❓ The Minister addresses confusion regarding land clearing policies in rural and metropolitan WA, clarifying the roles of different legislation and outlining the government's general moratorium subject to catchment management plans.
AnsweredQoN 798Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to recent newspaper articles about statements by the minister on proposed land clearing bans in rural Western Australia. The minister made a subsequent statement that he was referring not to bans in rural WA but to bans in the metropolitan area, under Bushplan. The minister has created a lot of confusion. Therefore, I ask - (1) What is the Government’s position on land clearing in rural WA? (2) Will the Government now ban any further clearing of vegetation in the metropolitan area for residential development? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(2) I thank the member for allowing me an opportunity to address this matter. I believe I have spent some time with the journalist who attributed a particular statement to me about clearing bans being applicable only in the city. I think I have spoken to that journalist on four or five occasions and explained in some detail the admittedly complex situation that arises from the multitudinal issues of land clearing. It seems as though I have not been able to make myself clear, so I welcome this opportunity. First, I specifically did not say that clearing bans apply only to the city, although that was a statement attributed to me. I said that in the whole question of land clearing, much of our land clearing fits into an area of legislative deficiency or a complete absence of legislation to control that land clearing. There is legislation to control agricultural land clearing, which these days is only a relatively small part of the total land clearing equation. However, the effect of that legislation is limited to soil and land degradation and not to issues such as biodiversity, which necessarily are covered by the Environmental Protection Act and not the Act under my control, the Soil and Land Conservation Act 1945. The limitations upon me in exercising the powers of the Soil and Land Conservation Act are that those powers are confined to questions of soil and land degradation and not to issues of biodiversity or to other matters that might be the province of another minister under the Environmental Protection Act or another Act that has similar powers, such as the Wildlife Conservation Act or the Country Areas Water Supply Act. The misunderstanding of the Government’s policy in this matter arises from a willingness of some people to read into the Government’s policy those parts of the policy that they agree with and to totally ignore those parts of the policy that they do not agree with. In fact, the Government’s policy on this matter is crystal clear. It provides for a general moratorium on land clearing, subject to certain things taking place. One of those things is a catchment management plan being in place prior to clearing approval being provided. The specific agricultural land clearing issue also is crystal clear. The Government’s policy outlines various issues for which it believes some reassurance was required, such as the maintenance of the 90-day approval period. The Government was particularly concerned that people had been waiting up to four and a half years for approval, although the legislation provides for a decision in 90 days. Since then I have attempted - this goes to the matters raised in the media - to clear up some of the misunderstanding about the powers of the two relevant Acts; that is, the powers of the Soil and Land Conservation Act and the Environmental Protection Act. It is true - this is public knowledge - that, I think, section 38 of the Environmental Protection Act does not provide for the Chairman of the EPA to insist upon an abstinence from clearing while the EPA is undertaking assessment of a proposition. That is a deficiency in that Act. The Government is aware of that deficiency, and, together with my colleague the Minister for the Environment and other relevant ministers, we are moving towards correcting those deficiencies.
(1) What is the Government’s position on land clearing in rural WA? (2) Will the Government now ban any further clearing of vegetation in the metropolitan area for residential development? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(2) I thank the member for allowing me an opportunity to address this matter. I believe I have spent some time with the journalist who attributed a particular statement to me about clearing bans being applicable only in the city. I think I have spoken to that journalist on four or five occasions and explained in some detail the admittedly complex situation that arises from the multitudinal issues of land clearing. It seems as though I have not been able to make myself clear, so I welcome this opportunity. First, I specifically did not say that clearing bans apply only to the city, although that was a statement attributed to me. I said that in the whole question of land clearing, much of our land clearing fits into an area of legislative deficiency or a complete absence of legislation to control that land clearing. There is legislation to control agricultural land clearing, which these days is only a relatively small part of the total land clearing equation. However, the effect of that legislation is limited to soil and land degradation and not to issues such as biodiversity, which necessarily are covered by the Environmental Protection Act and not the Act under my control, the Soil and Land Conservation Act 1945. The limitations upon me in exercising the powers of the Soil and Land Conservation Act are that those powers are confined to questions of soil and land degradation and not to issues of biodiversity or to other matters that might be the province of another minister under the Environmental Protection Act or another Act that has similar powers, such as the Wildlife Conservation Act or the Country Areas Water Supply Act. The misunderstanding of the Government’s policy in this matter arises from a willingness of some people to read into the Government’s policy those parts of the policy that they agree with and to totally ignore those parts of the policy that they do not agree with. In fact, the Government’s policy on this matter is crystal clear. It provides for a general moratorium on land clearing, subject to certain things taking place. One of those things is a catchment management plan being in place prior to clearing approval being provided. The specific agricultural land clearing issue also is crystal clear. The Government’s policy outlines various issues for which it believes some reassurance was required, such as the maintenance of the 90-day approval period. The Government was particularly concerned that people had been waiting up to four and a half years for approval, although the legislation provides for a decision in 90 days. Since then I have attempted - this goes to the matters raised in the media - to clear up some of the misunderstanding about the powers of the two relevant Acts; that is, the powers of the Soil and Land Conservation Act and the Environmental Protection Act. It is true - this is public knowledge - that, I think, section 38 of the Environmental Protection Act does not provide for the Chairman of the EPA to insist upon an abstinence from clearing while the EPA is undertaking assessment of a proposition. That is a deficiency in that Act. The Government is aware of that deficiency, and, together with my colleague the Minister for the Environment and other relevant ministers, we are moving towards correcting those deficiencies.
