❓ A parliamentary question regarding the decision to not reserve all of Lot 211 Barnes Avenue, Australind, as recommended by the EPA, and the Minister's response indicating support for the previous decision based on achieving conservation outcomes through alternative means.
AnsweredQoN 420Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
LOT 211 BARNES AVENUE, AUSTRALIND
On behalf of the member for Murray, I acknowledge and draw members’ attention to the fact that Reverend Barry May and his wife Kath are in the gallery today. Reverend May is retiring after 15 years as police chaplain. I think we all know what a very demanding and extremely important position that is, and we wish the Reverend May well in his retirement. [Applause.] Mr D.F. BARRON-SULLIVAN : Now to business, and I gave the minister some notice that I would be asking this question so that he could be fully briefed. I refer to the land at lot 211 Barnes Avenue in Australind, known locally as Twin Rivers, which the Environmental Protection Authority described in bulletin 1108 of 2003 as having - . . . regional value for its iconic status, similar to Kings Park and Mount Henry within the Perth Metropolitan area. I refer also to the EPA’s recommendation in bulletin 1108 that “in view of the regional natural values of Pt Lot 211 Barnes Avenue all of the site should be reserved”. I repeat, “all of the site”. (1) Why, precisely, did the then minister reject the EPA’s recommendation to reserve all of this land? (2) Does the minister support his predecessor’s decision to reject the EPA’s recommendation to reserve all of this land; and, if so, why? (3) If the minister does not support his predecessor’s decision, will he agree to take immediate action to prevent any further clearing of this iconic land? Mr D.A. TEMPLEMAN
On behalf of the member for Murray, I acknowledge and draw members’ attention to the fact that Reverend Barry May and his wife Kath are in the gallery today. Reverend May is retiring after 15 years as police chaplain. I think we all know what a very demanding and extremely important position that is, and we wish the Reverend May well in his retirement. [Applause.] Mr D.F. BARRON-SULLIVAN : Now to business, and I gave the minister some notice that I would be asking this question so that he could be fully briefed. I refer to the land at lot 211 Barnes Avenue in Australind, known locally as Twin Rivers, which the Environmental Protection Authority described in bulletin 1108 of 2003 as having - . . . regional value for its iconic status, similar to Kings Park and Mount Henry within the Perth Metropolitan area. I refer also to the EPA’s recommendation in bulletin 1108 that “in view of the regional natural values of Pt Lot 211 Barnes Avenue all of the site should be reserved”. I repeat, “all of the site”. (1) Why, precisely, did the then minister reject the EPA’s recommendation to reserve all of this land? (2) Does the minister support his predecessor’s decision to reject the EPA’s recommendation to reserve all of this land; and, if so, why? (3) If the minister does not support his predecessor’s decision, will he agree to take immediate action to prevent any further clearing of this iconic land? Mr D.A. TEMPLEMAN
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for Leschenault for his question. (1)-(3) The EPA bulletin 1108 on the greater Bunbury region scheme was released in September 2003. The then minister made a determination on appeals on 30 November 2004. I am advised that the then minister formed the view, during consideration of appeals on bulletin 1108, that the site possessed a combination of significant environmental values in a strategically important ecological location and that an appropriate conservation outcome could be delivered without requiring the whole of the site to be set aside for conservation as recommended by the Environmental Protection Authority. This could be achieved by widening the proposed regional open space boundary at the southern and northern ends of the site, and expanding the regional open space westwards to ensure that a larger area of upland vegetation is retained. I have not viewed the site that the member specified; however, when I read through the determination by the then minister, I can understand precisely why she made that determination. Indeed, her determination highlights that a number of the important ecological and conservation values of that land could be realised with that determination.
