiny home on a large plot. Maybe that is another solution we need to consider.

In the face of our present housing and land supply crisis, the WA Government made some reforms to—yes—retool the Western Australian Planning Commission's work, to streamline how these developments in value may be approved. Some of these were necessary but quite questionable. I also support this motion because I want to see the actions of DevelopmentWA, the Housing Authority, the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage and the WA Planning Commission to be more transparent and open to examination. It must be clear that our Parliament and the local people whom these decisions affect can examine and appropriately challenge these decisions, and I think that is probably one of the key issues here.

Planning seems to favour developers over residents, and community consultation is really lucky or undermined. Development assessment panels (DAPs), as mentioned, often override local councils, and significant development pathways often impede the influence of local communities. At times when these overrides are necessary, like of course the Nedlands council from blocking a child hospice—may it rest in peace—I am sceptical that the integrity of the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) has increased following the cut from 16 members down to nine. In recent meetings, more than one member had to excuse themselves from proceedings due to having an indirect pecuniary interest in an agenda item. Including obviously some of those confidential items, a lot of that was hidden from the public. I understand it is commendable that, yes, this member did exclude themselves, but it would be far better if at least several more members were added back into the WAPC to provide the oversight in such cases. DAP is a tool used primarily to rubber stamp approvals and wish lists and occasionally rein in the rogue council, but over 2023–24 only 4% of DAP applications were actually refused. That is a new universal approval rate. Many of these approvals contradicted advice from local government planning officers, and residents are stuck in slow systems with no rights of appeal. That is really a key issue here. I do not think private citizens who build a home on their own plot of land get quite the expedited approval process that perhaps some of these developers do. We need to enhance the influence of residents, not developers. But again, as Hon Neil Thomson said, it is about a consultation process that is open, transparent and gives people the room to be heard. To limit the influence of property developers, Queensland, New South Wales and the ACT have all banned political donations from them. I know that probably sends shock waves through both parties, but still this is something to be considered.

Lastly, in many of these community consultations, processes are often undermined, and residents really feel ignored. Communities are consulted as a box-ticking exercise, but their concerns often do not carry a lot of weight. Local governments are being cut out and residents have no formal voice. It is commendable that WAPC meetings are now live streamed—I do not think they were previously—but significant portions of meetings are still closed due to confidentiality. Amendments to developments, which for some DAP categories might be unlimited, can be marked confidential if the developer decides to evade scrutiny from not just competitors, but also residents, and I think it is important to have this available for residents, too. Another thing to consider is DAPs often meet during work hours, making it almost impossible for everyday families to get to these meetings. There are still no third-party appeal rights in WA. Only the applicant—the developer—can appeal a WAPC or DAP decision. Residents have next to zero pathways for recourse once a bad decision is made, and the 2024 agency capability review flagged delays, lack of oversight and systemic risks.

In conclusion, the case for this inquiry is overwhelming, and it is important. We want to see better consultation. We want to see informed decision-making, and it appears that the government's planning system favours developers and its own projects and not necessarily those of our communities or families. It would also be pertinent to remember the following from Belinda Edwards, who stated in the Australian Journal of Public Administration:

I would point out that it is illegal for businesses to make such payments to political parties if they do not expect payments to advance the interests of their shareholders.

Hon Dr Brian Walker (2:23 pm): To reassure my colleagues, I will be speaking on this motion for only a short while. I was very glad to hear the contribution of my colleague Hon Dr Katrina Stratton, who said that it is not only the numbers, which she referred to—excellent numbers, I am sure—but it is about the planning for those numbers: how and where and, indeed, why. I was delighted to hear that great part of her contribution supported the motion put forward by my colleague Hon Neil Thomson. We all appreciate the need for transparency, do we not? We all appreciate the fact that the people who vote for us need to be sure that what we are doing is also appropriate. In the questions we have here about land development and planning, we can see huge issues. If we cannot do this in Parliament, I will tell members that the people who vote for us can. The question here is about the opportunity, efficiency, integrity and, indeed, the probity of who benefits from this. Do we have vested interests in play here? Should we look closer? One would have to make a good reason why we should not look closer, because, yes, we should because the people feel uncertain about the probity of government in action here.

