❓ Question regarding the status of the Riverplan document and its compliance with environmental protection policies for the Swan and Canning Rivers. The Minister's response accuses the previous Minister of delaying the plan's release and requesting a revised version for public consultation.
AnsweredQoN 828Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer the minister to her answer to a question without notice yesterday regarding the management plan required under the environmental protection (Swan and Canning Rivers) policy approval order gazetted in 1998 - (1) Is the Riverplan document, to which the minister referred yesterday and has in her possession, a comprehensive management plan in its current form, as required under the environmental protection policy order? (2) Has the minister seen a copy of the draft comprehensive management plan prepared by the Swan River Trust, which had been completed under the environmental protection policy order and was in circulation prior to the last election and at the time the minister took over the portfolio? (3) Does Riverplan build on this draft comprehensive management plan; and, if so, why has it taken more than two and a half years to finalise? Dr J.M. EDWARDS
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(3) I thank the member for some notice of this question. The plot is unfolding. I have been informed by the Environmental Protection Authority and the Swan River Trust that technically the requirements of the EPP were met when, in December 1999, a document entitled comprehensive management plan was transmitted to the previous Minister for the Environment and met the deadline. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Dr J.M. EDWARDS: Some nine months later she wrote to the EPA acknowledging that the legal nicety had been met, but stating that she would not release the document, that it would not go out for public comment and it needed to go back to the EPA for more work. Interestingly, it went back so that a new document could be drawn up, and that one went out for public consultation. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: To be built upon. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: No. The member should go back and check her records. This is a nice example of what the Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection was describing. The document comes to the minister, the minister presumably sits on it - there is a nine-month gap before her letter to the EPA - she decides not to release this document to the public, and she tells the EPA to give her a nicer looking document to put out to the public - Mrs C.L. Edwardes: That is the glossy. What about the substance? Dr J.M. EDWARDS: No; for the member’s information they are all called Riverplan. The EPA referred to that first document as Riverplan. This is really amusing. Yes, technically the EPP has been met, but the minister sat on that document, did not send it out to the public, and asked the EPA to prepare a glossy, because she asked for something that could be taken out for a bit of public consultation - but it was not the comprehensive management plan. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You are misrepresenting my words, and you know it. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: I am not misrepresenting the member’s words. Why would I want to do that? Members opposite have been caught out, and they do not like it.
(1) Is the Riverplan document, to which the minister referred yesterday and has in her possession, a comprehensive management plan in its current form, as required under the environmental protection policy order? (2) Has the minister seen a copy of the draft comprehensive management plan prepared by the Swan River Trust, which had been completed under the environmental protection policy order and was in circulation prior to the last election and at the time the minister took over the portfolio? (3) Does Riverplan build on this draft comprehensive management plan; and, if so, why has it taken more than two and a half years to finalise? Dr J.M. EDWARDS replied: (1)-(3) I thank the member for some notice of this question. The plot is unfolding. I have been informed by the Environmental Protection Authority and the Swan River Trust that technically the requirements of the EPP were met when, in December 1999, a document entitled comprehensive management plan was transmitted to the previous Minister for the Environment and met the deadline. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Dr J.M. EDWARDS: Some nine months later she wrote to the EPA acknowledging that the legal nicety had been met, but stating that she would not release the document, that it would not go out for public comment and it needed to go back to the EPA for more work. Interestingly, it went back so that a new document could be drawn up, and that one went out for public consultation. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: To be built upon. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: No. The member should go back and check her records. This is a nice example of what the Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection was describing. The document comes to the minister, the minister presumably sits on it - there is a nine-month gap before her letter to the EPA - she decides not to release this document to the public, and she tells the EPA to give her a nicer looking document to put out to the public - Mrs C.L. Edwardes: That is the glossy. What about the substance? Dr J.M. EDWARDS: No; for the member’s information they are all called Riverplan. The EPA referred to that first document as Riverplan. This is really amusing. Yes, technically the EPP has been met, but the minister sat on that document, did not send it out to the public, and asked the EPA to prepare a glossy, because she asked for something that could be taken out for a bit of public consultation - but it was not the comprehensive management plan. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You are misrepresenting my words, and you know it. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: I am not misrepresenting the member’s words. Why would I want to do that? Members opposite have been caught out, and they do not like it.
