Hands Off Point Peron Inc. (HOPP) 1 Presentation 8 June 2016 To - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Mangles Bay Marina (MBM) proposal Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) Amendment Proposal 1280/41

Hands Off Point Peron Inc. (HOPP) Presentation 8 June 2016

To WAPC committee comprising Steve Hiller (presiding officer , member of the Statutory Planning Committee), Henry Zelones (member of the WAPC), Barbara Pedersen (independent with coastal management expertise) and Anthony Muscara (from the Dept of Planning) in an advisory capacity

8/06/2016 Presentation of Hands Off Point Peron Inc.

1

Introduction

• HOPP speakers today – Dawn Jecks and Ambrose Cummins
• HOPP’s written submission:
• Volume 1 – 250 pages
• Volume 2 – 189 pages
• Volume 3 – 161 pages
• Consideration of HOPP’s written submission by the panel prior to

today’s hearing?

8/06/2016 Presentation of Hands Off Point Peron Inc.

2

Introduction ctd…

• This presentation is made without prejudice to HOPP’s challenge

to the WAPC’s role in this matter, due to alleged conflict of interest, apprehension of bias and lack of due diligence as detailed in HOPP’s written submission.

• HOPP has called for the abandonment of the MBM project, failing

which the MRS amendment assessment process should be replaced by an independent and impartial evaluation at arm’s length from the government proponent

8/06/2016 Presentation of Hands Off PointPeron Inc.

3

Insufficient presentation time

• Insufficient time has been allowed for HOPP’s oral presentation. We sought 4 hours. We then
• ffered to reduce this to 2.5 hours, being the bare minimum required to address our 3

volume, 600 page submission. This request was rejected by the committee chair, Mr Hiller and we have been officially offered 1 hour, with the possibility of an additional half hour tacked

• n due to a timeslot vacancy.
• The result is that we have been denied a fair and reasonable opportunity to present our

submissions and you have been denied the opportunity to listen and give due and proper consideration to our submissions

• Due to insufficent time being allowed, we have reluctantly decided not to attempt to address

you today about many of substantive reasons why this MRS amendment proposal should be rejected.

8/06/2016 Presentation of Hands Off Point Peron Inc.

4

HOPP’s written submission

• HOPP’s critique of the MRS amendment proposal is set out in detail in our written submission

dated 13 November 2015, comprising 600 pages. HOPP’s analysis is supported by a wide range

• f expert evidence annexed to the submissions, including from, among others:
• Dr Ron Chapman, historian
• Dr Linley Lutton, architect and urban design expert
• Dr Vic Semeniuk, scientist and leading expert in relation to Pt Peron coastal processes
• Dr Leah Burns, tourism expert and environmental anthropologist
• Adjunct Prof George Burns, health and wellbeing expert and clinical psychologist
• Keren Geddes, clinical psychologist
• Dr Mike van Keulen, biologist and coastal expert
• Dr JN Dunlop, scientist

8/06/2016 Presentation of Hands Off Point Peron Inc.

5

HOPP’s written submission ctd…

• The HOPP written submission is also supported by affidavit evidence and various
• ther key documents including the Cape Peron Coastal Park Concept Plan and a

compilation

• f

published letters and newspaper articles demonstrating

• verwhelming public opposition to the MBM proposal
• In the absence of contrary expert evidence, the WAPC must accept and act on

the expert analysis and opinions contained in HOPP’s written submission.

• We call upon the committee and the WAPC to give due and proper consideration

to the HOPP written submission in its entirety, including all annexures.

8/06/2016 Presentation of Hands Off Point Peron Inc.

6

Focus of this oral presentation

• We will spend our limited time today addressing you about some
• f the serious probity and process flaws that have allowed this

proposal to get as far as it has, and which continue to infect the assessment and decision making about the proposed MRS amendment

• The concern is that these failures are of such nature as to amount

to breaches of the WAPC’s statutory and common law duties

8/06/2016 Presentation of Hands Off Point Peron Inc.

7

Why are we here? How did such a proposal get this far?

• The proposed MRS amendment and the MBM development it is designed

to facilitate are both in fundamental breach of the 1964 Point Peron Agreement between the Prime Minister and Premier for the future use of Point Peron, pursuant to which the land was sold cheaply to the State on condition that it remain in pubic hands and used only for recreation and parkland.