(2) Will the Government now ban any further clearing of vegetation in the metropolitan area for residential development? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(2) I thank the member for allowing me an opportunity to address this matter. I believe I have spent some time with the journalist who attributed a particular statement to me about clearing bans being applicable only in the city. I think I have spoken to that journalist on four or five occasions and explained in some detail the admittedly complex situation that arises from the multitudinal issues of land clearing. It seems as though I have not been able to make myself clear, so I welcome this opportunity. First, I specifically did not say that clearing bans apply only to the city, although that was a statement attributed to me. I said that in the whole question of land clearing, much of our land clearing fits into an area of legislative deficiency or a complete absence of legislation to control that land clearing. There is legislation to control agricultural land clearing, which these days is only a relatively small part of the total land clearing equation. However, the effect of that legislation is limited to soil and land degradation and not to issues such as biodiversity, which necessarily are covered by the Environmental Protection Act and not the Act under my control, the Soil and Land Conservation Act 1945. The limitations upon me in exercising the powers of the Soil and Land Conservation Act are that those powers are confined to questions of soil and land degradation and not to issues of biodiversity or to other matters that might be the province of another minister under the Environmental Protection Act or another Act that has similar powers, such as the Wildlife Conservation Act or the Country Areas Water Supply Act. The misunderstanding of the Government’s policy in this matter arises from a willingness of some people to read into the Government’s policy those parts of the policy that they agree with and to totally ignore those parts of the policy that they do not agree with. In fact, the Government’s policy on this matter is crystal clear. It provides for a general moratorium on land clearing, subject to certain things taking place. One of those things is a catchment management plan being in place prior to clearing approval being provided. The specific agricultural land clearing issue also is crystal clear. The Government’s policy outlines various issues for which it believes some reassurance was required, such as the maintenance of the 90-day approval period. The Government was particularly concerned that people had been waiting up to four and a half years for approval, although the legislation provides for a decision in 90 days. Since then I have attempted - this goes to the matters raised in the media - to clear up some of the misunderstanding about the powers of the two relevant Acts; that is, the powers of the Soil and Land Conservation Act and the Environmental Protection Act. It is true - this is public knowledge - that, I think, section 38 of the Environmental Protection Act does not provide for the Chairman of the EPA to insist upon an abstinence from clearing while the EPA is undertaking assessment of a proposition. That is a deficiency in that Act. The Government is aware of that deficiency, and, together with my colleague the Minister for the Environment and other relevant ministers, we are moving towards correcting those deficiencies.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(2) I thank the member for allowing me an opportunity to address this matter. I believe I have spent some time with the journalist who attributed a particular statement to me about clearing bans being applicable only in the city. I think I have spoken to that journalist on four or five occasions and explained in some detail the admittedly complex situation that arises from the multitudinal issues of land clearing. It seems as though I have not been able to make myself clear, so I welcome this opportunity. First, I specifically did not say that clearing bans apply only to the city, although that was a statement attributed to me. I said that in the whole question of land clearing, much of our land clearing fits into an area of legislative deficiency or a complete absence of legislation to control that land clearing. There is legislation to control agricultural land clearing, which these days is only a relatively small part of the total land clearing equation. However, the effect of that legislation is limited to soil and land degradation and not to issues such as biodiversity, which necessarily are covered by the Environmental Protection Act and not the Act under my control, the Soil and Land Conservation Act 1945. The limitations upon me in exercising the powers of the Soil and Land Conservation Act are that those powers are confined to questions of soil and land degradation and not to issues of biodiversity or to other matters that might be the province of another minister under the Environmental Protection Act or another