[Applause.] Mr D.F. BARRON-SULLIVAN : Now to business, and I gave the minister some notice that I would be asking this question so that he could be fully briefed. I refer to the land at lot 211 Barnes Avenue in Australind, known locally as Twin Rivers, which the Environmental Protection Authority described in bulletin 1108 of 2003 as having - . . . regional value for its iconic status, similar to Kings Park and Mount Henry within the Perth Metropolitan area. I refer also to the EPA’s recommendation in bulletin 1108 that “in view of the regional natural values of Pt Lot 211 Barnes Avenue all of the site should be reserved”. I repeat, “all of the site”. (1) Why, precisely, did the then minister reject the EPA’s recommendation to reserve all of this land? (2) Does the minister support his predecessor’s decision to reject the EPA’s recommendation to reserve all of this land; and, if so, why? (3) If the minister does not support his predecessor’s decision, will he agree to take immediate action to prevent any further clearing of this iconic land? Mr D.A. TEMPLEMAN replied: I thank the member for Leschenault for his question. (1)-(3) The EPA bulletin 1108 on the greater Bunbury region scheme was released in September 2003. The then minister made a determination on appeals on 30 November 2004. I am advised that the then minister formed the view, during consideration of appeals on bulletin 1108, that the site possessed a combination of significant environmental values in a strategically important ecological location and that an appropriate conservation outcome could be delivered without requiring the whole of the site to be set aside for conservation as recommended by the Environmental Protection Authority. This could be achieved by widening the proposed regional open space boundary at the southern and northern ends of the site, and expanding the regional open space westwards to ensure that a larger area of upland vegetation is retained. I have not viewed the site that the member specified; however, when I read through the determination by the then minister, I can understand precisely why she made that determination. Indeed, her determination highlights that a number of the important ecological and conservation values of that land could be realised with that determination.
Mr D.F. BARRON-SULLIVAN : Now to business, and I gave the minister some notice that I would be asking this question so that he could be fully briefed. I refer to the land at lot 211 Barnes Avenue in Australind, known locally as Twin Rivers, which the Environmental Protection Authority described in bulletin 1108 of 2003 as having - . . . regional value for its iconic status, similar to Kings Park and Mount Henry within the Perth Metropolitan area. I refer also to the EPA’s recommendation in bulletin 1108 that “in view of the regional natural values of Pt Lot 211 Barnes Avenue all of the site should be reserved”. I repeat, “all of the site”. (1) Why, precisely, did the then minister reject the EPA’s recommendation to reserve all of this land? (2) Does the minister support his predecessor’s decision to reject the EPA’s recommendation to reserve all of this land; and, if so, why? (3) If the minister does not support his predecessor’s decision, will he agree to take immediate action to prevent any further clearing of this iconic land? Mr D.A. TEMPLEMAN replied: I thank the member for Leschenault for his question. (1)-(3) The EPA bulletin 1108 on the greater Bunbury region scheme was released in September 2003. The then minister made a determination on appeals on 30 November 2004. I am advised that the then minister formed the view, during consideration of appeals on bulletin 1108, that the site possessed a combination of significant environmental values in a strategically important ecological location and that an appropriate conservation outcome could be delivered without requiring the whole of the site to be set aside for conservation as recommended by the Environmental Protection Authority. This could be achieved by widening the proposed regional open space boundary at the southern and northern ends of the site, and expanding the regional open space westwards to ensure that a larger area of upland vegetation is retained. I have not viewed the site that the member specified; however, when I read through the determination by the then minister, I can understand precisely why she made that determination. Indeed, her determination highlights that a number of the important ecological and conservation values of that land could be realised with that determination.
(1) Why, precisely, did the then minister reject the EPA’s recommendation to reserve all of this land? (2) Does the minister support his predecessor’s decision to reject the EPA’s recommendation to reserve all of this land; and, if so, why? (3) If the minister does not support his predecessor’s decision, will he agree to take immediate action to prevent any further clearing of this iconic land? Mr D.A. TEMPLEMAN replied: I thank the member for Leschenault for his question. (1)-(3) The EPA bulletin 1108 on the greater Bunbury region scheme was released in September 2003. The then minister made a determination on appeals on 30 November 2004. I am advised that the then minister formed the view, during consideration of appeals on bulletin 1108, that the site possessed a combination of significant environmental values in a strategically important ecological location and that an appropriate conservation outcome could be delivered without requiring the whole of the site to be set aside for conservation as recommended by the Environmental Protection Authority. This could be achieved by widening the proposed regional open space boundary at the southern and northern ends of the site, and expanding the regional open space westwards to ensure that a larger area of upland vegetation is retained. I have not viewed the site that the member specified; however, when I read through the determination by the then minister, I can understand precisely why she made that determination. Indeed, her determination highlights that a number of the important ecological and conservation values of that land could be realised with that determination.