(2) Has the minister seen a copy of the draft comprehensive management plan prepared by the Swan River Trust, which had been completed under the environmental protection policy order and was in circulation prior to the last election and at the time the minister took over the portfolio? (3) Does Riverplan build on this draft comprehensive management plan; and, if so, why has it taken more than two and a half years to finalise? Dr J.M. EDWARDS replied: (1)-(3) I thank the member for some notice of this question. The plot is unfolding. I have been informed by the Environmental Protection Authority and the Swan River Trust that technically the requirements of the EPP were met when, in December 1999, a document entitled comprehensive management plan was transmitted to the previous Minister for the Environment and met the deadline. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Dr J.M. EDWARDS: Some nine months later she wrote to the EPA acknowledging that the legal nicety had been met, but stating that she would not release the document, that it would not go out for public comment and it needed to go back to the EPA for more work. Interestingly, it went back so that a new document could be drawn up, and that one went out for public consultation. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: To be built upon. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: No. The member should go back and check her records. This is a nice example of what the Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection was describing. The document comes to the minister, the minister presumably sits on it - there is a nine-month gap before her letter to the EPA - she decides not to release this document to the public, and she tells the EPA to give her a nicer looking document to put out to the public - Mrs C.L. Edwardes: That is the glossy. What about the substance? Dr J.M. EDWARDS: No; for the member’s information they are all called Riverplan. The EPA referred to that first document as Riverplan. This is really amusing. Yes, technically the EPP has been met, but the minister sat on that document, did not send it out to the public, and asked the EPA to prepare a glossy, because she asked for something that could be taken out for a bit of public consultation - but it was not the comprehensive management plan. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You are misrepresenting my words, and you know it. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: I am not misrepresenting the member’s words. Why would I want to do that? Members opposite have been caught out, and they do not like it.
(3) Does Riverplan build on this draft comprehensive management plan; and, if so, why has it taken more than two and a half years to finalise? Dr J.M. EDWARDS replied: (1)-(3) I thank the member for some notice of this question. The plot is unfolding. I have been informed by the Environmental Protection Authority and the Swan River Trust that technically the requirements of the EPP were met when, in December 1999, a document entitled comprehensive management plan was transmitted to the previous Minister for the Environment and met the deadline. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Dr J.M. EDWARDS: Some nine months later she wrote to the EPA acknowledging that the legal nicety had been met, but stating that she would not release the document, that it would not go out for public comment and it needed to go back to the EPA for more work. Interestingly, it went back so that a new document could be drawn up, and that one went out for public consultation. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: To be built upon. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: No. The member should go back and check her records. This is a nice example of what the Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection was describing. The document comes to the minister, the minister presumably sits on it - there is a nine-month gap before her letter to the EPA - she decides not to release this document to the public, and she tells the EPA to give her a nicer looking document to put out to the public - Mrs C.L. Edwardes: That is the glossy. What about the substance? Dr J.M. EDWARDS: No; for the member’s information they are all called Riverplan. The EPA referred to that first document as Riverplan. This is really amusing. Yes, technically the EPP has been met, but the minister sat on that document, did not send it out to the public, and asked the EPA to prepare a glossy, because she asked for something that could be taken out for a bit of public consultation - but it was not the comprehensive management plan. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You are misrepresenting my words, and you know it. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: I am not misrepresenting the member’s words. Why would I want to do that? Members opposite have been caught out, and they do not like it.