Act that has similar powers, such as the Wildlife Conservation Act or the Country Areas Water Supply Act. The misunderstanding of the Government’s policy in this matter arises from a willingness of some people to read into the Government’s policy those parts of the policy that they agree with and to totally ignore those parts of the policy that they do not agree with. In fact, the Government’s policy on this matter is crystal clear. It provides for a general moratorium on land clearing, subject to certain things taking place. One of those things is a catchment management plan being in place prior to clearing approval being provided. The specific agricultural land clearing issue also is crystal clear. The Government’s policy outlines various issues for which it believes some reassurance was required, such as the maintenance of the 90-day approval period. The Government was particularly concerned that people had been waiting up to four and a half years for approval, although the legislation provides for a decision in 90 days. Since then I have attempted - this goes to the matters raised in the media - to clear up some of the misunderstanding about the powers of the two relevant Acts; that is, the powers of the Soil and Land Conservation Act and the Environmental Protection Act. It is true - this is public knowledge - that, I think, section 38 of the Environmental Protection Act does not provide for the Chairman of the EPA to insist upon an abstinence from clearing while the EPA is undertaking assessment of a proposition. That is a deficiency in that Act. The Government is aware of that deficiency, and, together with my colleague the Minister for the Environment and other relevant ministers, we are moving towards correcting those deficiencies.
(1)-(2) I thank the member for allowing me an opportunity to address this matter. I believe I have spent some time with the journalist who attributed a particular statement to me about clearing bans being applicable only in the city. I think I have spoken to that journalist on four or five occasions and explained in some detail the admittedly complex situation that arises from the multitudinal issues of land clearing. It seems as though I have not been able to make myself clear, so I welcome this opportunity. First, I specifically did not say that clearing bans apply only to the city, although that was a statement attributed to me. I said that in the whole question of land clearing, much of our land clearing fits into an area of legislative deficiency or a complete absence of legislation to control that land clearing. There is legislation to control agricultural land clearing, which these days is only a relatively small part of the total land clearing equation. However, the effect of that legislation is limited to soil and land degradation and not to issues such as biodiversity, which necessarily are covered by the Environmental Protection Act and not the Act under my control, the Soil and Land Conservation Act 1945. The limitations upon me in exercising the powers of the Soil and Land Conservation Act are that those powers are confined to questions of soil and land degradation and not to issues of biodiversity or to other matters that might be the province of another minister under the Environmental Protection Act or another Act that has similar powers, such as the Wildlife Conservation Act or the Country Areas Water Supply Act. The misunderstanding of the Government’s policy in this matter arises from a willingness of some people to read into the Government’s policy those parts of the policy that they agree with and to totally ignore those parts of the policy that they do not agree with. In fact, the Government’s policy on this matter is crystal clear. It provides for a general moratorium on land clearing, subject to certain things taking place. One of those things is a catchment management plan being in place prior to clearing approval being provided. The specific agricultural land clearing issue also is crystal clear. The Government’s policy outlines various issues for which it believes some reassurance was required, such as the maintenance of the 90-day approval period. The Government was particularly concerned that people had been waiting up to four and a half years for approval, although the legislation provides for a decision in 90 days. Since then I have attempted - this goes to the matters raised in the media - to clear up some of the misunderstanding about the powers of the two relevant Acts; that is, the powers of the Soil and Land Conservation Act and the Environmental Protection Act. It is true - this is public knowledge - that, I think, section 38 of the Environmental Protection Act does not provide for the Chairman of the EPA to insist upon an abstinence from clearing while the EPA is undertaking assessment of a proposition. That is a deficiency in that Act. The Government is aware of that deficiency, and, together with my colleague the Minister for the Environment and other relevant ministers, we are moving towards correcting those deficiencies.