(2) Does the minister support his predecessor’s decision to reject the EPA’s recommendation to reserve all of this land; and, if so, why? (3) If the minister does not support his predecessor’s decision, will he agree to take immediate action to prevent any further clearing of this iconic land? Mr D.A. TEMPLEMAN replied: I thank the member for Leschenault for his question. (1)-(3) The EPA bulletin 1108 on the greater Bunbury region scheme was released in September 2003. The then minister made a determination on appeals on 30 November 2004. I am advised that the then minister formed the view, during consideration of appeals on bulletin 1108, that the site possessed a combination of significant environmental values in a strategically important ecological location and that an appropriate conservation outcome could be delivered without requiring the whole of the site to be set aside for conservation as recommended by the Environmental Protection Authority. This could be achieved by widening the proposed regional open space boundary at the southern and northern ends of the site, and expanding the regional open space westwards to ensure that a larger area of upland vegetation is retained. I have not viewed the site that the member specified; however, when I read through the determination by the then minister, I can understand precisely why she made that determination. Indeed, her determination highlights that a number of the important ecological and conservation values of that land could be realised with that determination.
(3) If the minister does not support his predecessor’s decision, will he agree to take immediate action to prevent any further clearing of this iconic land? Mr D.A. TEMPLEMAN replied: I thank the member for Leschenault for his question. (1)-(3) The EPA bulletin 1108 on the greater Bunbury region scheme was released in September 2003. The then minister made a determination on appeals on 30 November 2004. I am advised that the then minister formed the view, during consideration of appeals on bulletin 1108, that the site possessed a combination of significant environmental values in a strategically important ecological location and that an appropriate conservation outcome could be delivered without requiring the whole of the site to be set aside for conservation as recommended by the Environmental Protection Authority. This could be achieved by widening the proposed regional open space boundary at the southern and northern ends of the site, and expanding the regional open space westwards to ensure that a larger area of upland vegetation is retained. I have not viewed the site that the member specified; however, when I read through the determination by the then minister, I can understand precisely why she made that determination. Indeed, her determination highlights that a number of the important ecological and conservation values of that land could be realised with that determination.
Mr D.A. TEMPLEMAN replied: I thank the member for Leschenault for his question. (1)-(3) The EPA bulletin 1108 on the greater Bunbury region scheme was released in September 2003. The then minister made a determination on appeals on 30 November 2004. I am advised that the then minister formed the view, during consideration of appeals on bulletin 1108, that the site possessed a combination of significant environmental values in a strategically important ecological location and that an appropriate conservation outcome could be delivered without requiring the whole of the site to be set aside for conservation as recommended by the Environmental Protection Authority. This could be achieved by widening the proposed regional open space boundary at the southern and northern ends of the site, and expanding the regional open space westwards to ensure that a larger area of upland vegetation is retained. I have not viewed the site that the member specified; however, when I read through the determination by the then minister, I can understand precisely why she made that determination. Indeed, her determination highlights that a number of the important ecological and conservation values of that land could be realised with that determination.
I thank the member for Leschenault for his question. (1)-(3) The EPA bulletin 1108 on the greater Bunbury region scheme was released in September 2003. The then minister made a determination on appeals on 30 November 2004. I am advised that the then minister formed the view, during consideration of appeals on bulletin 1108, that the site possessed a combination of significant environmental values in a strategically important ecological location and that an appropriate conservation outcome could be delivered without requiring the whole of the site to be set aside for conservation as recommended by the Environmental Protection Authority. This could be achieved by widening the proposed regional open space boundary at the southern and northern ends of the site, and expanding the regional open space westwards to ensure that a larger area of upland vegetation is retained. I have not viewed the site that the member specified; however, when I read through the determination by the then minister, I can understand precisely why she made that determination. Indeed, her determination highlights that a number of the important ecological and conservation values of that land could be realised with that determination.
(1)-(3) The EPA bulletin 1108 on the greater Bunbury region scheme was released in September 2003. The then minister made a determination on appeals on 30 November 2004. I am advised that the then minister formed the view, during consideration of appeals on bulletin 1108, that the site possessed a combination of significant environmental values in a strategically important ecological location and that an appropriate conservation outcome could be delivered without requiring the whole of the site to be set aside for conservation as recommended by the Environmental Protection Authority. This could be achieved by widening the proposed regional open space boundary at the southern and northern ends of the site, and expanding the regional open space westwards to ensure that a larger area of upland vegetation is retained. I have not viewed the site that the member specified; however, when I read through the determination by the then minister, I can understand precisely why she made that determination. Indeed, her determination highlights that a number of the important ecological and conservation values of that land could be realised with that determination.