I could ask: are the developers benefiting from agreements hidden to our sight? Let me rephrase that question: are the donors benefiting from hidden agreements? The question was put here just now: the people who are donating money to the government, are we not expecting them to make a return on their investment? Of course we are—that is the whole point of making donations. It is not just a tax avoidance scheme. We are seeing unfair transactions hidden by a system of bias. The observer bias influences the outcome by the connections that we make here, and I am sure the connections at the table for "how many lots of $1,000 to sit with important people in government" would have no influence whatsoever in the development planning, would they? There is politics involved here.

I was delighted to hear about the good outcomes from the government, but I wish I could see the words of Hon Dr Katrina Stratton in the experiences of my patients, the ones I speak to every day when I am not in Parliament. They are giving a very different picture to that which I just received here. I wonder why? Why is it we can see such a varied result from looking at the figures that the government is producing and supporting, and how well the Office of the Auditor General (OAG) is saying how well the government is doing? I beg to differ. The reports we are seeing from the OAG will say anything but—but there is a lot to be grateful for. It has to be said that the amount of money that is being spent is indeed satisfactory. But I recall four years ago, listening to the inaugural speeches of my colleagues from the government benches who were telling me how many lots of $100 million had been spent by the McGowan government in mental health. I looked around at my patients and wondered: where is every single cent of that, because not one single cent had been made available to my patients who were suffering and indeed killing themselves because there was inadequate funding of mental health. Can we see an analogy here between the housing? That example we had just in the last Parliament of how well we are doing with our social housing and then comparing it and discovering that Tasmania spends more than we do and builds more houses than we do for those who are in need. But the figures that we are told here were very different.

I am glad to hear that a lot of what the motion has put forward can be agreed to by the government benches because we do need transparency. There is a lot to see. I am wondering here about, for example, the racetrack. How many millions of dollars will be spent on the racetrack, about which I have yet to find anyone, in my circle of friends or my patients or the people I speak with, in favour of the racetrack—not a single one. There is the question about King Edward Memorial Hospital for Women. The hospital was two years of solid planning and everything was to be sorted, and, all of a sudden, over two weeks, the whole thing changed. The trajectory changed, and five reasons were given as to why it was essential we change that hospital. When all the five reasons were examined, not one single reason held water. Paul Murray in The West Australian gave a very nice two-page spread as to why every single reason that was given for the sudden change was actually flawed. Therefore, the question here then is, and it is one I have yet to see answered: with this sudden change of a major hospital to be built on a site that was not originally foreseen for that, which had been planned and worked out, and we were going to do this, and all of a sudden it changes—who benefits? This is a question I think that the planning could be looked at with this motion for a select committee to investigate these issues and similar ones. I assure members of my support and I suspect anyone of a fair mind would want to support the idea of increasing transparency in a very important part of our society. Not to encourage transparency, not to look closer, is doing a disservice to every single one of our residents of our great state.

Hon Rod Caddies (2:28 pm): I would like to speak briefly today on this motion and to express my and One Nation WA's support for this issue going to committee. It is undeniable that serious issues that plague our planning and development across this state, across WA, and we have heard it mentioned already. We have heard about the Burswood racetrack. I think Hon Dr Brad Pettitt said a plan was in place for about 20 years, and all of a sudden we have got a different plan.

That in itself should ring alarm bells for people. Over the last four years, the Western Australian Labor Party has held unchecked control. It would be fair to say that absolute power can lead to the risk that decisions are made that do not serve that public's best interests. I think someone mentioned that this is just the Greens or the Liberals ganging up and trying to stop the government from doing something, but maybe the government has become used to having all this power for the last four years. This is a house of review and where accountability comes into it. It is great that members bring to the house issues like this that can be sent to a committee to be looked into and to provide transparency. Government members should be happy with the matter going to a committee because they can then say, "Look, it's all rosy. We've been doing the right thing by the people of WA." This is essential to restore trust in our institutions and ensure transparency in what are often lucrative planning decisions made by government.