• The proposed amendment therefore amounts to a blatant breach of trust

and lack of integrity on the part of the WAPC and the other government agencies and politicians involved.

8/06/2016 Presentation of Hands Off Point Peron Inc.

8

Why are we here? ctd…

• It is a proposal that is bad for the economy, bad for the environment and bad

for the community.

• It is a proposal that is highly unpopular and which faces vehement community
• pposition
• The implementation of the MRS amendment would pave the way for state

sponsored vandalism of this wonderful and irreplaceable natural asset that previous generations of political leaders set aside in perpetuity for current and future generations to enjoy.

• It is a proposal that would destroy the golden opportunity for a world class

coastal park at Cape Peron, a concept that is infinitely superior on every count.

8/06/2016 Presentation of Hands Off Point Peron Inc.

9

Why are we here? Ctd…

• So why are we here? How could such a fundamentally flawed proposed have got to

this point? There are only two plausible explanations, or some combination of both:

• (1) The kindest explanation is that this is a proposal put forward by people within

government who, through ignorance, thought it was a good idea and who, through arrogance, have used their power and resources to push it through to this point, in the face of overwhelming planning reasons to abandon it.

• (2) The more sinister explanation is that this proposal has been driven by WA Inc.

methods and is tainted with deception, secret deals with favoured private sector

• perators, lack of due diligence, conflict of interest and manipulation of regulatory

process

8/06/2016 Presentation of Hands Off Point Peron Inc.

10

Why are we here? ctd…

• The fact that this proposal has got this far demonstrates systemic failure
• n the part of WA’s planning regime and brings WA planning professionals

and agencies into disrepute.

• HOPP is calling for a Royal Commission into the conduct of various

parties involved, including LandCorp and the WAPC, with the power to call witnesses, inspect documents and make findings and

• recommendations. This is not just about Point Peron, it is about the

honesty, transparency and integrity of the government and government agencies.

8/06/2016 Presentation of Hands Off PointPeron Inc.

11

“Look Mum, the Emperor has no clothes!”

• There is a well known parable about an Emperor’s subjects not having

the courage or honesty to tell the emperor the truth (that he is naked), until finally an innocent child states the obvious.

• The question now is this: Will you, as members of this panel, have the

courage and honesty to “tell the Emperor the truth” without fear or favour?

• We call upon you not to succumb to the subtle pressures on you to

approve this ill conceived MRS amendment being promoted by the “Emperor”

8/06/2016 Presentation of Hands Off Point Peron Inc.

12

The WAPC’s inherent conflict of interest

• The heart of the problem is that the WAPC is tasked with two

inherently conflicting roles – (a) planning and (b) objectively assessing public submissions about its own planning proposals

• This problem is all the more pronounced when the WAPC’s

planning has been conducted at the behest of the Premier and Cabinet to facilitate a state government driven project. It is a case of “Caesar judging Caesar”.

• The WAPC cannot possibly be seen as a credible and objective

adjudicator or adviser to the government in this situation.

8/06/2016 Presentation of Hands Off Point Peron Inc.

13

MURKY MONEY & CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

• There are many unanswered questions about the finances of the

MBM development proposal. This includes questions relating to the WAPC itself.

• There are also many conflict of interest issues swirling around the

project and the MRS amendment process.

• The following slides address some (but not all) of these issues.

8/06/2016 Presentation of Hands Off Point Peron Inc.

14

MURKY MONEY & CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ctd…

Documents obtained under FOI show:

• On 4 December 2003 the then Minister for Planning Allanah MacTiernan wrote to

Mark McGowan MLA (now Leader of the Opposition) committing $250,000 of WAPC funds for a study into the proposed Mangles Bay Marina, before the WAPC had even considered the request!

• On 16 December 2003 the WAPC Executive, Finance and Property Committee

resolved to ‘consider’ contributing $250,000, subject to various conditions including the requirement that “should the project proponent achieve planning and environmental approvals to conclude the feasibility of the Cape Peron Marina Implementation as a commercial venture, then the amount contributed by WAPC will be repaid by the proponent”

8/06/2016 Presentation of Hands Off Point Peron Inc.