Dr J.M. EDWARDS replied: (1)-(3) I thank the member for some notice of this question. The plot is unfolding. I have been informed by the Environmental Protection Authority and the Swan River Trust that technically the requirements of the EPP were met when, in December 1999, a document entitled comprehensive management plan was transmitted to the previous Minister for the Environment and met the deadline. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Dr J.M. EDWARDS: Some nine months later she wrote to the EPA acknowledging that the legal nicety had been met, but stating that she would not release the document, that it would not go out for public comment and it needed to go back to the EPA for more work. Interestingly, it went back so that a new document could be drawn up, and that one went out for public consultation. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: To be built upon. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: No. The member should go back and check her records. This is a nice example of what the Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection was describing. The document comes to the minister, the minister presumably sits on it - there is a nine-month gap before her letter to the EPA - she decides not to release this document to the public, and she tells the EPA to give her a nicer looking document to put out to the public - Mrs C.L. Edwardes: That is the glossy. What about the substance? Dr J.M. EDWARDS: No; for the member’s information they are all called Riverplan. The EPA referred to that first document as Riverplan. This is really amusing. Yes, technically the EPP has been met, but the minister sat on that document, did not send it out to the public, and asked the EPA to prepare a glossy, because she asked for something that could be taken out for a bit of public consultation - but it was not the comprehensive management plan. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You are misrepresenting my words, and you know it. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: I am not misrepresenting the member’s words. Why would I want to do that? Members opposite have been caught out, and they do not like it.
(1)-(3) I thank the member for some notice of this question. The plot is unfolding. I have been informed by the Environmental Protection Authority and the Swan River Trust that technically the requirements of the EPP were met when, in December 1999, a document entitled comprehensive management plan was transmitted to the previous Minister for the Environment and met the deadline. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Dr J.M. EDWARDS: Some nine months later she wrote to the EPA acknowledging that the legal nicety had been met, but stating that she would not release the document, that it would not go out for public comment and it needed to go back to the EPA for more work. Interestingly, it went back so that a new document could be drawn up, and that one went out for public consultation. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: To be built upon. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: No. The member should go back and check her records. This is a nice example of what the Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection was describing. The document comes to the minister, the minister presumably sits on it - there is a nine-month gap before her letter to the EPA - she decides not to release this document to the public, and she tells the EPA to give her a nicer looking document to put out to the public - Mrs C.L. Edwardes: That is the glossy. What about the substance? Dr J.M. EDWARDS: No; for the member’s information they are all called Riverplan. The EPA referred to that first document as Riverplan. This is really amusing. Yes, technically the EPP has been met, but the minister sat on that document, did not send it out to the public, and asked the EPA to prepare a glossy, because she asked for something that could be taken out for a bit of public consultation - but it was not the comprehensive management plan. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You are misrepresenting my words, and you know it. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: I am not misrepresenting the member’s words. Why would I want to do that? Members opposite have been caught out, and they do not like it.
Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Dr J.M. EDWARDS: Some nine months later she wrote to the EPA acknowledging that the legal nicety had been met, but stating that she would not release the document, that it would not go out for public comment and it needed to go back to the EPA for more work. Interestingly, it went back so that a new document could be drawn up, and that one went out for public consultation. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: To be built upon. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: No. The member should go back and check her records. This is a nice example of what the Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection was describing. The document comes to the minister, the minister presumably sits on it - there is a nine-month gap before her letter to the EPA - she decides not to release this document to the public, and she tells the EPA to give her a nicer looking document to put out to the public - Mrs C.L. Edwardes: That is the glossy. What about the substance? Dr J.M. EDWARDS: No; for the member’s information they are all called Riverplan. The EPA referred to that first document as Riverplan. This is really amusing. Yes, technically the EPP has been met, but the minister sat on that document, did not send it out to the public, and asked the EPA to prepare a glossy, because she asked for something that could be taken out for a bit of public consultation - but it was not the comprehensive management plan. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You are misrepresenting my words, and you know it. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: I am not misrepresenting the member’s words. Why would I want to do that? Members opposite have been caught out, and they do not like it.