During the winter recess, I travelled all over the place—the Mid West, the South West, the Great Southern—speaking with communities about their concerns. Time and again I heard frustration over the state government's powers to override local government decisions. People felt that their voices were being ignored, their communities sidelined and their rights trampled on in the name of state-driven agendas. I went to many different shires and I was on the road quite a bit, but there was no difference in what everyone told me. There were a lot of issues around planning, whether it related to housing or commercial planning. People were bringing up all sorts of planning issues. The citizens are telling me that they feel pretty powerless to challenge a lot of these decisions that impact their local areas and their communities. They perceive the system as being rigged against them with government agencies that are difficult to navigate and often dismissive. I have dealt with agencies and sometimes you do feel like you are up against a brick wall. It is pretty hard. Many people believe that the state prioritises expediency and that their individual rights are being bulldozed and projects are being pushed through without fair consideration or compensation. I have seen statistics lately that politicians are amongst the top five untrusted people around the globe. We need to get back a bit of trust from the public. When I am out on the road, it feels like that is what people are saying to me. They say the same about journalists and bankers, but we need to build on that.

A committee like this could identify any issues, but hopefully there will be no issues. Hon Dr Katrina Stratton talked about the great things that the government is doing, and it is doing some good things, but hopefully this committee can thrash out a few more things it can do better. We know that development is vital, but it must not come at the expense of fairness. We need a system that balances state progress with the rights of individuals, ensuring that those who sacrifice personal property for the greater good are treated justly and compensated fairly. This select committee can shine a light on how the state government handles matters affecting property rights, exposing any imbalances and recommending solutions. The job of this committee will be to look at all the issues and to report back on the good and bad and find out what we can do better. That is what the committee's job and our job should be. This committee is our chance to understand how state decisions impact everyday Western Australians, particularly when those decisions disrupt lives, livelihoods and communities. I go back to the Burswood racetrack. I have had plenty of emails and I have spoken to people about this. This track will affect not just the people living around that area; it will have a larger impact on the whole of society. For the record, I am not in favour of it. I do not think it is a great idea to have a racetrack in our city.

By investigating all these issues, we can rebuild public confidence by upholding our democratic principles and ensuring that progress does not come at the cost of fairness. I really am happy that the honourable member has moved a motion to send this matter to a committee and One Nation and I will be supporting it. Thank you.

Hon Nick Goiran (Leader of the Opposition) (2:34 pm): I rise to support the motion, as amended, that was moved by Hon Neil Thomson to see the establishment of this select committee. As the honourable member has already indicated, which will have surprised nobody, the opposition will be supporting the motion as amended. It was interesting during the course of this debate that the government has had one spokesperson contribute to the debate. It was interesting that during the course of proceedings this afternoon when an amendment was moved by Hon Dr Brad Pettitt, the government simply audibly indicated that it opposed the amendment without providing any explanation. To this point of the debate, we still do not know why it is that the government is opposed to the amendments that have been moved by Hon Dr Brad Pettitt and accepted by the mover of the motion, including I note, amongst other things, that there might be some consideration of the Westport project. We have had no explanation as to why the government opposes that. The government was very pleased with itself and its litany of achievements, which seemed to be the tenor of the response provided by the government's spokesperson this afternoon. I might add that not very many achievements were actually recorded. It was more of a statement of commitments that the government intends to do and its aspirations. One would have thought that if it is very pleased with itself, it would have nothing to fear whatsoever from this select committee. In fact, it would embrace it. Its members would say that this is fantastic because it will give the government an opportunity for the next 12 months when it is holding the hearings before this select committee to demonstrate what a fantastic performance it has achieved. One would have thought that that would be the approach but, no, all we heard were some audible noes. Government members do not want us to consider the Westport project. It seems that they shortly will oppose the very existence of this select committee.

