Hansard 2011 - Part 1
Extract from Hansard
[LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — Wednesday, 23 February 2011]
p881b-890a
Hon Giz Watson; Hon Robyn McSweeney; Hon Peter Collier; Hon Kate Doust
HON GIZ WATSON (North Metropolitan) [3.10 pm]: I move —
That this house considers as a matter of grave concern the information withheld from this house when considering the removal of The Cliffe from the Register of Heritage Places.
This is a significant matter that relates to a motion that went through this house quite some time ago, in May 2008. That motion passed through this house with unseemly haste and had significant consequences. I want to bring to the attention of the house my concerns about the lack of information that was provided during the debate on that motion. This motion relates to a resolution made by the house on 29 May 2008 to remove The Cliffe from the WA Register of Heritage Places. The subject of the motion, The Cliffe, is a timber-framed weatherboard dwelling located at 25 Bindaring Parade, Peppermint Grove. The Cliffe was constructed in about 1898 by Neil McNeil and was subsequently owned by the Brisbane family. According to information published by the Shire of Peppermint Grove, The Cliffe is one of the most significant places of its period in Western Australia, with exceptional historic, aesthetic, technical and social significance. According to the shire, The Cliffe remains a rarity among mansions, as it was constructed almost entirely from timber in the form of a very large bungalow. Interestingly, the associated buildings around the property, including the stables and other structures, are also considered to be part of that heritage site. The Cliffe demonstrates the skilled use of several architectural lexicons of the day and still shows a high level of authenticity. The Cliffe was constructed to highlight what could be done with WA hardwoods, particularly jarrah.
Hon Alison Xamon: It came from Jarrahdale.
Hon GIZ WATSON: The honourable member for the East Metropolitan Region tells me that the timber came from Jarrahdale. It is very unlikely that a building like that would be constructed again, given the depletion of our hardwood resources.
Hon Robyn McSweeney: Given that we’re not allowed to cut down a tree.
Hon GIZ WATSON: As a former builder and carpenter, I know how hard it was to get good Western Australian hardwood, even when I was in the industry, because we had cut down and used the best quality hardwood. Jarrah gets harder and harder. Even if it is cut down, it is not good quality timber because it is young timber that has a lot of defects in it. We have used up our good quality Western Australian timber, some of which resides in beautiful places such as this chamber. It can be argued that that is a very good use for it. Hardwood has its place if it is used for high-quality furniture or fittings. I do not have a problem with that; I have a problem with the profligate use of hardwood.
The heritage value of The Cliffe is not in doubt. In 1984 the property was classified by the National Trust and was included on the Register of the National Estate in 1992. It became a permanent entry in the Western Australian Register of Heritage Places twice; once on 27 February 2004, which was challenged in the courts, and again on 19 July 2005, when it remained listed until 28 August 2008. The Cliffe has continuously remained on the Register of the National Estate since 1992. It also continues to be recorded as a category 1 building on the Shire of Peppermint Grove’s Municipal Heritage Inventory, on which it has been listed since the initial inventory was completed in 1999. It also has been continuously classified by the National Trust since 1984.
The original motion to delist the Cliffe was moved by the member for Cottesloe, the now Premier, Hon Colin Barnett, MLA. That motion was carried without opposition in the other place on 13 May 2008 and the resolution was then debated in this place and supported by all members except Hon Shelley Archer, Hon Paul Llewellyn and me. Mr Barnett’s motion states —
That this house resolves, pursuant to section 54(7) of the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990, that the property known as The Cliffe, which was permanently entered into the Register of Heritage Places on 19 July 2005, notice of which appears in the Government Gazette of 29 July 2005 at page 3365, should be removed from the Register of Heritage Places.