The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Dr J.M. EDWARDS: Some nine months later she wrote to the EPA acknowledging that the legal nicety had been met, but stating that she would not release the document, that it would not go out for public comment and it needed to go back to the EPA for more work. Interestingly, it went back so that a new document could be drawn up, and that one went out for public consultation. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: To be built upon. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: No. The member should go back and check her records. This is a nice example of what the Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection was describing. The document comes to the minister, the minister presumably sits on it - there is a nine-month gap before her letter to the EPA - she decides not to release this document to the public, and she tells the EPA to give her a nicer looking document to put out to the public - Mrs C.L. Edwardes: That is the glossy. What about the substance? Dr J.M. EDWARDS: No; for the member’s information they are all called Riverplan. The EPA referred to that first document as Riverplan. This is really amusing. Yes, technically the EPP has been met, but the minister sat on that document, did not send it out to the public, and asked the EPA to prepare a glossy, because she asked for something that could be taken out for a bit of public consultation - but it was not the comprehensive management plan. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You are misrepresenting my words, and you know it. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: I am not misrepresenting the member’s words. Why would I want to do that? Members opposite have been caught out, and they do not like it.
Dr J.M. EDWARDS: Some nine months later she wrote to the EPA acknowledging that the legal nicety had been met, but stating that she would not release the document, that it would not go out for public comment and it needed to go back to the EPA for more work. Interestingly, it went back so that a new document could be drawn up, and that one went out for public consultation. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: To be built upon. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: No. The member should go back and check her records. This is a nice example of what the Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection was describing. The document comes to the minister, the minister presumably sits on it - there is a nine-month gap before her letter to the EPA - she decides not to release this document to the public, and she tells the EPA to give her a nicer looking document to put out to the public - Mrs C.L. Edwardes: That is the glossy. What about the substance? Dr J.M. EDWARDS: No; for the member’s information they are all called Riverplan. The EPA referred to that first document as Riverplan. This is really amusing. Yes, technically the EPP has been met, but the minister sat on that document, did not send it out to the public, and asked the EPA to prepare a glossy, because she asked for something that could be taken out for a bit of public consultation - but it was not the comprehensive management plan. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You are misrepresenting my words, and you know it. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: I am not misrepresenting the member’s words. Why would I want to do that? Members opposite have been caught out, and they do not like it.
Mrs C.L. Edwardes: To be built upon. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: No. The member should go back and check her records. This is a nice example of what the Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection was describing. The document comes to the minister, the minister presumably sits on it - there is a nine-month gap before her letter to the EPA - she decides not to release this document to the public, and she tells the EPA to give her a nicer looking document to put out to the public - Mrs C.L. Edwardes: That is the glossy. What about the substance? Dr J.M. EDWARDS: No; for the member’s information they are all called Riverplan. The EPA referred to that first document as Riverplan. This is really amusing. Yes, technically the EPP has been met, but the minister sat on that document, did not send it out to the public, and asked the EPA to prepare a glossy, because she asked for something that could be taken out for a bit of public consultation - but it was not the comprehensive management plan. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You are misrepresenting my words, and you know it. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: I am not misrepresenting the member’s words. Why would I want to do that? Members opposite have been caught out, and they do not like it.
Dr J.M. EDWARDS: No. The member should go back and check her records. This is a nice example of what the Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection was describing. The document comes to the minister, the minister presumably sits on it - there is a nine-month gap before her letter to the EPA - she decides not to release this document to the public, and she tells the EPA to give her a nicer looking document to put out to the public - Mrs C.L. Edwardes: That is the glossy. What about the substance? Dr J.M. EDWARDS: No; for the member’s information they are all called Riverplan. The EPA referred to that first document as Riverplan. This is really amusing. Yes, technically the EPP has been met, but the minister sat on that document, did not send it out to the public, and asked the EPA to prepare a glossy, because she asked for something that could be taken out for a bit of public consultation - but it was not the comprehensive management plan. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You are misrepresenting my words, and you know it. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: I am not misrepresenting the member’s words. Why would I want to do that? Members opposite have been caught out, and they do not like it.
Mrs C.L. Edwardes: That is the glossy. What about the substance? Dr J.M. EDWARDS: No; for the member’s information they are all called Riverplan. The EPA referred to that first document as Riverplan. This is really amusing. Yes, technically the EPP has been met, but the minister sat on that document, did not send it out to the public, and asked the EPA to prepare a glossy, because she asked for something that could be taken out for a bit of public consultation - but it was not the comprehensive management plan. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You are misrepresenting my words, and you know it. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: I am not misrepresenting the member’s words. Why would I want to do that? Members opposite have been caught out, and they do not like it.