15

MURKY MONEY & CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ctd…

• On 11 May 2016 the current Minister for Planning, Donna Faragher

stated in Parliament that:

• $250,000 was paid out from the Metropolitan Region Improvement Fund to

support work on the proposed Mangles Bay canal estate and marina proposal

• the decision to make the $250,000 available was made by the Executive,

Finance and Property Committee of the WAPC

• “the $250,000 is to be repaid by the proponent of the project, once

planning and environmental approvals have been given to conclude the feasibility of the Cape Peron Marina as a commercial venture”

8/06/2016 Presentation of Hands Off Point Peron Inc.

16

MURKY MONEY & CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ctd…

• However, contrary to what Minister Faragher said in parliament, the documents

show that the appropriation of the $250,000 was not authorised by the Executive, Finance and Property Committee of the WAPC. The Committee only decided to “consider” making such a contribution.

• It appears therefore that the money was paid without valid authority. This raises

serious questions about the conduct of the WAPC, the planning minister at the time, and the planning minister today.

• This allegation is detailed in HOPP’s written submission. We would be happy to

receive comment or answer any questions from the committee members on this matter.

8/06/2016 Presentation of Hands Off Point Peron Inc.

17

MURKY MONEY & CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ctd…

• There are also serious questions about the probity and legality of allocating

$250,000 from the Metropolitan Region Improvement Fund (which is supposed to be for “improving” the metropolitan region) towards a project that at that time (and still now) was contrary to the MRS and which would destroy “bush forever” and excise land from a regional park.

• The probity of this funding is all the more dubious given that the allocation was

made in extreme haste as a result of pressure from the then minister and without any due diligence or formal decision on the part of the WAPC to approve the payment.

• An urgent investigation is needed into the allocation of this money.

8/06/2016 Presentation of Hands Off Point Peron Inc.

18

MURKY MONEY & CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ctd…

• The above history does not permit any community confidence in

the WAPC’s objectivity and fairness in relation to the MRS amendment because:

• The provision of the $250,000 under pressure from the Minister and without

due process shows that the WAPC is simply a puppet of the government in relation to this government initiated and promoted project, only too willing to support the Point Peron marina proposal concept despite not having conducted any due diligence in relation to the proposal.

• The WAPC has a vested interest in granting planning approval because

approval would pave the way for the reimbursement of the $250,000 to the

• WAPC. So how can the WAPC be seen as impartial with such vested interest?

8/06/2016 Presentation of Hands Off Point Peron Inc.

19

MURKY MONEY & CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ctd…

• A letter from the secretary of the WAPC to HOPP dated 11 January 2016 reinforces the

public perception of WAPC’s bias. It states that the WAPC will make a recommendation to the Minister for Planning after which “The Minister presents this to the Governor for approval, and it is then placed before both houses of Parliament. You will be advised when the amendment is tabled in Parliament”

• This letter reveals that the WAPC regards the approval of the MRS amendment as a

foregone conclusion, illustrating a pre-determined position, eradicating any vestige of public confidence in the WAPC’s impartiality.

• Minister Faragher’s statement in parliament: “once planning … approvals have been

given” also points to an assumption that the WAPC will approve the MRS amendment proposal – i.e. do the minister’s bidding, just as the WAPC did when “approving” the $250,000 allocation of funds to the project in 2003.

8/06/2016 Presentation of Hands Off Point Peron Inc.

20

MURKY MONEY & CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ctd…

• The WAPC’s conduct regarding the draft South Metropolitan Peel Sub-

regional Planning Framework is a further case in point. The WAPC released this document for public comment with two small maps showing (on close inspection) the proposed MBM land at Point Peron as “urban expansion” instead of its current status as parks and recreation reserve.

• This is further evidence of the WAPC pre-empting the outcome of the MRS

amendment process, thus undermining the integrity of the process.

8/06/2016 Presentation of Hands Off Point Peron Inc.

21

Lack of due diligence

• The WAPC has also shown a lack of due diligence in its handling of the

proposed MRS amendment. Documents obtained under FOI show that, prior to advertising the MRS amendment, the WAPC did not obtain or consider any advice or report:

• comparing the merits of the proposed MRS amendment against the option of

adhering to the 1964 Pt Peron Agreement for the retention of the land for public recreation and parkland. The WAPC failed to obtain or provide any analysis to justify such radical change to the zoning of Point Peron.