It was a very simple motion. The motion was unprecedented and remains unique in the history of the Western Australian Parliament. No attempt to remove a place from the heritage list, successful or otherwise, had ever been made. Following the passage of that motion in the Legislative Assembly, the Legislative Council debated the motion on 29 May. The members who contributed to that debate were Hon Peter Collier, Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich, Hon Norman Moore and me. During that debate I requested that the advice of the Heritage Council of Western Australia on this matter be tabled. This advice was not made public, thus depriving not only me, but also all other members and, of course, the public of the independent, expert advice of the body entrusted with the protection of Western Australia’s heritage properties. Clearly that is critical advice on which members would have made an informed decision. In fact, if this had been a trial, it would have been inconceivable that a judgement could have been made without considering this expert evidence. Although the message from the Assembly requesting that the Council agree to the removal of The Cliffe from the heritage listing was received by the Council on 14 May 2008, only 24 hours’ notice was given of the upcoming debate, which was introduced during private members’ business. Not only was information withheld, but also members had only a very limited time to inform themselves of the debate and to undertake consultation. I was given less than 24 hours’ notice to come up to speed with the issue and to prepare to debate the motion.
The Heritage Council of WA’s advice, which was finally tabled after the rescission of the motion in December 2008, reiterated the value of the building to the state and clearly opposed the delisting. I put it to the Council that the withholding of this critical information has misled the house. I will go into that in more detail. During the debate in 2008, Hon Peter Collier gave an overview of the historical value of The Cliffe. It was reported in the debate that the current owner, Mr Mark Creasy, spent more than $225 000 in legal costs and expert fees to fight the listing over many years, including hearings before the Supreme Court and the State Administrative Tribunal. The then heritage minister, Michelle Roberts, MLA, informed Parliament that the Heritage Council had refused to commence negotiations with the owner on a prospective heritage agreement and was unwilling to entertain the relocation of the heritage building. Hon Peter Collier, who moved the motion in the Legislative Council on behalf of the member for Cottesloe, misrepresented the heritage value of The Cliffe when he described the building as “a rambling, dilapidated building with no prospect of recovery.” In his speech to support the motion to delist The Cliffe, Hon Peter Collier said —
During the Supreme Court proceedings, various experts’ reports had been obtained.
None of those experts’ reports was tabled in either chamber of Parliament. I understand that none of the experts’ reports mentioned by Hon Peter Collier has ever been made public. Information was withheld at that level. Surprisingly, although the minister’s office told me that I would not be able to see the Heritage Council’s advice, Hon Peter Collier, then a member of the opposition, appears to have seen and read the Heritage Council’s advice to the minister. Hon Peter Collier later confirmed that fact in a letter to Mr Brian Waldron, who has been a longstanding advocate for the preservation of The Cliffe. It is unclear to me why Hon Peter Collier was able to see this advice but the information was withheld from me. Surely every member of the Legislative Council should have equal access to documents that are relevant to a motion or vote. Not only was the house misled through the property being described as rambling and dilapidated with no prospect of recovery, but also a very selective range of material was provided to certain members. In my view, that is contrary to the way that Parliament should operate.
Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich spoke in this chamber, on behalf of the then Minister for Heritage, Hon Michelle Roberts, in support of the removal of this building from the heritage list. She referred to the notice published in the Government Gazette of 17 September 2007, which states —
Given: that the Hon. Member for Cottesloe, the Hon. Colin Barnett has raised with me in the Legislative Assembly the protracted dispute with respect to this property;
that this property is dilapidated beyond reasonable repair, compromising its heritage value; and
that there is no perceived public utility in maintaining the heritage listing;
I propose to remove this property from the State Register of Heritage Places.
The Heritage Council called for submissions on this proposal to be made by 19 October 2007. During the debate n the house on 25 May 2008, the minister did not provide information on the outcome of this public consultation. Why did neither the Minister for Heritage nor Hon Peter Collier advise the Legislative Council that the Heritage Council had advised the Minister for Heritage to keep The Cliffe on the state Register of Heritage Places? I think it is a fair assessment that most of the speeches on this matter, whether in the other place or in this place, focused on Mr Creasy’s grievance and spent little time on the heritage issues; and none provided any expert advice on the matter. It seems to me, from the parliamentary debates on this motion, that both the then opposition and the government of the day were keen to satisfy the grievance raised by Hon Colin Barnett and had very little concern about the heritage significance of The Cliffe.