Dr J.M. EDWARDS: No; for the member’s information they are all called Riverplan. The EPA referred to that first document as Riverplan. This is really amusing. Yes, technically the EPP has been met, but the minister sat on that document, did not send it out to the public, and asked the EPA to prepare a glossy, because she asked for something that could be taken out for a bit of public consultation - but it was not the comprehensive management plan. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You are misrepresenting my words, and you know it. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: I am not misrepresenting the member’s words. Why would I want to do that? Members opposite have been caught out, and they do not like it.
Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You are misrepresenting my words, and you know it. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: I am not misrepresenting the member’s words. Why would I want to do that? Members opposite have been caught out, and they do not like it.
The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You are misrepresenting my words, and you know it. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: I am not misrepresenting the member’s words. Why would I want to do that? Members opposite have been caught out, and they do not like it.
Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You are misrepresenting my words, and you know it. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: I am not misrepresenting the member’s words. Why would I want to do that? Members opposite have been caught out, and they do not like it.
Dr J.M. EDWARDS: I am not misrepresenting the member’s words. Why would I want to do that? Members opposite have been caught out, and they do not like it.
(1) Is the Riverplan document, to which the minister referred yesterday and has in her possession, a comprehensive management plan in its current form, as required under the environmental protection policy order? (2) Has the minister seen a copy of the draft comprehensive management plan prepared by the Swan River Trust, which had been completed under the environmental protection policy order and was in circulation prior to the last election and at the time the minister took over the portfolio? (3) Does Riverplan build on this draft comprehensive management plan; and, if so, why has it taken more than two and a half years to finalise? Dr J.M. EDWARDS replied: (1)-(3) I thank the member for some notice of this question. The plot is unfolding. I have been informed by the Environmental Protection Authority and the Swan River Trust that technically the requirements of the EPP were met when, in December 1999, a document entitled comprehensive management plan was transmitted to the previous Minister for the Environment and met the deadline. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Dr J.M. EDWARDS: Some nine months later she wrote to the EPA acknowledging that the legal nicety had been met, but stating that she would not release the document, that it would not go out for public comment and it needed to go back to the EPA for more work. Interestingly, it went back so that a new document could be drawn up, and that one went out for public consultation. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: To be built upon. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: No. The member should go back and check her records. This is a nice example of what the Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection was describing. The document comes to the minister, the minister presumably sits on it - there is a nine-month gap before her letter to the EPA - she decides not to release this document to the public, and she tells the EPA to give her a nicer looking document to put out to the public - Mrs C.L. Edwardes: That is the glossy. What about the substance? Dr J.M. EDWARDS: No; for the member’s information they are all called Riverplan. The EPA referred to that first document as Riverplan. This is really amusing. Yes, technically the EPP has been met, but the minister sat on that document, did not send it out to the public, and asked the EPA to prepare a glossy, because she asked for something that could be taken out for a bit of public consultation - but it was not the comprehensive management plan. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You are misrepresenting my words, and you know it. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: I am not misrepresenting the member’s words. Why would I want to do that? Members opposite have been caught out, and they do not like it.
(2) Has the minister seen a copy of the draft comprehensive management plan prepared by the Swan River Trust, which had been completed under the environmental protection policy order and was in circulation prior to the last election and at the time the minister took over the portfolio? (3) Does Riverplan build on this draft comprehensive management plan; and, if so, why has it taken more than two and a half years to finalise? Dr J.M. EDWARDS replied: (1)-(3) I thank the member for some notice of this question. The plot is unfolding. I have been informed by the Environmental Protection Authority and the Swan River Trust that technically the requirements of the EPP were met when, in December 1999, a document entitled comprehensive management plan was transmitted to the previous Minister for the Environment and met the deadline. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Dr J.M. EDWARDS: Some nine months later she wrote to the EPA acknowledging that the legal nicety had been met, but stating that she would not release the document, that it would not go out for public comment and it needed to go back to the EPA for more work. Interestingly, it went back so that a new document could be drawn up, and that one went out for public consultation. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: To be built upon. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: No. The member should go back and check her records. This is a nice example of what the Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection was describing. The document comes to the minister, the minister presumably sits on it - there is a nine-month gap before her letter to the EPA - she decides not to release this document to the public, and she tells the EPA to give her a nicer looking document to put out to the public - Mrs C.L. Edwardes: That is the glossy. What about the substance? Dr J.M. EDWARDS: No; for the member’s information they are all called Riverplan. The EPA referred to that first document as Riverplan. This is really amusing. Yes, technically the EPP has been met, but the minister sat on that document, did not send it out to the public, and asked the EPA to prepare a glossy, because she asked for something that could be taken out for a bit of public consultation - but it was not the comprehensive management plan. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You are misrepresenting my words, and you know it. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: I am not misrepresenting the member’s words. Why would I want to do that? Members opposite have been caught out, and they do not like it.