The misunderstanding of the Government’s policy in this matter arises from a willingness of some people to read into the Government’s policy those parts of the policy that they agree with and to totally ignore those parts of the policy that they do not agree with. In fact, the Government’s policy on this matter is crystal clear. It provides for a general moratorium on land clearing, subject to certain things taking place. One of those things is a catchment management plan being in place prior to clearing approval being provided. The specific agricultural land clearing issue also is crystal clear. The Government’s policy outlines various issues for which it believes some reassurance was required, such as the maintenance of the 90-day approval period. The Government was particularly concerned that people had been waiting up to four and a half years for approval, although the legislation provides for a decision in 90 days. Since then I have attempted - this goes to the matters raised in the media - to clear up some of the misunderstanding about the powers of the two relevant Acts; that is, the powers of the Soil and Land Conservation Act and the Environmental Protection Act. It is true - this is public knowledge - that, I think, section 38 of the Environmental Protection Act does not provide for the Chairman of the EPA to insist upon an abstinence from clearing while the EPA is undertaking assessment of a proposition. That is a deficiency in that Act. The Government is aware of that deficiency, and, together with my colleague the Minister for the Environment and other relevant ministers, we are moving towards correcting those deficiencies.
The specific agricultural land clearing issue also is crystal clear. The Government’s policy outlines various issues for which it believes some reassurance was required, such as the maintenance of the 90-day approval period. The Government was particularly concerned that people had been waiting up to four and a half years for approval, although the legislation provides for a decision in 90 days. Since then I have attempted - this goes to the matters raised in the media - to clear up some of the misunderstanding about the powers of the two relevant Acts; that is, the powers of the Soil and Land Conservation Act and the Environmental Protection Act. It is true - this is public knowledge - that, I think, section 38 of the Environmental Protection Act does not provide for the Chairman of the EPA to insist upon an abstinence from clearing while the EPA is undertaking assessment of a proposition. That is a deficiency in that Act. The Government is aware of that deficiency, and, together with my colleague the Minister for the Environment and other relevant ministers, we are moving towards correcting those deficiencies.
(1) What is the Government’s position on land clearing in rural WA? (2) Will the Government now ban any further clearing of vegetation in the metropolitan area for residential development? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(2) I thank the member for allowing me an opportunity to address this matter. I believe I have spent some time with the journalist who attributed a particular statement to me about clearing bans being applicable only in the city. I think I have spoken to that journalist on four or five occasions and explained in some detail the admittedly complex situation that arises from the multitudinal issues of land clearing. It seems as though I have not been able to make myself clear, so I welcome this opportunity. First, I specifically did not say that clearing bans apply only to the city, although that was a statement attributed to me. I said that in the whole question of land clearing, much of our land clearing fits into an area of legislative deficiency or a complete absence of legislation to control that land clearing. There is legislation to control agricultural land clearing, which these days is only a relatively small part of the total land clearing equation. However, the effect of that legislation is limited to soil and land degradation and not to issues such as biodiversity, which necessarily are covered by the Environmental Protection Act and not the Act under my control, the Soil and Land Conservation Act 1945. The limitations upon me in exercising the powers of the Soil and Land Conservation Act are that those powers are confined to questions of soil and land degradation and not to issues of biodiversity or to other matters that might be the province of another minister under the Environmental Protection Act or another Act that has similar powers, such as the Wildlife Conservation Act or the Country Areas Water Supply Act. The misunderstanding of the Government’s policy in this matter arises from a willingness of some people to read into the Government’s policy those parts of the policy that they agree with and to totally ignore those parts of the policy that they do not agree with. In fact, the Government’s policy on this matter is crystal clear. It provides for a general moratorium on land clearing, subject to certain things taking place. One of those things is a catchment management plan being in place prior to clearing approval being provided. The specific agricultural land clearing issue also is crystal clear. The Government’s policy outlines various issues for which it believes some reassurance was required, such as the maintenance of the 90-day approval period. The Government was particularly concerned that people had been waiting up to four and a half years for approval, although the legislation provides for a decision in 90 days. Since then I have attempted - this goes to the matters raised in the media - to clear up some of the misunderstanding about the powers of the two relevant Acts; that is, the powers of the Soil and Land Conservation Act and the Environmental Protection Act. It is true - this is public knowledge - that, I think, section 38 of the Environmental Protection Act does not provide for the Chairman of the EPA to insist upon an abstinence from clearing while the EPA is undertaking assessment of a proposition. That is a deficiency in that Act. The Government is aware of that deficiency, and, together with my colleague the Minister for the Environment and other relevant ministers, we are moving towards correcting those deficiencies.