I wanted to see this crucial advice that had been provided by the Heritage Council of Western Australia. The Heritage Council is an independent organisation. The Heritage Council was set up under the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 as the state’s peak advisory body on heritage matters. The purpose of the agency is to provide for, and encourage, the conservation of places with cultural heritage significance to Western Australia. The three main functions of the Heritage Council are to establish and maintain the state Register of Heritage Places; to ensure that any development of heritage places is in harmony with cultural values; and to promote awareness and knowledge of our cultural heritage.
The reasons that we, the Greens, opposed the 2008 removal of The Cliffe from the heritage register were the fact that the property had a significant heritage value, and it still does, because the property still exists, fortunately; the fact that this was the first time the Parliament was considering delisting a permanently listed property; the short notice of the motion, which prevented consultation with heritage stakeholders; and the then Minister for Heritage’s unwillingness to provide the advice from the Heritage Council.
On 27 November 2008, after the change of government, I again requested that the advice of the Heritage Council on The Cliffe be tabled in the Legislative Council. On 2 December 2008, in answer to question without notice 96 of 25 November 2008, Hon Peter Collier, who was by then Minister Collier, tabled that advice; and I thank him for that. These documents reveal that the Heritage Council of Western Australia strongly opposed the delisting of this heritage-registered building. I will now refer to some of that advice that was tabled with the answer to question without notice 96.
The first document is a document that was prepared by the Heritage Council of WA. The document is dated 20 November 2007, and it is addressed to the then Minister for Heritage, Hon Michelle Roberts. The document is very interesting. It states, under the heading “The Significance of the Place” —
The Cliffe is a rare example of the use of weatherboard in a substantial ‘gentleman’s’ residence in Perth which has, intact, the subsidiary buildings of coachhouse, stables, summerhouse, servants cottages, and part of the original gardens. The place has historical associations with the prominent McNeil and Brisbane families (owners) and with J. Talbot Hobbs (architect), and is a representative example of a turn of the century gentleman’s residence, with its quality period detailing intact.
It is one of the first houses built in Peppermint Grove, and has a close association with the subdivision and development of the suburb. …
This advice to the minister has various subheadings. Under the heading “Public Submissions”, it says, in point 11 —
The Heritage Council considered the argument relating to condition and subdivision and concluded that the current condition does not alter the cultural significance of the place. …
That is contrary to what was said in the other place, and repeated in this place, about the building being dilapidated and beyond repair, which was the narrative that was being put about.
The advice from the Heritage Council also states, under the heading “Condition Reports”, in point 15 —
The Council considered the following four confidential condition reports on The Cliffe compiled in response to the pending Supreme Court case on the 2004 interim registration …:
i) 2007 Report by Ian Hocking (for the Heritage Council)
ii) 2007 Report by Martin Colgan (for the Heritage Council)
iii) 2006 Report by Ronald Bodycoat (for Sharon Creasy)
iv) 2006 Report by Philip Faigen (for Sharon Creasy)
It states in point 17 —
… the Council concluded that the current condition has not altered the cultural significance of the place.
The advice from the Heritage Council further states, under the subheading “Summary” —
There have been several attempts to engage with the owners over the last 12 years with little effect. The Council has endeavoured to negotiate an outcome that conserves the place in-situ whilst enabling further development of the land via subdivision. There would appear to have been little or no maintenance carried out on the structures over this time relating in the current level of deterioration. Notwithstanding the current condition of the place there have been numerous examples —
This is the salient point —
where properties have been restored by a sympathetic owner that are in far worse condition.
I assume that is the property, not the owner. It continues —
The Council is concerned that removing the place from the Register on the grounds of deterioration caused by neglect could result in a number of other requests for removal on the same grounds, resulting in a loss of significant places. The fact that the place is not accessible to the public is an argument that applies to numerous places on the state register. If this principle is adopted as a reason for not registering a place then some owners may request removal on the same grounds resulting in an inability to both recognise and protect places of state significance in the future.
The Heritage Council’s formal recommendation to the minister was that the Heritage Council resolved to recommend that the Minister for Heritage —
1. maintains the entry of The Cliffe which is the parcel of land comprising …
2. urge the owner to discuss subdivision and/or development options with the Heritage Council.