For those of us have been here for a little while, this comes as absolutely no surprise whatsoever because we have seen year in, year out a total aversion to the principle of accountability. Let us recall that this was, of course, the same administration that promised it would adhere to a gold standard of transparency and consistently, month after month, has delivered the exact opposite. We see that every day in this place just in the demonstration of the answers to questions in Parliament. There was an absurd example yesterday when one of our members simply asked whether the Minister for Health is receiving reports in respect of code yellow, yet the parliamentary secretary indicated that more time was needed to answer that question. Either the minister is receiving those reports or she is not. It does not require anymore time, but that is the standard we are used to seeing in this Parliament year after year. For those of us who have been here for a while, it comes as no surprise that the government would have this allergic reaction to the idea that we might have a parliamentary committee established to look into Western Australian land development and planning.

It is very interesting that one of the points that the parliamentary secretary representing the government on this matter went out of her way to draw to our attention was some form of confusion as to why the mover of the motion has included land transactions. It would of course be baffling to Hon Neil Thomson why any member of this place would be confused about why land transactions might be at the heart of the motion that is being considered here and the work of the select committee. I remind members opposite of a thing called the Queens Garden car park. I do not know whether members opposite can recall that episode, if we can call it that most charitably. That is when this government in the last term decided to take land by compulsion from the City of Perth, transact that land to itself and say to the City of Perth: "We will by force of law exempt ourselves from the Land Administration Act."

Normally, if the government of the day wants to take someone's land, it can do that; there are provisions for the taking of land by force—to acquire somebody's land without their consent. It is possible under the law of Western Australia, under the Land Administration Act. But the trade-off in our society, which presumably respects the rule of law, is that if the government of the day knocks on someone's door and says, "We want to take your land; we want to transact it and give it to ourselves", it has to provide some compensation to that person. That is fair enough, otherwise we may as well be living in mediaeval times if we are going to have a situation in which the government of the day can simply acquire somebody's land and say that they will get absolutely nothing for it. So we have a rule of law in a statute of Western Australia that says if a government is going to do that, it must provide some compensation. If there is a dispute, that dispute can be determined by an independent arbiter in the form of either the State Administrative Tribunal or the Supreme Court of Western Australia. That is how the ordinary rule of law applies with respect to these land transactions when land is compulsorily acquired from somebody in Western Australia. But that does not occur under this administration. Last year this administration said, "We don't care about the rule of law in Western Australia. We're beyond that. We've got total control of both houses of Parliament, so we will pass a special law to exempt ourselves from that process. We will transact that land. We will take it for ourselves. We will take the Queens Gardens car park for our own purposes and we won't give you anything for it." What a disgrace! Yet today the government had the temerity, through its sole spokesperson, to come here and say to Hon Neil Thomson that it is surprised and confused and cannot understand why land transactions would be included in this motion. Of course they are going to be included. I might say it is the most important part of the whole motion. Members should not be confused. If they were confused beforehand, I hope that confusion has now evaporated.

I also find it odd that the government seems to recoil from the idea that this motion refers to DevelopmentWA. The government's response this afternoon was to refer to the work of the Auditor General. It is good practice to read documents and reports before referring to them in this place. If members do not, they get caught out. The report by the Office of the Auditor General is recent; it is dated 28 May 2025. It is not so recent that there has not been time for honourable members opposite to read it because we have just come back this week after a lengthy six-week winter recess. There has been ample time for members who are interested in this particular matter to read the report of the Office of the Auditor General. I challenge anyone to read this report and come to the conclusion that it is somehow an endorsement of the government and the approach it has taken. The report is not particularly long, some 20-odd pages. Page after page in this report, the Auditor General raised concerns about what happened in relation to DevelopmentWA. I have a few moments, so I will take the opportunity to quote some sections of the report. On page 5, the Auditor General said:

In many ways this was a frustrating audit over an extended period for my Office and for DevelopmentWA, and I acknowledge the significant changes in senior positions at the entity towards the end of the period we examined.