• as to whether there is any need or justification for a housing subdivision at

Point Peron

• as to the feasibility of the MBM project and the risk that the marina would

never be built

8/06/2016 Presentation of Hands Off Point Peron Inc.

22

Failure to conduct economic cost / benefit analysis

• Neither the proponent nor the Dept of Planning has conducted an

economic cost / benefit comparative analysis of the proposed MBM development against the Cape Peron Coastal Park option.

• This amounts to a serious absence of due diligence, coupled with a

reckless willingness to trumpet the MBM proposal as economically advantageous, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

8/06/2016 Presentation of Hands Off Point Peron Inc.

23

Failure to show need for housing estate

• The development would first and foremost be a housing estate,

resulting in destruction of ‘bush forever’, loss of public reserve etc.

• The MRS report fails to justify (and does not even attempt to

justify) reclassification of the land for the purpose of a housing estate.

• This is a fatal flaw in the proposed MRS amendment and sufficient

reason alone for its rejection.

8/06/2016 Presentation of Hands Off Point Peron Inc.

24

Failure to take genuine account of requirement for sustainable land use and development

• The MRS report shows disdain for the WAPC’s statutory duty under the

Planning and Development Act 2005 (PDA) to coordinate and promote sustainable use and development of land.

• The MRS report also ignores the State’s own sustainability strategy and

policies.

• The

sole paragraph in the MRS report (para 8) that addresses sustainability shows, at best, an embarrassing level of incompetence or, at worst, a flagrant disregard for a core statutory principle of modern urban and regional planning. This paragraph in itself demonstrates that the WAPC is not up to the task it is charged with under the PDA.

8/06/2016 Presentation of Hands Off Point Peron Inc.

25

Failure to conduct comparative environmental evaluation

• There has been no comparative environmental impact analysis of

the MBM proposal as against the Cape Peron Coastal Park option. This is a fundamental flaw in the WAPC’s approach.

• It is obvious that any objective comparative analysis would

conclude that the Cape Peron Coastal Park

• ption

is

• verwhelmingly superior on environmental grounds.
• Yet the WAPC avoids this key question, mistakenly seeking to hide

behind the EPA’s refusal to assess the proposed amendment.

8/06/2016 Presentation of Hands Off Point Peron Inc.

26

Failure to assess the impact on amenity

• The Dept of Planning / WAPC has manifestly failed to assess the

impact of the proposed MRS amendment on the amenity of the land and Point Peron as a whole, and on the southern Perth / northern Peel regions.

• The MRS report is extremely superficial and reveals a reluctance

to properly address the adverse impacts that would flow from the MRS amendment on the preservation of amenity, a fundamental evaluative criterion of urban and regional planning.

8/06/2016 Presentation of Hands Off Point Peron Inc.

27

Misleading and deceptive conduct

• HOPP is very concerned that the WAPC has participated in misleading the

public about the MBM proposal and the implications of the MRS amendment.

• The MRS amendment report states that the amendment is for the

purpose of facilitating the proposed MBM development, the centrepiece

• f which is a large marina. However, the MRS amendment report is

deceptive by omission because it fails to mention, let alone address:

• the fact that the marina proposal is highly speculative and of doubtful viability

and there is a high risk that the marina would never be built

• the fact that zoning the land “urban” would help facilitate the ability of the

proponent to sell off the land for housing without building a marina.

8/06/2016 Presentation of Hands Off Point Peron Inc.

28

Misleading and deceptive conduct ctd…

• If the land is obtained and sold off for housing without

building a marina this would amount to:

• A failure to achieve the stated purpose of the MRS amendment,

hence a planning failure;

• The proponent having been allowed to obtain the land under a false

promise/pretence of building a marina, and to benefit from such deceptive conduct.

8/06/2016 Presentation of Hands Off Point Peron Inc.

29

Misleading and deceptive conduct ctd…

• Is the WAPC willing to facilitate such a potential scam?
• Unfortunately it appears perhaps yes, because if the WAPC were serious about

ensuring the MRS amendment delivers a marina then why isn’t the WAPC proposing to rezone the land specifically for a marina (e.g. “waterways”) instead of “urban”? This is the obvious way for the WAPC to minimise the risk of a scam. This would be “orderly and proper planning”, consistent with rational and comprehensive town planning theory.

