❓ Hon Robin Scott questions the Minister for Lands regarding the DPLH's decision to deny a land purchase for a sandalwood plantation, citing concerns about commercial viability and a decades-old conservation plan. The Minister has requested a review of the matter.
AnsweredQoN 1109Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
In respect of a proposed
purchase of Lot 1522 on deposited plan 186 503, job 1646192, can the Minister
confirm that on 1 March 2018 a State Land Officer wrote to the
applicant, Mr Peter Green in the following terms, "The Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage
(DPLH) have considered information and advice pertaining to your application
for issue of a lease or to purchase (Part Reserve 18966) Lot 1522 on Deposited
Plan 186503.
Firstly, there are concerns with the merits
and likelihood of success for the development of a commercial plantation of
sandalwood in what is a low rainfall zone. It is estimated that it will take 50
years for a plantation in this area to reach commercial potential.
Secondly, the proposed area being Lot 1522 forms
part of Reserve 18966. Areas of Reserve 18966 are proposed to be included into
the adjoining Yellowdine National Park Reserve as per the Conservation
Reserve for Western Australia 1975 report (known as the Red Book report). Based on the above, DPLH is not in a position to
issue tenure over Lot 1522. Please be advised that Job 164192 will now be
closed.": (a) can the Minister explain why the DPLH purports to evaluate the commercial viability of a project when considering an approval; (b) if no to (a), why not; (c) can the Minister state what specific qualifications are possessed by the staff of DPLH which might give them the capability to pronounce on such matters; (d) if no to (c), why not; (e) can the Minister explain why a buyer should be prevented from making a purchase of land unused for fifteen years on the ground of a four-decades-old report which may never be implemented; (f) if no to (e), why not; (g) can the Minister explain why the DPLH is preventing a project which has the potential to bring to Western Australia employment, export income, rail freight and port charges; (h) if no to (g), why not; and (i) will the Minister personally review this example of bureaucratic overreach?
purchase of Lot 1522 on deposited plan 186 503, job 1646192, can the Minister
confirm that on 1 March 2018 a State Land Officer wrote to the
applicant, Mr Peter Green in the following terms, "The Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage
(DPLH) have considered information and advice pertaining to your application
for issue of a lease or to purchase (Part Reserve 18966) Lot 1522 on Deposited
Plan 186503.
Firstly, there are concerns with the merits
and likelihood of success for the development of a commercial plantation of
sandalwood in what is a low rainfall zone. It is estimated that it will take 50
years for a plantation in this area to reach commercial potential.
Secondly, the proposed area being Lot 1522 forms
part of Reserve 18966. Areas of Reserve 18966 are proposed to be included into
the adjoining Yellowdine National Park Reserve as per the Conservation
Reserve for Western Australia 1975 report (known as the Red Book report). Based on the above, DPLH is not in a position to
issue tenure over Lot 1522. Please be advised that Job 164192 will now be
closed.": (a) can the Minister explain why the DPLH purports to evaluate the commercial viability of a project when considering an approval; (b) if no to (a), why not; (c) can the Minister state what specific qualifications are possessed by the staff of DPLH which might give them the capability to pronounce on such matters; (d) if no to (c), why not; (e) can the Minister explain why a buyer should be prevented from making a purchase of land unused for fifteen years on the ground of a four-decades-old report which may never be implemented; (f) if no to (e), why not; (g) can the Minister explain why the DPLH is preventing a project which has the potential to bring to Western Australia employment, export income, rail freight and port charges; (h) if no to (g), why not; and (i) will the Minister personally review this example of bureaucratic overreach?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
8 May 2018
Responded by
Minister for Environment representing the Minister for Lands
Response time
2 days
(a)-(i) The Minister for Lands has requested the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage to review this matter.
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.