In my view, if that information had been available to the Parliament in 2008 when we debated the delisting of The Cliffe, at very short notice, and within an extremely limited time frame, at least members would have been aware that the proposition that this was a dilapidated property and that it was beyond being preserved and had lost value was completely refuted by the Heritage Council’s advice to the minister. In my view, the then Minister for Heritage would have been running very close to lying to the Parliament by withholding information about this property that was quite contrary to what she had said in the other place. That misinformation, that narrative—that lie, perhaps—was then perpetrated through all the other members who spoke on the motion, other than the Greens. It seemed to me that members just accepted somehow that the advice from the minister was accurate, even though they had not obtained advice from the one body that had the information, the Heritage Council of Western Australia. We could at the very least say it was a very lackadaisical way of dealing with this matter. But I think there is a bit more behind it than just being lackadaisical.
To me this is another example of how flippantly we treat the protection of heritage in Western Australia. We have a very poor record of protecting our heritage buildings, our cultural heritage and our Aboriginal heritage. We have only recently had a conversation in this place about protecting the cultural values of the Aboriginal rock art of the Burrup. The Greens have some very clear recommendations about how the Heritage of Western Australia Act should be amended to deal with a number of the issues which have been raised in relation to The Cliffe and which unfortunately are also associated with some other buildings in this state.
Following the passage of that motion and my frustration at the lack of advice before Parliament, I moved a rescission motion; that was ruled out of order, which is why we are debating the motion before us today. In August 2008, following the passing of the resolution in May 2008, The Cliffe was delisted, although it is important to note that the owners have not demolished the building despite being in possession of a current demolition order. I acknowledge and thank them for their continued attempts to find a resolution for that building, particularly for their consultation with the Shire of Peppermint Grove. I acknowledge that ongoing discussion, and I think it is an indication that the owners do indeed recognise the heritage value of and public interest in that building.
The delisting of The Cliffe had many local and Australia-wide heritage supporters up in arms, and members are aware that this has been a long-running and hotly debated issue. This is the first time since the establishment of the act that, under very dubious circumstances, a heritage property has been delisted. Questions have been asked about why the minister did not use any of the measures contained in the Heritage of Western Australia Act to prevent the building from deteriorating in the first place. Petitions were signed over the internet, and people lobbied federal, state and local politicians to save The Cliffe. Largely due to these ongoing efforts and the apparent willingness of Mr Creasy to come to some compromise, The Cliffe has not yet been demolished. Several suggestions to save the property remain under discussion, thanks particularly to the Shire of Peppermint Grove; however, the owner holds a demolition permit that hangs over the property like a sword of Damocles.
I wish to make further points about the broader issue of how the heritage act can be amended to make sure that nothing like this happens again, because I think that is what ultimately should be of interest to the Parliament.
The decision this house made on 29 May set a very dangerous precedent for delisting property without full advice being available to Parliament. Also, prior to that decision, the property had been allowed to deteriorate because the minister did not take suitable prevention measures. The heritage act contains provisions for penalties and sanctions that can be imposed on people or organisations that fail to meet their obligations under this legislation. Section 73 allows the state to acquire heritage assets that have been demolished by neglect. It would be reasonable to expect that the delisting from the heritage list should, firstly, have been contemplated through a grievance motion, and that all care should have been taken to explore all other available options through the heritage act before proceeding with a motion to remove the place from the heritage list. The re-occurrence of demolition by neglect of a property will only be prevented by amendments to the Heritage Act of Western Australia to address at least three issues: firstly, to allow orders to be made for the maintenance of heritage places to prevent demolition by neglect; secondly, a requirement for the publication of the advice of the Heritage Council prior to Parliament giving consideration to any application to remove a place from the Register of Heritage Places; and, thirdly, an amendment to increase the penalties for breaches of the act. I note that we are about to debate in this place the last of those three matters on dealing with an amendment to the heritage act that will increase the penalties, which is welcomed. It is a shame that this opportunity has not been taken to consider the other well-known flaws in the act.
A possible fourth amendment that I think should be considered is that the Heritage Council should be empowered to report directly to Parliament if requested and if it chooses to do so, so that if we had another motion to delist property, the Heritage Council would have the discretion to report directly to Parliament. That is not a novel concept; other authorities, commissions and councils have the capacity to report directly to the house.