• Correspondence received under FOI shows that in 2014 Mr Muscara of the Dept
• f Planning proposed a “waterways” zoning for the marina and canal area.

However it appears that following pressure from the proponent the proposed zoning became “urban”.

8/06/2016 Presentation of Hands Off Point Peron Inc.

30

Misleading and deceptive conduct ctd…

• The MRS report wrongly implies that the 2008 Perth Recreational Boating

Facilities Study supports the MBM proposal. It does not. It merely recommends a marina in Mangles Bay and refers to two possible locations – Wanliss Street and Point Peron. It does not express a preference for Point Peron - on the contrary it talks of ‘environmental concerns’ hindering the Point Peron option.

• The MRS report also fails to note that this old study’s recommendation was

made before it became clear that ‘wet excavation’ methods would be required to build the marina at the Point Peron site, meaning that the construction of a marina at Pt Peron would be highly problematic from an engineering point of view and almost certainly not financially viable.

8/06/2016 Presentation of Hands Off Point Peron Inc.

31

Misleading and deceptive conduct ctd…

• As mentioned, the MRS report completely fails to address the critical question – is

there a need for a housing development at Point Peron?

• Misleadingly, the MRS report fails to make it clear that housing would be the

predominant development at the site. The MRS report mirrors the misleading approach taken by the proponent over the years to promote the development as a marina and tourist precinct, disguising the fact that the proponent’s core objective is to develop the land as a housing estate with no legal obligation to build a marina.

• The situation is exacerbated by the refusal of the Dept of Planning / WAPC to

provide information about the number of subdivision lots now proposed by the proponent and how this has changed since the MRS report was first published, despite the high relevance of this information to this misleading conduct issue.

8/06/2016 Presentation of Hands Off Point Peron Inc.

32

Let us look back at what was promised by the proponent

• A large marina and canals built in stage 1, with a tourist precinct

to be developed around the marina

• This

is how the project was “sold” in the media, to the Commonwealth, the City of Rockingham, the EPA etc

• It was never promoted as a housing subdivision - such a proposal

would not have got to first base

8/06/2016 Presentation of Hands Off Point Peron Inc.

33

But what is really on offer?

• Breach of the 1964 Point Peron Agreement and bulldoze the ‘bush

forever’

• Re-zone the land “urban” (not “waterways”), with no binding
• bligation

to build the marina, even though the marina was supposedly the reason and justification for the development

• LandCorp appropriates this public land and proceeds to subdivide and

sell it off

• A very big housing development - hundreds of housing lots created in

several stages over a 10 – 20 year period (Pt Peron a construction site until 2037?)

8/06/2016 Presentation of Hands Off Point Peron Inc.

34

What is really on offer? Ctd

• The unfunded promise of a marina somewhere down the track, if

it’s feasible, with no binding guarantee that it will ever be built. It appears it is not feasible.

• Even if it were feasible there would be no incentive for LandCorp

and Cedar Woods to build it. It would be far better financially for them not to build it as this would save money and allow more housing lots to be created and sold, meaning much higher profits.

• The permanent loss of opportunity for a world class coastal park

covering Point Peron and Lake Richmond with all the economic, environmental and social benefits such a park would bring.

8/06/2016 Presentation of Hands Off Point Peron Inc.

35

Is the marina viable?

Cost:

• It cost $440 million to build Elizabeth Quay (EQ), which is a directly

comparable project – i.e. an excavated inland water body for boat access and surrounding development.

• The so-called Mangles Bay Marina (MBM) would cost a lot more to build

than EQ because, among other reasons:

• The MBM excavation is over 5 times as big – 800,000 cubic metres as against 150,000

cubic metres

• EQ was built using dry excavation method, which is much cheaper than the wet

excavation method (dredging) required for the MBM

8/06/2016 Presentation of Hands Off Point Peron Inc.

36

Is the marina viable? ctd

Revenue:

• The Government has made it clear it will not fund the marina

development, that it have to be self funding.

• The sale of housing lots may make a profit for Cedar Woods and

LandCorp, but nowhere near enough to build the marina, the canals and all the surrounding infrastructure.

8/06/2016 Presentation of Hands Off Point Peron Inc.

37

Is the marina viable?