(3) Does Riverplan build on this draft comprehensive management plan; and, if so, why has it taken more than two and a half years to finalise? Dr J.M. EDWARDS replied: (1)-(3) I thank the member for some notice of this question. The plot is unfolding. I have been informed by the Environmental Protection Authority and the Swan River Trust that technically the requirements of the EPP were met when, in December 1999, a document entitled comprehensive management plan was transmitted to the previous Minister for the Environment and met the deadline. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Dr J.M. EDWARDS: Some nine months later she wrote to the EPA acknowledging that the legal nicety had been met, but stating that she would not release the document, that it would not go out for public comment and it needed to go back to the EPA for more work. Interestingly, it went back so that a new document could be drawn up, and that one went out for public consultation. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: To be built upon. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: No. The member should go back and check her records. This is a nice example of what the Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection was describing. The document comes to the minister, the minister presumably sits on it - there is a nine-month gap before her letter to the EPA - she decides not to release this document to the public, and she tells the EPA to give her a nicer looking document to put out to the public - Mrs C.L. Edwardes: That is the glossy. What about the substance? Dr J.M. EDWARDS: No; for the member’s information they are all called Riverplan. The EPA referred to that first document as Riverplan. This is really amusing. Yes, technically the EPP has been met, but the minister sat on that document, did not send it out to the public, and asked the EPA to prepare a glossy, because she asked for something that could be taken out for a bit of public consultation - but it was not the comprehensive management plan. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You are misrepresenting my words, and you know it. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: I am not misrepresenting the member’s words. Why would I want to do that? Members opposite have been caught out, and they do not like it.
Dr J.M. EDWARDS replied: (1)-(3) I thank the member for some notice of this question. The plot is unfolding. I have been informed by the Environmental Protection Authority and the Swan River Trust that technically the requirements of the EPP were met when, in December 1999, a document entitled comprehensive management plan was transmitted to the previous Minister for the Environment and met the deadline. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Dr J.M. EDWARDS: Some nine months later she wrote to the EPA acknowledging that the legal nicety had been met, but stating that she would not release the document, that it would not go out for public comment and it needed to go back to the EPA for more work. Interestingly, it went back so that a new document could be drawn up, and that one went out for public consultation. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: To be built upon. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: No. The member should go back and check her records. This is a nice example of what the Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection was describing. The document comes to the minister, the minister presumably sits on it - there is a nine-month gap before her letter to the EPA - she decides not to release this document to the public, and she tells the EPA to give her a nicer looking document to put out to the public - Mrs C.L. Edwardes: That is the glossy. What about the substance? Dr J.M. EDWARDS: No; for the member’s information they are all called Riverplan. The EPA referred to that first document as Riverplan. This is really amusing. Yes, technically the EPP has been met, but the minister sat on that document, did not send it out to the public, and asked the EPA to prepare a glossy, because she asked for something that could be taken out for a bit of public consultation - but it was not the comprehensive management plan. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You are misrepresenting my words, and you know it. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: I am not misrepresenting the member’s words. Why would I want to do that? Members opposite have been caught out, and they do not like it.