(2) Will the Government now ban any further clearing of vegetation in the metropolitan area for residential development? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(2) I thank the member for allowing me an opportunity to address this matter. I believe I have spent some time with the journalist who attributed a particular statement to me about clearing bans being applicable only in the city. I think I have spoken to that journalist on four or five occasions and explained in some detail the admittedly complex situation that arises from the multitudinal issues of land clearing. It seems as though I have not been able to make myself clear, so I welcome this opportunity. First, I specifically did not say that clearing bans apply only to the city, although that was a statement attributed to me. I said that in the whole question of land clearing, much of our land clearing fits into an area of legislative deficiency or a complete absence of legislation to control that land clearing. There is legislation to control agricultural land clearing, which these days is only a relatively small part of the total land clearing equation. However, the effect of that legislation is limited to soil and land degradation and not to issues such as biodiversity, which necessarily are covered by the Environmental Protection Act and not the Act under my control, the Soil and Land Conservation Act 1945. The limitations upon me in exercising the powers of the Soil and Land Conservation Act are that those powers are confined to questions of soil and land degradation and not to issues of biodiversity or to other matters that might be the province of another minister under the Environmental Protection Act or another Act that has similar powers, such as the Wildlife Conservation Act or the Country Areas Water Supply Act. The misunderstanding of the Government’s policy in this matter arises from a willingness of some people to read into the Government’s policy those parts of the policy that they agree with and to totally ignore those parts of the policy that they do not agree with. In fact, the Government’s policy on this matter is crystal clear. It provides for a general moratorium on land clearing, subject to certain things taking place. One of those things is a catchment management plan being in place prior to clearing approval being provided. The specific agricultural land clearing issue also is crystal clear. The Government’s policy outlines various issues for which it believes some reassurance was required, such as the maintenance of the 90-day approval period. The Government was particularly concerned that people had been waiting up to four and a half years for approval, although the legislation provides for a decision in 90 days. Since then I have attempted - this goes to the matters raised in the media - to clear up some of the misunderstanding about the powers of the two relevant Acts; that is, the powers of the Soil and Land Conservation Act and the Environmental Protection Act. It is true - this is public knowledge - that, I think, section 38 of the Environmental Protection Act does not provide for the Chairman of the EPA to insist upon an abstinence from clearing while the EPA is undertaking assessment of a proposition. That is a deficiency in that Act. The Government is aware of that deficiency, and, together with my colleague the Minister for the Environment and other relevant ministers, we are moving towards correcting those deficiencies.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(2) I thank the member for allowing me an opportunity to address this matter. I believe I have spent some time with the journalist who attributed a particular statement to me about clearing bans being applicable only in the city. I think I have spoken to that journalist on four or five occasions and explained in some detail the admittedly complex situation that arises from the multitudinal issues of land clearing. It seems as though I have not been able to make myself clear, so I welcome this opportunity. First, I specifically did not say that clearing bans apply only to the city, although that was a statement attributed to me. I said that in the whole question of land clearing, much of our land clearing fits into an area of legislative deficiency or a complete absence of legislation to control that land clearing. There is legislation to control agricultural land clearing, which these days is only a relatively small part of the total land clearing equation. However, the effect of that legislation is limited to soil and land degradation and not to issues such as biodiversity, which necessarily are covered by the Environmental Protection Act and not the Act under my control, the Soil and Land Conservation Act 1945. The limitations upon me in exercising the powers of the Soil and Land Conservation Act are that those powers are confined to questions of soil and land degradation and not to issues of biodiversity or to other matters that might be the province of another minister under the Environmental Protection Act or another Act that has similar powers, such as the Wildlife Conservation Act or the Country Areas Water Supply Act. The misunderstanding of the Government’s policy in this matter arises from a willingness of some people to read into the Government’s policy those parts of the policy that they agree with and to totally ignore those parts of the policy that they do not agree with. In fact, the Government’s policy on this matter is crystal clear. It provides for a general moratorium on land clearing, subject to certain things taking place. One of those things is a catchment management plan being in place prior to clearing approval being provided. The specific agricultural land clearing issue also is crystal clear. The Government’s policy outlines various issues for which it believes some reassurance was required, such as the maintenance of the 90-day approval period. The Government was particularly concerned that people had been waiting up to four and a half years for approval, although the legislation provides for a decision in 90 days. Since then I have attempted - this goes to the matters raised in the media - to clear up some of the misunderstanding about the powers of the two relevant Acts; that is, the powers of the Soil and Land Conservation Act and the Environmental Protection Act. It is true - this is public knowledge - that, I think, section 38 of the Environmental Protection Act does not provide for the Chairman of the EPA to insist upon an abstinence from clearing while the EPA is undertaking assessment of a proposition. That is a deficiency in that Act. The Government is aware of that deficiency, and, together with my colleague the Minister for the Environment and other relevant ministers, we are moving towards correcting those deficiencies.