Given the role of DevelopmentWA, we expected to find a culture that clearly reflected an understanding of the risks and responsibilities of managing high value public land assets in a commercial and competitive environment. A culture where due process was rigorously and consistently followed and due scepticism applied.

Unfortunately, we found a historical lack of consistency and due diligence in land pricing and sales, as well as serious gaps in process and documentation. As a result, DevelopmentWA is unable to demonstrate—

I pause there to draw to the attention of those members who have had the opportunity to read the report that the Auditor General speaks in the present tense. It continues:

As a result, DevelopmentWA is unable to demonstrate that value for money to the community has been achieved in all public land sales during the review period.

That should concern members. It concerned the Auditor General. No doubt, if there were an opportunity for the parliamentary secretary to respond, I anticipate that she would draw to members' attention that an aspect of this report by the Auditor General says, in essence—I am paraphrasing here—that there was a cultural problem in the past and she is pleased to see that at this stage there appears to have been a change in the culture. To support that, I refer to page 8 of the report, which states:

A much needed cultural shift has commenced …

Of course, this government sees that and says, "Fantastic. Everything's fine here." Well, everything is not fine because what is the story with respect to the value for money of the previous transactions? We have not had a response about that. If there has been the start of a cultural change, that does not mean that there is a change and that these same concerns are no longer found. In particular, I know that a number of members in this place have asked questions on this matter since the revelation of this report—in particular, questions around whether there has been any fraud in some of the transactions that have taken place. My recollection and probably the recollection of the likes of Hon Neil Thomson, who follows this particular issue extremely closely—he will be able to correct me if I am wrong—is that the response that has consistently been provided to members of the government has not been direct answers to the questions that are being asked. Instead, this smokescreen has been provided by the government that essentially says that no fraud was found in the Auditor General's report. It likes to say that. Therefore, once again, it has a clean bill of health. Fantastic. There is nothing to see here. Why would the Parliament want its resources directed to this when the Auditor General says there is nothing to see here, there has been no fraud and the culture has changed? Again, it is important to read. I refer to page 18. The Auditor General said:

As this audit was limited to land transactions, we did not conduct other procurement fraud analysis as is conducted in other targeted forensic audits.

The following areas were excluded from the audit scope:

• development projects and public-private partnership

• market-led proposal type transactions

• government-to-government transfers.

We should keep in mind that this is the context in which the Auditor General said it has been a very frustrating process for both her and DevelopmentWA because time after time it is not able to provide the information required. When the government likes to say that no fraud was detected, if all the information is not provided to the investigator, which is the Auditor General, of course it will not be able to find evidence of any fraud. It is a bit like a person who might go and shred evidence before an investigator is able to complete their task.

If that happens, of course, they will not be able to find anything. I hasten to add that it is not my suggestion in the slightest that that is what has occurred in this particular instance; it is given by way of illustration and an analogy. But the point here is that it is very silly for the government to come along and just simply say, "Well, look, there was no findings of fraud." Read the report and government members will understand why there are concerns by members of the opposition, the crossbench and members of the public. I suggest to members that it is entirely appropriate that the motion before us be supported without equivocation. Yet, as I indicated, we are not yet clear as to why the government has this issue with respect of the amendments, particularly those moved by the Hon Dr Brad Pettitt.

It would be remiss of me not to make a few remarks in respect of one other element of this particular motion that is before the house. Prior to the last election, if I remember correctly in around 2021—it must have been in that year, I think—there was a fundamental change to the way our electoral laws work. Despite the fact that the Premier at the time, Mr McGowan, had repeatedly said that there would not be any changes the electoral laws, no sooner did they win the election and change the electoral laws. The relevance of that to this particular debate is that those laws were then ran through the two houses of Parliament because, of course, the government had total control of both houses and did exactly the opposite of what the Premier had said was going to happen. Suddenly, this thing had come on the agenda. It was a great matter of urgency and import and as result of that, there are 37 of us here, not 36 as was the case previously, and everybody in this place now represents the whole of Western Australia. Prior to that, members were elected in respect to their regions.

