❓ Hon Giz Watson questions the Environment Minister regarding the handling of illegal land clearing by Mr. Sydney Livesey, focusing on the decision not to pursue all charges and the Department of Environment's enforcement actions.
AnsweredQoN 2505Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
In relation to the matter of Mr Sydney Livesey, a landholder who illegally cleared approximately 60ha of high quality marri-jarrah complex in the Shire of Albany, and continued to clear land in breach of a Soil Conservation Notice, resulting in a Supreme Court Injunction -
(1) Can you confirm that the State Solicitor has chosen not to pursue the further charges of ‘failure to notify’ for illegal land clearing actions undertaken by Mr Sydney Livesey as charged in the Albany Magistrates Court on June 10 2004?
(2) If yes to (1), how do you propose to undertake effective enforcement of illegal clearing acts and deter other landholders from acting in a similar manner in the future, if the legislation and regulations are not adequately enforced?
(3) Are you aware that a recommendation to serve a Vegetation Conservation Notice (VCN) on Mr Livesey was made by an EPA Officer to the CEO of the Department of Environment, who failed to impose the order?
(4) Given that this was a serious and repeated act of environmental damage, why did the CEO not carry out his responsibilities under the EPA Act on this occasion?
(5) What do you intend to do to ensure that the legislation and regulations are adequately upheld and enforced by the CEO of the Department of Environment?
(1) Can you confirm that the State Solicitor has chosen not to pursue the further charges of ‘failure to notify’ for illegal land clearing actions undertaken by Mr Sydney Livesey as charged in the Albany Magistrates Court on June 10 2004?
(2) If yes to (1), how do you propose to undertake effective enforcement of illegal clearing acts and deter other landholders from acting in a similar manner in the future, if the legislation and regulations are not adequately enforced?
(3) Are you aware that a recommendation to serve a Vegetation Conservation Notice (VCN) on Mr Livesey was made by an EPA Officer to the CEO of the Department of Environment, who failed to impose the order?
(4) Given that this was a serious and repeated act of environmental damage, why did the CEO not carry out his responsibilities under the EPA Act on this occasion?
(5) What do you intend to do to ensure that the legislation and regulations are adequately upheld and enforced by the CEO of the Department of Environment?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
16 August 2005
Responded by
Minister for Education and Training representing the Minister for the Environment
Response time
49 days
The Minister for the Environment; Science has provided the following response, however please note that the response to (1) and (2) has been obtained from the Minister for Agriculture and Forestry: (1) Yes. Given that this matter was to be contested a decision was made to only pursue the more significant charges of failure to comply with the Soil Conservation Notice, which directed no further clearing. The failure to notify can be considered more of an administrative offence. (2) In Mr Livesey's case, the Soil and Land Conservation Regulations 1992 were effectively enforced. The Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation investigated land clearing complaints, issued a Soil Conservation Notice and took injunctive action when further complaints were investigated. Mr Livesey was subsequently convicted of two breaches of the Soil Conservation Notice that was issued in response to the alleged breach of the Soil and Land Conservation Regulation. Those Land Clearing Regulations were abolished when the new land clearing laws were proclaimed on 8 July 2004. (3 - 4) I am advised that the DoE has yet to finalise its investigation and response into Mr Livesey's clearing matters and consequently, to comment on it further would be inappropriate. (5) Investigations by the DoE are conducted objectively and impartially. The final case outcome is subject to the strength of the evidence gathered and is considered in accordance with the DoE's Enforcement and Prosecution Policy.
(1) Yes. Given that this matter was to be contested a decision was made to only pursue the more significant charges of failure to comply with the Soil Conservation Notice, which directed no further clearing. The failure to notify can be considered more of an administrative offence. (2) In Mr Livesey's case, the Soil and Land Conservation Regulations 1992 were effectively enforced. The Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation investigated land clearing complaints, issued a Soil Conservation Notice and took injunctive action when further complaints were investigated. Mr Livesey was subsequently convicted of two breaches of the Soil Conservation Notice that was issued in response to the alleged breach of the Soil and Land Conservation Regulation. Those Land Clearing Regulations were abolished when the new land clearing laws were proclaimed on 8 July 2004. (3 - 4) I am advised that the DoE has yet to finalise its investigation and response into Mr Livesey's clearing matters and consequently, to comment on it further would be inappropriate. (5) Investigations by the DoE are conducted objectively and impartially. The final case outcome is subject to the strength of the evidence gathered and is considered in accordance with the DoE's Enforcement and Prosecution Policy.