(1)-(3) I thank the member for some notice of this question. The plot is unfolding. I have been informed by the Environmental Protection Authority and the Swan River Trust that technically the requirements of the EPP were met when, in December 1999, a document entitled comprehensive management plan was transmitted to the previous Minister for the Environment and met the deadline. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Dr J.M. EDWARDS: Some nine months later she wrote to the EPA acknowledging that the legal nicety had been met, but stating that she would not release the document, that it would not go out for public comment and it needed to go back to the EPA for more work. Interestingly, it went back so that a new document could be drawn up, and that one went out for public consultation. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: To be built upon. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: No. The member should go back and check her records. This is a nice example of what the Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection was describing. The document comes to the minister, the minister presumably sits on it - there is a nine-month gap before her letter to the EPA - she decides not to release this document to the public, and she tells the EPA to give her a nicer looking document to put out to the public - Mrs C.L. Edwardes: That is the glossy. What about the substance? Dr J.M. EDWARDS: No; for the member’s information they are all called Riverplan. The EPA referred to that first document as Riverplan. This is really amusing. Yes, technically the EPP has been met, but the minister sat on that document, did not send it out to the public, and asked the EPA to prepare a glossy, because she asked for something that could be taken out for a bit of public consultation - but it was not the comprehensive management plan. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You are misrepresenting my words, and you know it. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: I am not misrepresenting the member’s words. Why would I want to do that? Members opposite have been caught out, and they do not like it.
Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Dr J.M. EDWARDS: Some nine months later she wrote to the EPA acknowledging that the legal nicety had been met, but stating that she would not release the document, that it would not go out for public comment and it needed to go back to the EPA for more work. Interestingly, it went back so that a new document could be drawn up, and that one went out for public consultation. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: To be built upon. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: No. The member should go back and check her records. This is a nice example of what the Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection was describing. The document comes to the minister, the minister presumably sits on it - there is a nine-month gap before her letter to the EPA - she decides not to release this document to the public, and she tells the EPA to give her a nicer looking document to put out to the public - Mrs C.L. Edwardes: That is the glossy. What about the substance? Dr J.M. EDWARDS: No; for the member’s information they are all called Riverplan. The EPA referred to that first document as Riverplan. This is really amusing. Yes, technically the EPP has been met, but the minister sat on that document, did not send it out to the public, and asked the EPA to prepare a glossy, because she asked for something that could be taken out for a bit of public consultation - but it was not the comprehensive management plan. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You are misrepresenting my words, and you know it. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: I am not misrepresenting the member’s words. Why would I want to do that? Members opposite have been caught out, and they do not like it.
The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Dr J.M. EDWARDS: Some nine months later she wrote to the EPA acknowledging that the legal nicety had been met, but stating that she would not release the document, that it would not go out for public comment and it needed to go back to the EPA for more work. Interestingly, it went back so that a new document could be drawn up, and that one went out for public consultation. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: To be built upon. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: No. The member should go back and check her records. This is a nice example of what the Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection was describing. The document comes to the minister, the minister presumably sits on it - there is a nine-month gap before her letter to the EPA - she decides not to release this document to the public, and she tells the EPA to give her a nicer looking document to put out to the public - Mrs C.L. Edwardes: That is the glossy. What about the substance? Dr J.M. EDWARDS: No; for the member’s information they are all called Riverplan. The EPA referred to that first document as Riverplan. This is really amusing. Yes, technically the EPP has been met, but the minister sat on that document, did not send it out to the public, and asked the EPA to prepare a glossy, because she asked for something that could be taken out for a bit of public consultation - but it was not the comprehensive management plan. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You are misrepresenting my words, and you know it. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: I am not misrepresenting the member’s words. Why would I want to do that? Members opposite have been caught out, and they do not like it.
