Motion
Resumed from 1 November on the following motion moved by Hon Alanna Clohesy (Parliamentary Secretary) —
That this house congratulates the McGowan government on its Metronet policy and notes the benefits Western Australia will derive, including the jobs to be created, from this transport and planning initiative.
[speeches and comments of various members]
HON ALISON XAMON (North Metropolitan) [2.26 pm]: I rise to add to the comments that have been made by my colleague Hon Tim Clifford, and to make some additional observations. I note from the outset that the motion uses the word “congratulates” and goes on to refer to the McGowan government’s Metronet policy. I suspect that is a bit of a poke in the eye for members opposite. If we are to start congratulating a party for its policies, I would like to point out that the Greens have a range of amazing policies, and the house can feel free to congratulate us as well for having those policies.
Hon Darren West: What is your Metronet policy?
Hon ALISON XAMON: I will get to that, member. What we should do is talk about what will be delivered and what will happen. We all go into elections with policies. Some policies are better than others. However, congratulations are probably in order only when a policy has been delivered. Nevertheless, the Greens are very supportive of the Metronet policy, not least because it is very similar to the Greens’ policy “Transit City: A WA2.0 project”, which has been in development since 2007. That policy is not just about heavy rail; it is also about, as has been pointed out by my colleague Hon Tim Clifford, the use of light rail and bus systems. The Greens have always recognised and had as the core of our polices that public transport needs to be integrated with planning for the future of Perth. We have long been advocating for this at both the federal and state level. We recognise that Metronet will fix some of the connectivity issues across Perth. However, that will need to be supported by a fast and effective bus and light rail system, as per the Greens’ Transit City policy.
One of the key things that Metronet can do is support infill and transit-oriented development. Metronet focuses on the suburbs that are currently poorly served by public transport, probably for good reason, because we are talking about areas that have long been neglected around public transport. However, I need to point out that Metronet can be envisaged as also a transformative project that will provide our city with a public transport network that will make it easier to navigate our sprawling suburbs and relieve congestion. Metronet could also—this is what I wish to speak about—provide reasons to build infill development and build up the secondary centres within our centre. The area to the north of Claisebrook train station is a classic example of where we want to make sure that the government gets planning right to maximise the opportunities that would be available for policies such as Metronet. I believe that area would provide an absolutely great opportunity if the planning was done properly. That area could model what an infill development based around public transport could, and I think should, be. A train station is already in the area—Claisebrook train station—and there are two if we also count East Perth train station, which was recently upgraded to facilitate access to Perth Arena. It is at the northern edge of this area. There is already —
Hon Simon O’Brien: Who upgraded that? Was it a Metronet project?
Hon ALISON XAMON: No, I do not believe it was a Metronet project; I believe it was part of the Perth Stadium project. I think it was a really good train station to be upgraded. I was there in the last couple of days; it is looking pretty impressive.
Hon Simon O’Brien: How did you come to be there?
Hon ALISON XAMON: I live around there. A massive drawcard exists in that area, which includes nib Stadium; members may remember it as the old Perth Oval. The area is walking distance to both the WACA and the new Perth Stadium. Even better, a local community is supporting the development of mixed-use residential, commercial and light industrial development in the area. The local council planning scheme for the area is still waiting for formal sign-off by the Minister for Planning. The plan is for a very vibrant diversity of accommodation and business in a mixed residential–commercial setting. For the purpose of today’s motion, it is important to note that the Claisebrook Collective, which is a collection of all these entities, has worked really hard to demonstrate the economic, social and cultural benefits of ensuring that this area is turned into a genuine transit-oriented development. It also recognises that even if the government allows that area only to increase in density to the equivalent Mt Lawley and Highgate areas, we will already have an incredibly vibrant precinct. However, there is scope to increase the density even further, particularly so because it is near two railway stations.
Currently, there are two reasons the development is not going ahead, despite this enormous groundswell of support from a wide variety of stakeholders, and they are effectively the Hanson and Holcim concrete batching plants. We need to recognise that this is an absolutely prime area for infill to demonstrate the sorts of things that Metronet stations can and will provide if the government also gets right the planning around them. Instead, a number of approved development applications have stalled because they are waiting for the concrete plants to move, which they were meant to have done by 17 October, which has just gone. I have said before that the arguments for the concrete plants to stay in the area are weak. They really need to go; there is no requirement for them to be there. The owners of the plants are refusing to move them, which keeps holding up the process and runs contrary to the town’s planning scheme and the development of an area that could and should demonstrate the value-adding of urban infill.
I really want to say that it is not enough to simply look at developing Metronet—developing heavy rail—in isolation. The government should really make sure that the various planning schemes around these corridors are consistent and maximise the opportunities to create transit-oriented developments, particularly where the communities are demanding and screaming out for them. We do not have to wait for Metronet to start implementing transit-oriented developments and urban infill, although that is something that absolutely needs to be created for the future, because we can start to do it now. We can start doing it in Claisebrook. My very strong message to the government is that if it has a vision for how Metronet could potentially transform the city, it has an opportunity to demonstrate that right now with the full backing of the community, businesses, developers, residents and the local council in the area. It is very rare to get that sort of consensus. We need the government to commit to signing off on the City of Vincent’s town planning scheme, as it is written without any amendment, and to finally move the concrete plants to a more sensible area of the city.
I am glad that Metronet is a policy on this government’s agenda. It is almost as good as the Greens’ “Transit City: A WA2.0 Project”. There is still more to go to ensure a clear vision beyond simply heavy rail and that we will have the collection of light rail and appropriate rapid bus services. Stuff can still be done right now by this government—in fact, it could be done this week, if need be—to make it very clear that this is a holistic vision that the government is prepared to commit to. The government can start by signing off on town planning scheme 2 and allowing the Claisebrook community to be its first flagship opportunity for a transit-oriented development. If government members want to give Metronet the credit, they can knock their socks off. I do not really care as long as we finally get the plan signed off as is.
[speeches and comments of various members]
Debate adjourned, pursuant to standing orders.