Finally, how can we claim that the Heritage Council is independent if the minister can withhold its advice? We must ensure that independent information is available to decision makers. This is very much an issue about accountability of government.
The other matter, which I perhaps alluded to when I said that this may have happened not just because of shoddy inattention to the passage of a motion, is a matter we discovered after having put a lot of time and energy into investigating the circumstances of The Cliffe. It has not gone unnoticed to the Greens (WA) that Mr Mark Creasy, who is a wealthy mining entrepreneur and has been the co-owner of the building with his wife since 1995—since 2008 he has been the sole owner—was, and I am not sure whether he is still, a generous donor to both the Liberal and Labor Parties in the years leading up to the decision to delist.
Hon Kate Doust: That’s not right; that’s not correct.
Hon GIZ WATSON: I can provide Hon Kate Doust with the documentation.
Hon Kate Doust: I look forward to seeing that.
Hon GIZ WATSON: Mark Creasy is fifteenth in the list of the top 20 non-corporate donors, having donated a total of $116 300 to both parties. According to this data, $85 300 was donated to the Liberal Party, and the rest to the Labor Party. This information is available on the website of Western Australian former Senator Andrew Murray, in an article entitled “Political Donations WA”, although it is worth noting that Mr Creasy’s name is spelt with an extra “e”. I believe that the information is unlikely to have been updated in the past six years, because, obviously, Senator Murray is no longer an active senator—he has retired—but I have no reason to believe that that information is inaccurate. Mark Creasy continued to donate after the decision was made, but then made donations only to the Liberal Party, according to the WA Electoral Commission’s political finance report of 2008-09. The report does not record any donations made to the Labor Party by him for that particular year.
Hon Kate Doust: That’s right.
Hon GIZ WATSON: I think it is important that these matters be put on the public record. Perhaps we will never know whether political donations played any role in this decision; certainly it has been raised with me by members of the public; certainly the question of political donations and their impact on decisions cannot be ignored. I am seriously concerned that what appeared to be a very hasty and shoddy debate that was based on misinformation—if not deliberately based on misinformation—led to a decision that, in the view of the Greens, was fundamentally wrong. A significant heritage building was removed from the register, and it should never have been, because the Heritage Council basically recommended to the minister that it should continue to remain listed on the register and that it should be covered by the little protection that that registry affords.
What are we really doing about protecting significant heritage buildings in Western Australia if we can have such a shoddy debate in this place during which members repeat information that is fundamentally wrong and that they, perhaps, have not taken the time to reassure themselves was accurate? One conclusion that I have come to is that they were misled in the briefings or advice they were given and did not check whether it was right. Hon Peter Collier, I understand, claims to have read the information from the Heritage Council. It seems extraordinary that one could read that information and then argue that the place was in such a state that it was not worth saving. Again, having had some experience of buildings and having done some work on very old buildings—not as much here but more in the United Kingdom—I relied on expert advice on the viability of old buildings and how easily, how expensive or how difficult they would be to restore and maintain their heritage values.
Hon Peter Collier: In response to that, I am very familiar with The Cliffe. I used to pass it every day, and I did personally go and look through The Cliffe. At that stage I was shadow Minister for Heritage and I personally went and looked at it. My conclusions were fundamentally based upon that viewing.
Hon GIZ WATSON: On what the minister saw?
Hon Peter Collier: Yes.
Hon GIZ WATSON: Is the minister a builder?
Hon Peter Collier: I beg your pardon?
Hon GIZ WATSON: I just asked: is the minister perhaps a builder, or even a carpenter?
Hon Peter Collier: No; the rest of my family are.
Hon GIZ WATSON: It is genetically inherited!
Hon Peter Collier: The building was completely dilapidated.
Hon GIZ WATSON: I thank the minister for that interjection. If I were seeking advice on the state of a heritage building, I would ask the Heritage Council, which was privy to four separate reports, two of which were commissioned by the Heritage Council and two of which were commissioned by the owners. All the confidential condition reports concluded that the current condition of the building has not altered the cultural significance of the place. The minister might not have heard the earlier reference to those four reports. However, assessment of a heritage building, I humbly suggest, needs to be done by people who have some expertise—heritage architects et cetera. I have worked on buildings that were easily 150 years old, and they can be restored very well.