• Ever since HOPP challenged the business case for the marina and

exposed the proponent’s ulterior motive of getting hold of the land for housing with no legal obligation to build the marina, the proponent has been scrambling to make changes to the MBM proposal in an effort to try and portray it as viable - for example dramatically increasing the number of proposed housing lots (from 363 to 565 and lately even more) as well as removing the coastal armouring originally proposed.

8/06/2016 Presentation of Hands Off Point Peron Inc.

38

Is the marina viable? ctd

• But even with these changes, the marina is not viable in the current and

foreseeable economic climate. The business case for the marina is in tatters.

• Even if the proponent managed to eventually sell all the lots created, the net

revenue would be way less than what would be needed to build the marina, canals and all the associated infrastructure, let alone to cover the never ending remedial and maintenance costs caused by ongoing siltation, storm surges, rising sea levels, putrefaction due to inadequate flushing etc.

• LandCorp and Cedar Woods must know these viability issues, yet they appear

unwilling to disclose the true situation to the public because this would destroy their case for getting control of this prime public land.

8/06/2016 Presentation of Hands Off Point Peron Inc.

39

Who profits?

• LandCorp wants freehold title to this prime public land without

having to pay anything for it and without providing any guarantee it will build a marina.

• LandCorp chose private developer Cedar Woods as its project

“partner”, on condition they pay LandCorp a “participation fee” – equivalent to the value of the land, even though LandCorp would get the land for free.

• LandCorp and Cedar Woods would share the profits 50/50.
• These arrangements raise a number of issues that need further

investigation.

8/06/2016 Presentation of Hands Off Point Peron Inc.

40

Proponent’s pressure tactics

• Documents obtained under FOI show Cedar Woods:
• Criticising and pressuring the Dept of Planning in relation to the

MRS amendment process

• Assuming inevitable approval of the MRS amendment
• The documents provide a reveaing insight into the proponent’s

attitude and methods.

8/06/2016 Presentation of Hands Off Point Peron Inc.

41

The government’s refusal to answer questions about the MBM project

• The Premier and the Minister for Lands have refused to answer our

questions about the MBM proposal and the government’s response to it. HOPP’s letter to the Premier dated 8 May 2015 contains numerous important questions that remain unanswered to this day.

• LandCorp has refused to provide key information and documents

sought under FOI.

8/06/2016 Presentation of Hands Off Point Peron Inc.

42

The appointment of Cedar Woods

• HOPP has concerns about the way Cedar Woods was

selected.

• We are also concerned about LandCorp’s deal with Cedar

Woods that requires LandCorp to “produce Lots for sale as soon as possible” and which may allow Cedar Woods to make windfall profits from the sale of prime public land at Point Peron

8/06/2016 Presentation of Hands Off Point Peron Inc.

43

Failures of the environmental assessment process

• The conditional environmental approval of the MBM proposal was completely

against the weight of evidence and reflects very badly on the environmental assessment regime in WA.

• We contend that the EPA and the Minister failed to take proper account of

mandatory policies, as was found by the Supreme Court to be the case in Roe 8, thereby invalidating the environmental decision making process.

• Its unexplained refusal to assess the MRS amendment proposal represents a

serious failure to exercise due diligence on the part of the EPA. The MBM environmental assessment addressed different questions and does not excuse the EPA’s failure to assess the proposed MRS amendment.

8/06/2016 Presentation of Hands Off Point Peron Inc.

44

Integrity of WA’s planning system at stake

• HOPP is calling for a Royal Commission to be set up urgently to

investigate the conduct of various players in this unfortunate saga.

• This is not just about Point Peron, it is about the integrity of WA’s

planning regime and about deals between the government and private sector made at the expense of the community and the country.

8/06/2016 Presentation of Hands Off Point Peron Inc.

45

Cape Peron Coastal Park – golden opportunity

• The Cape Peron Coastal Park covering Point Peron and Lake Richmond, in line with the original

strategic plan for the metropolitan region (Stephenson Hepburn Plan), is infinitely superior for the economy, the environment and the health of our community.

• We call upon the WAPC to show integrity and common sense and prevent the loss of this

priceless opportunity for a world class coastal park for the residents of Rockingham, the region, the state and Australia.

Point Peron is not for sale

8/06/2016 Presentation of Hands Off Point Peron Inc.

46