At that time, I represented the South Metropolitan Region. As an aside, that is some type of regional representation that the Liberal Party continues to maintain. One of the issues that has arisen, particularly since the election in the South Metropolitan Region, is this highly controversial Burswood motorsport facility development. I think it is fair to say and to summarise this debacle that is the obsession of the Treasurer of Western Australia with regard to

the building of a racetrack near Burswood like this: the Town of Victoria Park does not want it. The locals in the community do not want it. As I understand it, the City of Wanneroo is enthusiastic to do something in this particular space, yet a very arrogant government, and in this particular instance a very arrogant minister, is saying, "Too bad, we're going to do what we want to do anyway."

Now, in those circumstances, and some might quibble with my description of this event, that is a fair characterisation of what is going on here. The Town of Victoria Park has said "We don't want it." The locals have said, "We don't want it." The City of Wanneroo has said, 'We are interested in doing something." If the minister of the day Rita Saffioti says, "Too bad, we're going to go and do this anyway", might that be something that the select committee should look into? Possibly.

It sounds like something that maybe the Parliament of Western Australia, the house of review and the people who are representing the whole of Western Australia—whether it is Victoria Park, Burswood, Wanneroo or anywhere else—might want to spend a few moments having a look at. When we have a very powerful, very arrogant government in its third term saying, "Too bad, we're going to do whatever we want anyway", it sounds like an entirely appropriate inclusion, Hon Neil Thomson. I commend him for including it and I commend members who are enthusiastic in supporting it. At the end of the day, part of the role of the house of review is to hold the government to account in respect of a range of decisions it makes. Our role is not limited simply to the scrutiny of legislation. We have more than just that role to fulfil, in fact, we have a duty to do it. It is for those reasons that I urge members to strongly support the motion moved by the Hon Neil Thomson.

Amendment to motion, as amended

Hon Amanda Dorn (2:54 pm): I move:

In paragraph (5), to delete the word "five" and insert "six".

Hon Neil Thomson (2:57 pm): I will just rise very briefly because I am the original mover of this motion. The opposition will support the amendment. I think in the spirit of what was said by Hon Anthony Spagnolo, we have a chamber in this place that is representative of a wide range of interests. I say this in the most positive way: we have an enthusiastic group of people who want more transparency. I know that I had a brief discussion with the honourable member just moments ago behind the Chair. I think that commitment to this process is honourable and something we should support.

I also just want to make comment because in the lead up to this motion, obviously, there were some discussions behind the Chair with other members of the crossbench who have already expressed their support for this original motion and the various amendments. I will just point out that standing order 164, "Participating Members", states:

(1) Any Member of the Council may participate in the taking of oral evidence by a Committee, and by leave of a Committee its deliberations and proceedings but may not vote.

There is also that opportunity. I think that is fair in the discussions to inform other crossbench members who obviously all express their enthusiastic support for more transparency. In that respect, certainly, the opposition is not opposed to this amendment and, in fact, will be supporting it.

Amendment put and passed.

Amendment to motion, as amended

Hon Neil Thomson (3:01 pm): I move:

(1) That the following members be appointed as members to the Select Committee into Land Development and Planning in Western Australia: Hon Neil Thomson, Hon Dr Brad Pettitt, Hon Anthony Spagnolo, Hon Dan Caddy, Hon Lauren Cayoun and Hon Amanda Dorn.

(2) That the Chair is to be Hon Neil Thomson.

(3) That the Deputy Chair is to be Hon Dr Brad Pettitt.

Amendment put and passed.

Motion, as amended

Question put and passed.