Hon Peter Collier: Have you been to look at The Cliffe quite recently?
Hon GIZ WATSON: I have not, because it is a private property and when I have asked, I have been told I cannot go there.
Hon Peter Collier: I am staggered at that. I would not have thought people would’ve minded. But, okay, so you haven’t actually been to look at it, did you say?
Hon GIZ WATSON: No. I rely on the expert reports that have been provided to the Heritage Council. I put very clearly to the minister that if I were to assess the viability and value of a building, I would rather take the view of heritage architects and independent advisers than advice from someone whose area of expertise is not heritage. No disrespect: I am sure the minister could see things by walking through the building, but why do we have bodies such as the Heritage Council? Why does the Heritage Council obtain confidential condition advice if not to inform decisions about how we protect heritage properties in the state?
I want to put very clearly on the record again that I appreciate that when Hon Peter Collier answered those questions, he provided the advice that the previous government had declined to provide. I thank him for providing the Parliament and the public with that transparency, unfortunately, albeit after the decision had been made. I remain deeply concerned that the then heritage minister misrepresented the situation and was wrong in withholding from the Parliament important information on which the Parliament could make a decision.
I realise that when we as members debate matters, we cannot be 100 per cent across every bill and every motion. When a member takes the lead on an issue, they get briefings and information. However, members need to be alert, especially when a matter is brought on in fewer than 24 hours with no chance for members to gain a broader understanding of the issue. They need to be wary of what is going on when a matter like that comes through the Parliament. It is not appropriate for the Parliament to deal in such haste with such an important matter. I still think there are some problematic elements of the motion that removed the listing of The Cliffe. It bodes very badly for the Parliament’s interests and respect for heritage places that members were unable to gain full information and that we were required to debate such an important matter. Delisting a heritage place from the Register of Heritage Places at such short notice sets a precedent. There are members of the community who will continue to fight hard for the preservation of the buildings. I acknowledge and salute them for their ongoing commitment, particularly Mr Brian Waldron, who has maintained an ongoing lobbying effort to have the building preserved, as it appropriately should be, as a heritage building for all Western Australians.
I will continue to argue that the decision to delist was wrong and the decision should be revisited. I encourage the Shire of Peppermint Grove and Mr Creasy to continue to look at ways of resolving the issues of the building and the use of the site. It is quite a large site. I understand that the Shire of Peppermint Grove is not opposed to a certain use of the site—a subdivision or some of the site being used—and that there are ongoing discussions to try to resolve that.
Members may not think that this is a significant matter and that it is just a building in Peppermint Grove. However, those who have seen it and know the buildings well—not just the main house, but also the associated buildings—say it is an exceptional place, and it has an important place in the history of European settlement in Western Australia and should be preserved. In my view, it was removed from the Register of Heritage Places by the vote of both houses of this Parliament based on misleading information, and I think it will go down in history as a bad decision.
I appreciate the opportunity to revisit this issue, because it has not gone away. It will continue to be on the record that this house made a bad decision in ignoring the advice of the Heritage Council and delisting The Cliffe.
HON ROBYN McSWEENEY (South West — Minister for Child Protection) [3.48 pm]: The government will not support this motion. It sounds as though Hon Giz Watson has developed a conspiracy theory when there is obviously none. The picture that Hon Giz Watson paints of The Cliffe is very different from the one painted by the member for Cottesloe and the then Minister for Heritage, Michelle Roberts, MLA. They appear to have very good eyesight, as does Hon Peter Collier —
Hon Giz Watson: They are not heritage architects.
Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: No, but they have actually been on site and seen around the building, whereas Hon Giz Watson has not been on site and seen around the building. Hon Giz Watson: Not for want of trying!
Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: I go back to 30 August 2007 when the member for Cottesloe made a grievance, in which he said —
The Cliffe is a very rambling old timber home. It was originally built in two stages between 1894 and 1898 by an engineer by the name of Neil McNeil. He was a businessman with extensive interests in timber, including the Jarrahdale Timber Company. He built this house out of wood to demonstrate what could be done with wood. It was very much against the wishes of the local community at the time. When the house was originally built, it was quite grand. It had a billiard room, tennis courts, a croquet court, extensive gardens, a summer house, stables and cottages for staff.
The property, however, is now nothing like it would have originally been in the 1890s. As long ago as 1915 the land was subdivided to create 20 lots. When McNeil passed away, the property was bought by prominent industrialist Lance Brisbane. In 1962, the property was further subdivided into another six lots. It was then purchased by Dr Harold McComb, who owned it until 1995, when it was bought by Mrs Sharon Creasy for $2.7 million. It is an extensive area of land in a very valuable location. Mrs Creasy bought the property with the intention of demolishing the house and building a family home on the site. She purchased the site by public auction in March 1995. There was no indication at that stage that this property would be subject to any form of heritage listing. Indeed, it was not even included on the municipal inventory list.
The member for Cottesloe says that the house is not of high heritage value and is in extremely poor condition. The then Minister for Heritage, Hon Michelle Roberts, responded to the grievance and stated, in part —
I visited the property in question and share the views of the member for Cottesloe. I believe that the property is dilapidated beyond reasonable repair and that there is no value in maintaining the heritage listing of this derelict, decaying property.
Those are the views of two members of the other place who have visited the site.
Hon Giz Watson: Were they shown around by the Creasys? Who showed them around?
Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: They have been on site; I do not know who showed them around. A letter I received from Graeme Gammie, Executive Director of the Heritage Council of Western Australia, states in part —
CURRENT SITUATION
Whilst the place has been removed from the State Register, it remains on the Shire of Peppermint Grove’s heritage list, which provides statutory protection under the Town Planning Scheme.
The Shire of Peppermint Grove has approved a licence for the building to be demolished. The demolition licence expired in March 2010, and in approving a 12-month extension in September 2010, the Shire resolved unanimously to pursue an agreement with Mr Creasy not to demolish the building. The demolition licence is not transferrable to another owner.
Without time to verify the details, the following information has been gathered from recent media clippings:
1 October 2010 (West Australian)
The Shire of Peppermint Grove is to seek agreement with Mr Creasy not to demolish the building before any sale, having extended the demolition licence for 12 months, provisional on ownership of the site remaining unchanged. Plans have been shown to the Shire for subdivision of the lot into five new lots of between 1,116sqm and 2,134sqm, with a lot of 1,769sqm remaining with The Cliffe. This would be dependant on the owners purchasing partial lots from neighbouring properties. The owner did not have a time line for the proposal.
9 October 2010 (Subiaco Post) Mr Creasy agreed with the Shire that he will not demolish the place and will pursue subdivision and sale of The Cliffe.
1 January 2010 (Subiaco Post)
The Shire of Peppermint Grove approved the demolition of outbuildings and servants quarters at The Cliffe. A report indicated that the outbuildings and quarters were considered to be of little heritage significance.
Both the member for Cottesloe and the then Minister for Heritage made comprehensive statements to Parliament on their reasons for supporting the removal of The Cliffe from the Register of Heritage Places. That is open and accountable, and I have copies of their statements. The former minister stated that it was a minister’s role to weigh up the advice given by an agency and to make his or her own decision, taking all factors into consideration. This was done in this instance. No additional information was requested, so no information can be considered to have been withheld. In addition to asking for information during the course of parliamentary debate, members can seek further information from the relevant minister. The current Minister for Heritage certainly offers the opportunity for a briefing to any member who would like further information on any particular heritage matter. A heritage bill will be coming through Parliament this week. This government is certainly of the view that we should preserve heritage buildings when they need to be preserved, but according to all the information I have in front of me, this building is a dilapidated building.
HON PETER COLLIER (North Metropolitan — Minister for Energy) [3.54 pm]: I will not take up too much time, but I will make a few comments because I was the one who actually introduced the motion into the Legislative Council. I will say at the outset that my motivation with The Cliffe was that I was, at the time, shadow Minister for Heritage, and I was asked if I could take carriage of the motion in the upper house. I was invited by Mr and Mrs Creasy to look at The Cliffe, and I had a thorough look. I will stand by what I have said in the past, which is that the residence looked, to me, as if it were beyond repair; it really did.
