Motion
Pursuant to standing order 67(3), the following motion by Hon Martin Pritchard was moved pro forma on 22 August —
That the City of Joondalup Animals Amendment Local Law 2016 published in the Government Gazette on 10 January 2017 and tabled in the Legislative Council on 17 May 2017 under the Local Government Act 1995, be and is hereby disallowed.
[speeches and comments of various members]
HON ALISON XAMON (North Metropolitan) [3.11 pm]: I rise as the Greens member for North Metropolitan Region to indicate that I also support this disallowance motion. The Hillarys horse beach has been established for more than 40 years. When it was established, it was recognised as the best spot for a horse beach in the northern suburbs. That is when the City of Wanneroo also contained the area that is now the City of Joondalup. The nearest existing horse beaches are at Kwinana, which is over 60 kilometres away, and Guilderton in the Shire of Gingin, which is 80 kilometres away. As has been suggested to me in correspondence from the City of Joondalup, an alternative horse beach is in Lancelin, which is 110 kilometres from Hillarys. I have the letter. I am aware that a number of people who utilise this horse beach live around Bullsbrook and that sort of area where there is quite a large number of horses. This is by far the most accessible and convenient horse beach for them to access.
It is important for horses to access horse beaches because they can swim and use the salt water. There are a lot of therapeutic reasons that horses need to access the beaches, but it can also be a very enjoyable experience for horse owners in the same way that those of us who have doggos—the best dog in the world is my dog—enjoy taking them down to the beach. It is important to recognise that beaches are ideally there to cater for a wide variety of pet owners. I think that the community has been quite clear in its desire to retain this horse beach. I note that the petition to the City of Joondalup that was submitted on 16 August last year had 1 167 signatures. In response to the advertisement that was placed on 23 August 2016, 311 submissions to keep the horse beach were made to the City of Joondalup as opposed to six submissions supporting the closure of the horse beach. That demonstrates that there is a concerted community concern about the closure of the horse beach. Even the original petition to the City of Joondalup, which requested the extension of the dog beach, made no reference to removing the horse beach. Those people who were pushing for that did not necessarily want to see a closure of the horse beach.
The north-west region of Perth covers both the City of Joondalup and the City of Wanneroo and it has experienced major expansion over the past 30 years, with the City of Wanneroo now being one of the fastest growing local government areas in the country. The Australian Bureau of Statistics figures show that over half a million people lived in the north-west region of Perth in 2016 and that over the 10 years from 2006, the population has doubled. That is a lot of extra people accessing the same number of beaches, including the same number of dog and horse beaches. A coastal management plan to make the best use of those beaches with the increasing number of people is absolutely necessary. However, I argue that the outcome that led to the closure of the horse beach could not necessarily have been foreseen in the advice and the consultation that went into the development of the plan.
The recommendations from the 2007 briefing to the council were to extend the dog beach south and to reduce the horse hours on the beach. The suggestion was that the horses would be off the beach by 9.00 am and that the City of Joondalup would negotiate with the City of Wanneroo about opening a new horse beach further north. The City of Joondalup identified potential beaches at Yanchep, which is 30 kilometres north of Hillarys, or Two Rocks, which is 40 kilometres north. But even the additional option of opening more dog beaches and reducing the pressure that way did not make it into the briefing recommendations or the resulting coastal plan.
In 2002, the City of Wanneroo completed its “Coastal Management Plan: Part 1”, which found that the city’s beaches were largely unsuitable for a horse beach due to the rocky nature of the intertidal zone. In April 2014, the City of Wanneroo engaged consultants to assess the suitability of establishing a horse beach, a tidal pool and an artificial surf reef along the city’s coastline as part of the “Coastal Management Plan: Part 2”. Preparation of the “Coastal Management Plan: Part 2” is now on hold, as the city is working to meet the requirements of the “State Planning Policy No. 2.6: State Coastal Planning Policy”.
The City of Wanneroo may or may not want to establish a horse beach in the future, but it has to be acknowledged that it is starting with a coastline that offers very few, if any, suitable sites. Not just any beach can become a horse beach. Again, the best spot the city had to offer for a horse beach was, until very recently, a horse beach. Instead, the City of Joondalup acknowledged at its meeting on 17 May last year that the City of Wanneroo was not in a position to replace the horse beach, but it voted to close it anyway. I believe that that was against the wishes of the community—despite the close vote, which was just alluded to in this chamber—and against commonsense.
If another site for a horse beach can be found, that would be great. That would be fantastic. It would perhaps be even more useful to find more sites for dog beaches. The City of Joondalup, as we know, is already woefully short on dog beach space in comparison with other local government areas. Prior to its expansion north, the city had only 650 metres of dog beaches and that is for an estimated 25 000 dogs in the City of Joondalup alone. I do not think it is fair or reasonable for the City of Joondalup to close a facility and expect another council—in this case the City of Wanneroo—to pick up the slack, especially after its own feasibility studies acknowledge that the City of Wanneroo would find it difficult to establish a horse beach and it would be unlikely to be progressed.
The main issue identified in the City of Joondalup minutes was around parking for the dog beach. The minutes did not indicate that there were necessarily problems with horses using the beach or conflict between users, although I acknowledge that that has happened in the past on occasion. However, that was not part of the city’s deliberations. Removing horses entirely from the beach has not resolved the parking or congestion issues for dog owners, because they had access to both parking and the horse part of the beach prior to the horses being banned. The decision is not going to solve the identified problem and I maintain my belief that this decision has been made contrary to the vast majority of the community’s wishes. We want to be able to support people who enjoy going to the beach with their dogs and horses. Basically, the City of Joondalup will need to do a bit more work on this. Preferably, it will need to do some genuine consultation with the City of Wanneroo and not simply assume that the City of Wanneroo will step in and pick up the slack. As such, hopefully, a suitable way forward will be found to meet everyone’s needs. I hope that the new council will rise to that challenge. Until such time, I support the motion and note that the City of Joondalup Animals Amendment Local Law 2016 should be disallowed.
[speeches and comments of various members]
HON MARTIN PRITCHARD (North Metropolitan) [3.27 pm] — in reply: I thank everybody for their contributions and their expressions of support for the disallowance of the City of Joondalup Animals Amendment Local Law 2016.
Question put and passed.