❓ The WA Government is considering re-introducing a levy on private landowners for pest and weed control in the agricultural zone, after ceasing it in 1976. A discussion paper has been circulated and feedback is being sought from stakeholders.
AnsweredQoN 359Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
Does the Government propose or has it discussed implementing a levy on private landowners for pest and weed control? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
Although the question was without notice, I thank the honourable member for providing a copy of the question to me before question time. The short answer is yes. If a discussion paper can be said to be a proposal, yes, indeed, the Government has made that proposition via a discussion paper. I am happy to make that paper available to the honourable member and any member who seeks it. It sets out a new direction for the way agricultural protection funds are raised. The honourable member would be aware that this system is in place in the pastoral zone. Not since 1976 has the State levied an agricultural protection rate in the agricultural zone. I think 1976 was the date that the agricultural protection levy ceased in the southern part of the State when the Agriculture and Related Resources Protection Act was enacted, by which the levy was ended in the agricultural zone and the landowner was made fully responsible for controlling any weeds or pests occurring on his land. Some of the pest and control methods required for some of the pests in the agricultural zone are increasingly sophisticated. Also, the increasing pressure applied per labour unit of productivity on farmers, who must produce increasing amounts of wool, beef and grain, simply means they do not have the time or necessarily the skills to carry out that work. It is clear we are running into an area of difficulty. A new system of management was trialled with skeleton weed. That system has been extraordinarily successful. The amount of skeleton weed searched for is four times the area it was two years ago. This levy is not something that simply will be introduced and imposed on people. It must be regarded as a good idea and people must want it. The discussion paper was circulated. It had limited distribution, so I can understand if the member has not seen it. Hon Robyn McSweeney interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. It went through local government authorities and peak farmer bodies to tease out what they thought might come from it. The next stage of the process has been reached, having modified our original proposals as a result of feedback. Some of that feedback was negative and some was positive, but we certainly look forward to working with rural communities and landowners to develop the system. Yes, the proposition that the member has put is fundamentally correct.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: Although the question was without notice, I thank the honourable member for providing a copy of the question to me before question time. The short answer is yes. If a discussion paper can be said to be a proposal, yes, indeed, the Government has made that proposition via a discussion paper. I am happy to make that paper available to the honourable member and any member who seeks it. It sets out a new direction for the way agricultural protection funds are raised. The honourable member would be aware that this system is in place in the pastoral zone. Not since 1976 has the State levied an agricultural protection rate in the agricultural zone. I think 1976 was the date that the agricultural protection levy ceased in the southern part of the State when the Agriculture and Related Resources Protection Act was enacted, by which the levy was ended in the agricultural zone and the landowner was made fully responsible for controlling any weeds or pests occurring on his land. Some of the pest and control methods required for some of the pests in the agricultural zone are increasingly sophisticated. Also, the increasing pressure applied per labour unit of productivity on farmers, who must produce increasing amounts of wool, beef and grain, simply means they do not have the time or necessarily the skills to carry out that work. It is clear we are running into an area of difficulty. A new system of management was trialled with skeleton weed. That system has been extraordinarily successful. The amount of skeleton weed searched for is four times the area it was two years ago. This levy is not something that simply will be introduced and imposed on people. It must be regarded as a good idea and people must want it. The discussion paper was circulated. It had limited distribution, so I can understand if the member has not seen it. Hon Robyn McSweeney interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. It went through local government authorities and peak farmer bodies to tease out what they thought might come from it. The next stage of the process has been reached, having modified our original proposals as a result of feedback. Some of that feedback was negative and some was positive, but we certainly look forward to working with rural communities and landowners to develop the system. Yes, the proposition that the member has put is fundamentally correct.
Although the question was without notice, I thank the honourable member for providing a copy of the question to me before question time. The short answer is yes. If a discussion paper can be said to be a proposal, yes, indeed, the Government has made that proposition via a discussion paper. I am happy to make that paper available to the honourable member and any member who seeks it. It sets out a new direction for the way agricultural protection funds are raised. The honourable member would be aware that this system is in place in the pastoral zone. Not since 1976 has the State levied an agricultural protection rate in the agricultural zone. I think 1976 was the date that the agricultural protection levy ceased in the southern part of the State when the Agriculture and Related Resources Protection Act was enacted, by which the levy was ended in the agricultural zone and the landowner was made fully responsible for controlling any weeds or pests occurring on his land. Some of the pest and control methods required for some of the pests in the agricultural zone are increasingly sophisticated. Also, the increasing pressure applied per labour unit of productivity on farmers, who must produce increasing amounts of wool, beef and grain, simply means they do not have the time or necessarily the skills to carry out that work. It is clear we are running into an area of difficulty. A new system of management was trialled with skeleton weed. That system has been extraordinarily successful. The amount of skeleton weed searched for is four times the area it was two years ago. This levy is not something that simply will be introduced and imposed on people. It must be regarded as a good idea and people must want it. The discussion paper was circulated. It had limited distribution, so I can understand if the member has not seen it. Hon Robyn McSweeney interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. It went through local government authorities and peak farmer bodies to tease out what they thought might come from it. The next stage of the process has been reached, having modified our original proposals as a result of feedback. Some of that feedback was negative and some was positive, but we certainly look forward to working with rural communities and landowners to develop the system. Yes, the proposition that the member has put is fundamentally correct.