Access to The Cliffe is a little difficult. It can be seen from the street. The view is limited, but it can be seen, and what can be seen from the street actually looks reasonably appealing. However, the property is encased within a raft of other buildings. It is a rather large block, and to actually rebuild in the area would be very difficult. There is no access to The Esplanade on the eastern side of the property, and it is surrounded by properties on the southern side and the western side. When I drove in there, it became very apparent to me right at the outset that the property had been, in years past, a very grand building; there were the remnants of what looked like old stables, but I do not think they were part of the heritage listing. However, when I saw the property from the south and the west, I became convinced that the property was beyond repair. I had a good look, and it simply could not be inhabited. The roofing was basically defunct, the floorboards were beyond repair and, in essence, it was apparent to me that it would be very difficult to do anything with the property without spending literally millions of dollars on it.
I had a long discussion with Mr and Mrs Creasy, and they expressed their frustration at the fact that the property had been heritage-listed. As far as they were concerned, the property was beyond repair. They had made an offer to the Shire of Peppermint Grove to pay to remove the building to Manners Hill Park, next to the tennis club. That offer was rejected. They were very frustrated; that was where they wanted, ideally, to live, but they were being thwarted because the building was heritage listed.
I was aware of the recommendations by the Heritage Council. I was written to by Mr Brian Waldron on 13 February 2009, and again on 29 March 2009. He asked me four questions: whether I was aware of the Heritage Council’s recommendations to Minister Roberts; whether I had read the Heritage Council’s advice to Minister Roberts; whether I had read the Heritage Council’s advice prior to the vote in Parliament on 28 March 2008; and whether, considering the eccentricity of the then minister’s decision, and the clarity of the professional advice, I would support a motion to revisit the decision in Parliament. In response to those questions I replied: yes, I was aware; I had partly read a sufficient amount of the Heritage Council’s advice to Minister Roberts to make a judgement; I would not have changed my vote had I read the Heritage Council’s full advice; and I would not support a motion to revisit the decision. I gave that very honest, transparent response to Mr Waldron, and that is exactly how I still feel; I will pursue that further in a moment.
The now Premier and the member for Midland were faced with an investigation through the CCC of this very issue. It was found that they had, for want of a better term, no case to answer on The Cliffe. I felt that I had been totally and absolutely transparent. There has been a bit of an insinuation today that, because Mr Creasy had made donations to the Liberal Party and the Labor Party, that may have been an influence on decision making. I say to Hon Giz Watson, with hand on heart, quite sincerely, that I have absolutely no idea, in any way, shape or form, about Mr or Mrs Creasy’s voting patterns. I have never had a political discussion with Mr Creasy in my life.
At the time the issue was being investigated by the CCC, I was asked by three or four separate media outlets whether I had coached Mr Creasy. It was a very clear insinuation, once again, that my decision making had been compromised because I had some sort of personal association with Mr Creasy. On each and every occasion I stated the truth yet again that, no, I had never coached Mr Creasy, and I do not have a personal relationship with Mr Creasy. In fact, I can never remember ever having sat down one-on-one with Mr Creasy other than the time I met with him and Mrs Creasy when I went to have a look at The Cliffe. I just want to clarify that point from my perspective. I, as shadow heritage minister, performed my role by visiting The Cliffe. I agreed with the decision that was put to me by the member for Cottesloe. I still feel that The Cliffe is beyond repair. Hon Giz Watson is quite right: I am not a builder, but I saw sufficient evidence in front of me at that residence to suggest it would take an enormous amount of money.
Having said all that, I know for a fact from that discussion with Mr and Mrs Creasy that they were more than willing to assist the shire in any way they could to retain the property, if they possibly could, but that had been met with brick walls. A lot of water has gone under the bridge, particularly in the last six months. As I understand it—this understanding comes entirely from the Post newspaper—there has been quite a bit of movement in terms of preserving The Cliffe. I am not sure that Mr and Mrs Creasy want to live at the address of The Cliffe now. There has