[Applause.] Mr D.F. BARRON-SULLIVAN : Now to business, and I gave the minister some notice that I would be asking this question so that he could be fully briefed. I refer to the land at lot 211 Barnes Avenue in Australind, known locally as Twin Rivers, which the Environmental Protection Authority described in bulletin 1108 of 2003 as having - . . . regional value for its iconic status, similar to Kings Park and Mount Henry within the Perth Metropolitan area. I refer also to the EPA’s recommendation in bulletin 1108 that “in view of the regional natural values of Pt Lot 211 Barnes Avenue all of the site should be reserved”. I repeat, “all of the site”. (1) Why, precisely, did the then minister reject the EPA’s recommendation to reserve all of this land? (2) Does the minister support his predecessor’s decision to reject the EPA’s recommendation to reserve all of this land; and, if so, why? (3) If the minister does not support his predecessor’s decision, will he agree to take immediate action to prevent any further clearing of this iconic land? Mr D.A. TEMPLEMAN replied: I thank the member for Leschenault for his question. (1)-(3) The EPA bulletin 1108 on the greater Bunbury region scheme was released in September 2003. The then minister made a determination on appeals on 30 November 2004. I am advised that the then minister formed the view, during consideration of appeals on bulletin 1108, that the site possessed a combination of significant environmental values in a strategically important ecological location and that an appropriate conservation outcome could be delivered without requiring the whole of the site to be set aside for conservation as recommended by the Environmental Protection Authority. This could be achieved by widening the proposed regional open space boundary at the southern and northern ends of the site, and expanding the regional open space westwards to ensure that a larger area of upland vegetation is retained. I have not viewed the site that the member specified; however, when I read through the determination by the then minister, I can understand precisely why she made that determination. Indeed, her determination highlights that a number of the important ecological and conservation values of that land could be realised with that determination.
Mr D.F. BARRON-SULLIVAN : Now to business, and I gave the minister some notice that I would be asking this question so that he could be fully briefed. I refer to the land at lot 211 Barnes Avenue in Australind, known locally as Twin Rivers, which the Environmental Protection Authority described in bulletin 1108 of 2003 as having - . . . regional value for its iconic status, similar to Kings Park and Mount Henry within the Perth Metropolitan area. I refer also to the EPA’s recommendation in bulletin 1108 that “in view of the regional natural values of Pt Lot 211 Barnes Avenue all of the site should be reserved”. I repeat, “all of the site”. (1) Why, precisely, did the then minister reject the EPA’s recommendation to reserve all of this land? (2) Does the minister support his predecessor’s decision to reject the EPA’s recommendation to reserve all of this land; and, if so, why? (3) If the minister does not support his predecessor’s decision, will he agree to take immediate action to prevent any further clearing of this iconic land? Mr D.A. TEMPLEMAN replied: I thank the member for Leschenault for his question. (1)-(3) The EPA bulletin 1108 on the greater Bunbury region scheme was released in September 2003. The then minister made a determination on appeals on 30 November 2004. I am advised that the then minister formed the view, during consideration of appeals on bulletin 1108, that the site possessed a combination of significant environmental values in a strategically important ecological location and that an appropriate conservation outcome could be delivered without requiring the whole of the site to be set aside for conservation as recommended by the Environmental Protection Authority. This could be achieved by widening the proposed regional open space boundary at the southern and northern ends of the site, and expanding the regional open space westwards to ensure that a larger area of upland vegetation is retained. I have not viewed the site that the member specified; however, when I read through the determination by the then minister, I can understand precisely why she made that determination. Indeed, her determination highlights that a number of the important ecological and conservation values of that land could be realised with that determination.
(1) Why, precisely, did the then minister reject the EPA’s recommendation to reserve all of this land? (2) Does the minister support his predecessor’s decision to reject the EPA’s recommendation to reserve all of this land; and, if so, why? (3) If the minister does not support his predecessor’s decision, will he agree to take immediate action to prevent any further clearing of this iconic land? Mr D.A. TEMPLEMAN replied: I thank the member for Leschenault for his question. (1)-(3) The EPA bulletin 1108 on the greater Bunbury region scheme was released in September 2003. The then minister made a determination on appeals on 30 November 2004. I am advised that the then minister formed the view, during consideration of appeals on bulletin 1108, that the site possessed a combination of significant environmental values in a strategically important ecological location and that an appropriate conservation outcome could be delivered without requiring the whole of the site to be set aside for conservation as recommended by the Environmental Protection Authority. This could be achieved by widening the proposed regional open space boundary at the southern and northern ends of the site, and expanding the regional open space westwards to ensure that a larger area of upland vegetation is retained. I have not viewed the site that the member specified; however, when I read through the determination by the then minister, I can understand precisely why she made that determination. Indeed, her determination highlights that a number of the important ecological and conservation values of that land could be realised with that determination.