A new system of management was trialled with skeleton weed. That system has been extraordinarily successful. The amount of skeleton weed searched for is four times the area it was two years ago. This levy is not something that simply will be introduced and imposed on people. It must be regarded as a good idea and people must want it. The discussion paper was circulated. It had limited distribution, so I can understand if the member has not seen it. Hon Robyn McSweeney interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. It went through local government authorities and peak farmer bodies to tease out what they thought might come from it. The next stage of the process has been reached, having modified our original proposals as a result of feedback. Some of that feedback was negative and some was positive, but we certainly look forward to working with rural communities and landowners to develop the system. Yes, the proposition that the member has put is fundamentally correct.
Hon Robyn McSweeney interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. It went through local government authorities and peak farmer bodies to tease out what they thought might come from it. The next stage of the process has been reached, having modified our original proposals as a result of feedback. Some of that feedback was negative and some was positive, but we certainly look forward to working with rural communities and landowners to develop the system. Yes, the proposition that the member has put is fundamentally correct.
Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. It went through local government authorities and peak farmer bodies to tease out what they thought might come from it. The next stage of the process has been reached, having modified our original proposals as a result of feedback. Some of that feedback was negative and some was positive, but we certainly look forward to working with rural communities and landowners to develop the system. Yes, the proposition that the member has put is fundamentally correct.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: Although the question was without notice, I thank the honourable member for providing a copy of the question to me before question time. The short answer is yes. If a discussion paper can be said to be a proposal, yes, indeed, the Government has made that proposition via a discussion paper. I am happy to make that paper available to the honourable member and any member who seeks it. It sets out a new direction for the way agricultural protection funds are raised. The honourable member would be aware that this system is in place in the pastoral zone. Not since 1976 has the State levied an agricultural protection rate in the agricultural zone. I think 1976 was the date that the agricultural protection levy ceased in the southern part of the State when the Agriculture and Related Resources Protection Act was enacted, by which the levy was ended in the agricultural zone and the landowner was made fully responsible for controlling any weeds or pests occurring on his land. Some of the pest and control methods required for some of the pests in the agricultural zone are increasingly sophisticated. Also, the increasing pressure applied per labour unit of productivity on farmers, who must produce increasing amounts of wool, beef and grain, simply means they do not have the time or necessarily the skills to carry out that work. It is clear we are running into an area of difficulty. A new system of management was trialled with skeleton weed. That system has been extraordinarily successful. The amount of skeleton weed searched for is four times the area it was two years ago. This levy is not something that simply will be introduced and imposed on people. It must be regarded as a good idea and people must want it. The discussion paper was circulated. It had limited distribution, so I can understand if the member has not seen it. Hon Robyn McSweeney interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. It went through local government authorities and peak farmer bodies to tease out what they thought might come from it. The next stage of the process has been reached, having modified our original proposals as a result of feedback. Some of that feedback was negative and some was positive, but we certainly look forward to working with rural communities and landowners to develop the system. Yes, the proposition that the member has put is fundamentally correct.
Although the question was without notice, I thank the honourable member for providing a copy of the question to me before question time. The short answer is yes. If a discussion paper can be said to be a proposal, yes, indeed, the Government has made that proposition via a discussion paper. I am happy to make that paper available to the honourable member and any member who seeks it. It sets out a new direction for the way agricultural protection funds are raised. The honourable member would be aware that this system is in place in the pastoral zone. Not since 1976 has the State levied an agricultural protection rate in the agricultural zone. I think 1976 was the date that the agricultural protection levy ceased in the southern part of the State when the Agriculture and Related Resources Protection Act was enacted, by which the levy was ended in the agricultural zone and the landowner was made fully responsible for controlling any weeds or pests occurring on his land. Some of the pest and control methods required for some of the pests in the agricultural zone are increasingly sophisticated. Also, the increasing pressure applied per labour unit of productivity on farmers, who must produce increasing amounts of wool, beef and grain, simply means they do not have the time or necessarily the skills to carry out that work. It is clear we are running into an area of difficulty. A new system of management was trialled with skeleton weed. That system has been extraordinarily successful. The amount of skeleton weed searched for is four times the area it was two years ago. This levy is not something that simply will be introduced and imposed on people. It must be regarded as a good idea and people must want it. The discussion paper was circulated. It had limited distribution, so I can understand if the member has not seen it. Hon Robyn McSweeney interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. It went through local government authorities and peak farmer bodies to tease out what they thought might come from it. The next stage of the process has been reached, having modified our original proposals as a result of feedback. Some of that feedback was negative and some was positive, but we certainly look forward to working with rural communities and landowners to develop the system. Yes, the proposition that the member has put is fundamentally correct.
A new system of management was trialled with skeleton weed. That system has been extraordinarily successful. The amount of skeleton weed searched for is four times the area it was two years ago. This levy is not something that simply will be introduced and imposed on people. It must be regarded as a good idea and people must want it. The discussion paper was circulated. It had limited distribution, so I can understand if the member has not seen it. Hon Robyn McSweeney interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. It went through local government authorities and peak farmer bodies to tease out what they thought might come from it. The next stage of the process has been reached, having modified our original proposals as a result of feedback. Some of that feedback was negative and some was positive, but we certainly look forward to working with rural communities and landowners to develop the system. Yes, the proposition that the member has put is fundamentally correct.
Hon Robyn McSweeney interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. It went through local government authorities and peak farmer bodies to tease out what they thought might come from it. The next stage of the process has been reached, having modified our original proposals as a result of feedback. Some of that feedback was negative and some was positive, but we certainly look forward to working with rural communities and landowners to develop the system. Yes, the proposition that the member has put is fundamentally correct.
Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. It went through local government authorities and peak farmer bodies to tease out what they thought might come from it. The next stage of the process has been reached, having modified our original proposals as a result of feedback. Some of that feedback was negative and some was positive, but we certainly look forward to working with rural communities and landowners to develop the system. Yes, the proposition that the member has put is fundamentally correct.
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.