(1)-(2) I thank the member for allowing me an opportunity to address this matter. I believe I have spent some time with the journalist who attributed a particular statement to me about clearing bans being applicable only in the city. I think I have spoken to that journalist on four or five occasions and explained in some detail the admittedly complex situation that arises from the multitudinal issues of land clearing. It seems as though I have not been able to make myself clear, so I welcome this opportunity. First, I specifically did not say that clearing bans apply only to the city, although that was a statement attributed to me. I said that in the whole question of land clearing, much of our land clearing fits into an area of legislative deficiency or a complete absence of legislation to control that land clearing. There is legislation to control agricultural land clearing, which these days is only a relatively small part of the total land clearing equation. However, the effect of that legislation is limited to soil and land degradation and not to issues such as biodiversity, which necessarily are covered by the Environmental Protection Act and not the Act under my control, the Soil and Land Conservation Act 1945. The limitations upon me in exercising the powers of the Soil and Land Conservation Act are that those powers are confined to questions of soil and land degradation and not to issues of biodiversity or to other matters that might be the province of another minister under the Environmental Protection Act or another Act that has similar powers, such as the Wildlife Conservation Act or the Country Areas Water Supply Act. The misunderstanding of the Government’s policy in this matter arises from a willingness of some people to read into the Government’s policy those parts of the policy that they agree with and to totally ignore those parts of the policy that they do not agree with. In fact, the Government’s policy on this matter is crystal clear. It provides for a general moratorium on land clearing, subject to certain things taking place. One of those things is a catchment management plan being in place prior to clearing approval being provided. The specific agricultural land clearing issue also is crystal clear. The Government’s policy outlines various issues for which it believes some reassurance was required, such as the maintenance of the 90-day approval period. The Government was particularly concerned that people had been waiting up to four and a half years for approval, although the legislation provides for a decision in 90 days. Since then I have attempted - this goes to the matters raised in the media - to clear up some of the misunderstanding about the powers of the two relevant Acts; that is, the powers of the Soil and Land Conservation Act and the Environmental Protection Act. It is true - this is public knowledge - that, I think, section 38 of the Environmental Protection Act does not provide for the Chairman of the EPA to insist upon an abstinence from clearing while the EPA is undertaking assessment of a proposition. That is a deficiency in that Act. The Government is aware of that deficiency, and, together with my colleague the Minister for the Environment and other relevant ministers, we are moving towards correcting those deficiencies.
The misunderstanding of the Government’s policy in this matter arises from a willingness of some people to read into the Government’s policy those parts of the policy that they agree with and to totally ignore those parts of the policy that they do not agree with. In fact, the Government’s policy on this matter is crystal clear. It provides for a general moratorium on land clearing, subject to certain things taking place. One of those things is a catchment management plan being in place prior to clearing approval being provided. The specific agricultural land clearing issue also is crystal clear. The Government’s policy outlines various issues for which it believes some reassurance was required, such as the maintenance of the 90-day approval period. The Government was particularly concerned that people had been waiting up to four and a half years for approval, although the legislation provides for a decision in 90 days. Since then I have attempted - this goes to the matters raised in the media - to clear up some of the misunderstanding about the powers of the two relevant Acts; that is, the powers of the Soil and Land Conservation Act and the Environmental Protection Act. It is true - this is public knowledge - that, I think, section 38 of the Environmental Protection Act does not provide for the Chairman of the EPA to insist upon an abstinence from clearing while the EPA is undertaking assessment of a proposition. That is a deficiency in that Act. The Government is aware of that deficiency, and, together with my colleague the Minister for the Environment and other relevant ministers, we are moving towards correcting those deficiencies.
The specific agricultural land clearing issue also is crystal clear. The Government’s policy outlines various issues for which it believes some reassurance was required, such as the maintenance of the 90-day approval period. The Government was particularly concerned that people had been waiting up to four and a half years for approval, although the legislation provides for a decision in 90 days. Since then I have attempted - this goes to the matters raised in the media - to clear up some of the misunderstanding about the powers of the two relevant Acts; that is, the powers of the Soil and Land Conservation Act and the Environmental Protection Act. It is true - this is public knowledge - that, I think, section 38 of the Environmental Protection Act does not provide for the Chairman of the EPA to insist upon an abstinence from clearing while the EPA is undertaking assessment of a proposition. That is a deficiency in that Act. The Government is aware of that deficiency, and, together with my colleague the Minister for the Environment and other relevant ministers, we are moving towards correcting those deficiencies.
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.