(2) In Mr Livesey's case, the Soil and Land Conservation Regulations 1992 were effectively enforced. The Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation investigated land clearing complaints, issued a Soil Conservation Notice and took injunctive action when further complaints were investigated. Mr Livesey was subsequently convicted of two breaches of the Soil Conservation Notice that was issued in response to the alleged breach of the Soil and Land Conservation Regulation. Those Land Clearing Regulations were abolished when the new land clearing laws were proclaimed on 8 July 2004. (3 - 4) I am advised that the DoE has yet to finalise its investigation and response into Mr Livesey's clearing matters and consequently, to comment on it further would be inappropriate. (5) Investigations by the DoE are conducted objectively and impartially. The final case outcome is subject to the strength of the evidence gathered and is considered in accordance with the DoE's Enforcement and Prosecution Policy.
Those Land Clearing Regulations were abolished when the new land clearing laws were proclaimed on 8 July 2004. (3 - 4) I am advised that the DoE has yet to finalise its investigation and response into Mr Livesey's clearing matters and consequently, to comment on it further would be inappropriate. (5) Investigations by the DoE are conducted objectively and impartially. The final case outcome is subject to the strength of the evidence gathered and is considered in accordance with the DoE's Enforcement and Prosecution Policy.
(3 - 4) I am advised that the DoE has yet to finalise its investigation and response into Mr Livesey's clearing matters and consequently, to comment on it further would be inappropriate. (5) Investigations by the DoE are conducted objectively and impartially. The final case outcome is subject to the strength of the evidence gathered and is considered in accordance with the DoE's Enforcement and Prosecution Policy.
(5) Investigations by the DoE are conducted objectively and impartially. The final case outcome is subject to the strength of the evidence gathered and is considered in accordance with the DoE's Enforcement and Prosecution Policy.
(1) Yes. Given that this matter was to be contested a decision was made to only pursue the more significant charges of failure to comply with the Soil Conservation Notice, which directed no further clearing. The failure to notify can be considered more of an administrative offence. (2) In Mr Livesey's case, the Soil and Land Conservation Regulations 1992 were effectively enforced. The Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation investigated land clearing complaints, issued a Soil Conservation Notice and took injunctive action when further complaints were investigated. Mr Livesey was subsequently convicted of two breaches of the Soil Conservation Notice that was issued in response to the alleged breach of the Soil and Land Conservation Regulation. Those Land Clearing Regulations were abolished when the new land clearing laws were proclaimed on 8 July 2004. (3 - 4) I am advised that the DoE has yet to finalise its investigation and response into Mr Livesey's clearing matters and consequently, to comment on it further would be inappropriate. (5) Investigations by the DoE are conducted objectively and impartially. The final case outcome is subject to the strength of the evidence gathered and is considered in accordance with the DoE's Enforcement and Prosecution Policy.
(2) In Mr Livesey's case, the Soil and Land Conservation Regulations 1992 were effectively enforced. The Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation investigated land clearing complaints, issued a Soil Conservation Notice and took injunctive action when further complaints were investigated. Mr Livesey was subsequently convicted of two breaches of the Soil Conservation Notice that was issued in response to the alleged breach of the Soil and Land Conservation Regulation. Those Land Clearing Regulations were abolished when the new land clearing laws were proclaimed on 8 July 2004. (3 - 4) I am advised that the DoE has yet to finalise its investigation and response into Mr Livesey's clearing matters and consequently, to comment on it further would be inappropriate. (5) Investigations by the DoE are conducted objectively and impartially. The final case outcome is subject to the strength of the evidence gathered and is considered in accordance with the DoE's Enforcement and Prosecution Policy.
Those Land Clearing Regulations were abolished when the new land clearing laws were proclaimed on 8 July 2004. (3 - 4) I am advised that the DoE has yet to finalise its investigation and response into Mr Livesey's clearing matters and consequently, to comment on it further would be inappropriate. (5) Investigations by the DoE are conducted objectively and impartially. The final case outcome is subject to the strength of the evidence gathered and is considered in accordance with the DoE's Enforcement and Prosecution Policy.
(3 - 4) I am advised that the DoE has yet to finalise its investigation and response into Mr Livesey's clearing matters and consequently, to comment on it further would be inappropriate. (5) Investigations by the DoE are conducted objectively and impartially. The final case outcome is subject to the strength of the evidence gathered and is considered in accordance with the DoE's Enforcement and Prosecution Policy.
(5) Investigations by the DoE are conducted objectively and impartially. The final case outcome is subject to the strength of the evidence gathered and is considered in accordance with the DoE's Enforcement and Prosecution Policy.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.