Dr J.M. EDWARDS: Some nine months later she wrote to the EPA acknowledging that the legal nicety had been met, but stating that she would not release the document, that it would not go out for public comment and it needed to go back to the EPA for more work. Interestingly, it went back so that a new document could be drawn up, and that one went out for public consultation. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: To be built upon. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: No. The member should go back and check her records. This is a nice example of what the Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection was describing. The document comes to the minister, the minister presumably sits on it - there is a nine-month gap before her letter to the EPA - she decides not to release this document to the public, and she tells the EPA to give her a nicer looking document to put out to the public - Mrs C.L. Edwardes: That is the glossy. What about the substance? Dr J.M. EDWARDS: No; for the member’s information they are all called Riverplan. The EPA referred to that first document as Riverplan. This is really amusing. Yes, technically the EPP has been met, but the minister sat on that document, did not send it out to the public, and asked the EPA to prepare a glossy, because she asked for something that could be taken out for a bit of public consultation - but it was not the comprehensive management plan. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You are misrepresenting my words, and you know it. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: I am not misrepresenting the member’s words. Why would I want to do that? Members opposite have been caught out, and they do not like it.
Mrs C.L. Edwardes: To be built upon. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: No. The member should go back and check her records. This is a nice example of what the Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection was describing. The document comes to the minister, the minister presumably sits on it - there is a nine-month gap before her letter to the EPA - she decides not to release this document to the public, and she tells the EPA to give her a nicer looking document to put out to the public - Mrs C.L. Edwardes: That is the glossy. What about the substance? Dr J.M. EDWARDS: No; for the member’s information they are all called Riverplan. The EPA referred to that first document as Riverplan. This is really amusing. Yes, technically the EPP has been met, but the minister sat on that document, did not send it out to the public, and asked the EPA to prepare a glossy, because she asked for something that could be taken out for a bit of public consultation - but it was not the comprehensive management plan. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You are misrepresenting my words, and you know it. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: I am not misrepresenting the member’s words. Why would I want to do that? Members opposite have been caught out, and they do not like it.
Dr J.M. EDWARDS: No. The member should go back and check her records. This is a nice example of what the Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection was describing. The document comes to the minister, the minister presumably sits on it - there is a nine-month gap before her letter to the EPA - she decides not to release this document to the public, and she tells the EPA to give her a nicer looking document to put out to the public - Mrs C.L. Edwardes: That is the glossy. What about the substance? Dr J.M. EDWARDS: No; for the member’s information they are all called Riverplan. The EPA referred to that first document as Riverplan. This is really amusing. Yes, technically the EPP has been met, but the minister sat on that document, did not send it out to the public, and asked the EPA to prepare a glossy, because she asked for something that could be taken out for a bit of public consultation - but it was not the comprehensive management plan. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You are misrepresenting my words, and you know it. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: I am not misrepresenting the member’s words. Why would I want to do that? Members opposite have been caught out, and they do not like it.
Mrs C.L. Edwardes: That is the glossy. What about the substance? Dr J.M. EDWARDS: No; for the member’s information they are all called Riverplan. The EPA referred to that first document as Riverplan. This is really amusing. Yes, technically the EPP has been met, but the minister sat on that document, did not send it out to the public, and asked the EPA to prepare a glossy, because she asked for something that could be taken out for a bit of public consultation - but it was not the comprehensive management plan. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You are misrepresenting my words, and you know it. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: I am not misrepresenting the member’s words. Why would I want to do that? Members opposite have been caught out, and they do not like it.
Dr J.M. EDWARDS: No; for the member’s information they are all called Riverplan. The EPA referred to that first document as Riverplan. This is really amusing. Yes, technically the EPP has been met, but the minister sat on that document, did not send it out to the public, and asked the EPA to prepare a glossy, because she asked for something that could be taken out for a bit of public consultation - but it was not the comprehensive management plan. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You are misrepresenting my words, and you know it. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: I am not misrepresenting the member’s words. Why would I want to do that? Members opposite have been caught out, and they do not like it.
Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You are misrepresenting my words, and you know it. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: I am not misrepresenting the member’s words. Why would I want to do that? Members opposite have been caught out, and they do not like it.
The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You are misrepresenting my words, and you know it. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: I am not misrepresenting the member’s words. Why would I want to do that? Members opposite have been caught out, and they do not like it.
Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You are misrepresenting my words, and you know it. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: I am not misrepresenting the member’s words. Why would I want to do that? Members opposite have been caught out, and they do not like it.
Dr J.M. EDWARDS: I am not misrepresenting the member’s words. Why would I want to do that? Members opposite have been caught out, and they do not like it.
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.