(2) Does the minister support his predecessor’s decision to reject the EPA’s recommendation to reserve all of this land; and, if so, why? (3) If the minister does not support his predecessor’s decision, will he agree to take immediate action to prevent any further clearing of this iconic land? Mr D.A. TEMPLEMAN replied: I thank the member for Leschenault for his question. (1)-(3) The EPA bulletin 1108 on the greater Bunbury region scheme was released in September 2003. The then minister made a determination on appeals on 30 November 2004. I am advised that the then minister formed the view, during consideration of appeals on bulletin 1108, that the site possessed a combination of significant environmental values in a strategically important ecological location and that an appropriate conservation outcome could be delivered without requiring the whole of the site to be set aside for conservation as recommended by the Environmental Protection Authority. This could be achieved by widening the proposed regional open space boundary at the southern and northern ends of the site, and expanding the regional open space westwards to ensure that a larger area of upland vegetation is retained. I have not viewed the site that the member specified; however, when I read through the determination by the then minister, I can understand precisely why she made that determination. Indeed, her determination highlights that a number of the important ecological and conservation values of that land could be realised with that determination.
(3) If the minister does not support his predecessor’s decision, will he agree to take immediate action to prevent any further clearing of this iconic land? Mr D.A. TEMPLEMAN replied: I thank the member for Leschenault for his question. (1)-(3) The EPA bulletin 1108 on the greater Bunbury region scheme was released in September 2003. The then minister made a determination on appeals on 30 November 2004. I am advised that the then minister formed the view, during consideration of appeals on bulletin 1108, that the site possessed a combination of significant environmental values in a strategically important ecological location and that an appropriate conservation outcome could be delivered without requiring the whole of the site to be set aside for conservation as recommended by the Environmental Protection Authority. This could be achieved by widening the proposed regional open space boundary at the southern and northern ends of the site, and expanding the regional open space westwards to ensure that a larger area of upland vegetation is retained. I have not viewed the site that the member specified; however, when I read through the determination by the then minister, I can understand precisely why she made that determination. Indeed, her determination highlights that a number of the important ecological and conservation values of that land could be realised with that determination.
Mr D.A. TEMPLEMAN replied: I thank the member for Leschenault for his question. (1)-(3) The EPA bulletin 1108 on the greater Bunbury region scheme was released in September 2003. The then minister made a determination on appeals on 30 November 2004. I am advised that the then minister formed the view, during consideration of appeals on bulletin 1108, that the site possessed a combination of significant environmental values in a strategically important ecological location and that an appropriate conservation outcome could be delivered without requiring the whole of the site to be set aside for conservation as recommended by the Environmental Protection Authority. This could be achieved by widening the proposed regional open space boundary at the southern and northern ends of the site, and expanding the regional open space westwards to ensure that a larger area of upland vegetation is retained. I have not viewed the site that the member specified; however, when I read through the determination by the then minister, I can understand precisely why she made that determination. Indeed, her determination highlights that a number of the important ecological and conservation values of that land could be realised with that determination.
I thank the member for Leschenault for his question. (1)-(3) The EPA bulletin 1108 on the greater Bunbury region scheme was released in September 2003. The then minister made a determination on appeals on 30 November 2004. I am advised that the then minister formed the view, during consideration of appeals on bulletin 1108, that the site possessed a combination of significant environmental values in a strategically important ecological location and that an appropriate conservation outcome could be delivered without requiring the whole of the site to be set aside for conservation as recommended by the Environmental Protection Authority. This could be achieved by widening the proposed regional open space boundary at the southern and northern ends of the site, and expanding the regional open space westwards to ensure that a larger area of upland vegetation is retained. I have not viewed the site that the member specified; however, when I read through the determination by the then minister, I can understand precisely why she made that determination. Indeed, her determination highlights that a number of the important ecological and conservation values of that land could be realised with that determination.
(1)-(3) The EPA bulletin 1108 on the greater Bunbury region scheme was released in September 2003. The then minister made a determination on appeals on 30 November 2004. I am advised that the then minister formed the view, during consideration of appeals on bulletin 1108, that the site possessed a combination of significant environmental values in a strategically important ecological location and that an appropriate conservation outcome could be delivered without requiring the whole of the site to be set aside for conservation as recommended by the Environmental Protection Authority. This could be achieved by widening the proposed regional open space boundary at the southern and northern ends of the site, and expanding the regional open space westwards to ensure that a larger area of upland vegetation is retained. I have not viewed the site that the member specified; however, when I read through the determination by the then minister, I can understand precisely why she made that determination. Indeed, her determination highlights that a number of the important ecological and conservation values of that land could be realised with that determination.
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.