❓ A parliamentary question regarding the Leader of the Opposition's comments on old-growth forests and the government's policy on logging and conservation. The Minister clarifies the definition of old-growth forests and challenges the Opposition's stance.
AnsweredQoN 489Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the Leader of the Opposition’s recent comments on radio in which he stated that old-growth forests are, in many cases, regrowth 80-year-old forests. Will the minister clarify this statement? Dr J.M. EDWARDS
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of this question. I was somewhat surprised by the Leader of the Opposition’s comments so I checked the transcript of the interview. The Leader of the Opposition stated - . . . Old-growth forests, what is called an old-growth forest today in many cases is regrowth, eighty-year-old forests. He also stated that forests must be managed properly. I agree that forests must be managed properly, and that is why this Government stopped logging in old-growth forests as it promised. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Dr J.M. EDWARDS: We are making sure that these forests are properly managed. Dr J.M. Woollard interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Alfred Cove! Dr J.M. EDWARDS: We have allocated $25 million over four years to the 30 new national parks that are well on the way to being created. By the end of this financial year, the Government will have spent $7.5 million on new visitor facilities, new roads and 58 full-time equivalents to deal with the tasks that are associated with creating 30 new national parks. We are serious about this issue and about the funding. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: The member for Nedlands has perseveration, and that is a pity. Last week the Minister for State Development pointed out that the Leader of the Opposition stated that he believed only the vast majority of old-growth forests should be saved. We are curious about the minority that he would have logged. I invite the Opposition to come clean on this issue, and to state which old-growth forests it would cut down. In 1992 the Commonwealth and State Governments released a National Forest Policy Statement, which defined old-growth forests as forests that are ecologically mature and that have been subject to negligible unnatural disturbance such as logging, roading and clearing. The operational definition of old-growth forests is that they are ecologically mature forests in which the effects of disturbance are now negligible. That definition was used by the previous Government in the Regional Forest Agreement, and it was used by us when we wrote our policy. Eighty-year-old regrowth does not meet this definition, and is not classified as old-growth forest. The Opposition must come up to speed on the definitions it has used and it must tell us which old-growth forests it will log.
Dr J.M. EDWARDS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. I was somewhat surprised by the Leader of the Opposition’s comments so I checked the transcript of the interview. The Leader of the Opposition stated - . . . Old-growth forests, what is called an old-growth forest today in many cases is regrowth, eighty-year-old forests. He also stated that forests must be managed properly. I agree that forests must be managed properly, and that is why this Government stopped logging in old-growth forests as it promised. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Dr J.M. EDWARDS: We are making sure that these forests are properly managed. Dr J.M. Woollard interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Alfred Cove! Dr J.M. EDWARDS: We have allocated $25 million over four years to the 30 new national parks that are well on the way to being created. By the end of this financial year, the Government will have spent $7.5 million on new visitor facilities, new roads and 58 full-time equivalents to deal with the tasks that are associated with creating 30 new national parks. We are serious about this issue and about the funding. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: The member for Nedlands has perseveration, and that is a pity. Last week the Minister for State Development pointed out that the Leader of the Opposition stated that he believed only the vast majority of old-growth forests should be saved. We are curious about the minority that he would have logged. I invite the Opposition to come clean on this issue, and to state which old-growth forests it would cut down. In 1992 the Commonwealth and State Governments released a National Forest Policy Statement, which defined old-growth forests as forests that are ecologically mature and that have been subject to negligible unnatural disturbance such as logging, roading and clearing. The operational definition of old-growth forests is that they are ecologically mature forests in which the effects of disturbance are now negligible. That definition was used by the previous Government in the Regional Forest Agreement, and it was used by us when we wrote our policy. Eighty-year-old regrowth does not meet this definition, and is not classified as old-growth forest. The Opposition must come up to speed on the definitions it has used and it must tell us which old-growth forests it will log.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. I was somewhat surprised by the Leader of the Opposition’s comments so I checked the transcript of the interview. The Leader of the Opposition stated - . . . Old-growth forests, what is called an old-growth forest today in many cases is regrowth, eighty-year-old forests. He also stated that forests must be managed properly. I agree that forests must be managed properly, and that is why this Government stopped logging in old-growth forests as it promised. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Dr J.M. EDWARDS: We are making sure that these forests are properly managed. Dr J.M. Woollard interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Alfred Cove! Dr J.M. EDWARDS: We have allocated $25 million over four years to the 30 new national parks that are well on the way to being created. By the end of this financial year, the Government will have spent $7.5 million on new visitor facilities, new roads and 58 full-time equivalents to deal with the tasks that are associated with creating 30 new national parks. We are serious about this issue and about the funding. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: The member for Nedlands has perseveration, and that is a pity. Last week the Minister for State Development pointed out that the Leader of the Opposition stated that he believed only the vast majority of old-growth forests should be saved. We are curious about the minority that he would have logged. I invite the Opposition to come clean on this issue, and to state which old-growth forests it would cut down. In 1992 the Commonwealth and State Governments released a National Forest Policy Statement, which defined old-growth forests as forests that are ecologically mature and that have been subject to negligible unnatural disturbance such as logging, roading and clearing. The operational definition of old-growth forests is that they are ecologically mature forests in which the effects of disturbance are now negligible. That definition was used by the previous Government in the Regional Forest Agreement, and it was used by us when we wrote our policy. Eighty-year-old regrowth does not meet this definition, and is not classified as old-growth forest. The Opposition must come up to speed on the definitions it has used and it must tell us which old-growth forests it will log.
I was somewhat surprised by the Leader of the Opposition’s comments so I checked the transcript of the interview. The Leader of the Opposition stated - . . . Old-growth forests, what is called an old-growth forest today in many cases is regrowth, eighty-year-old forests. He also stated that forests must be managed properly. I agree that forests must be managed properly, and that is why this Government stopped logging in old-growth forests as it promised. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Dr J.M. EDWARDS: We are making sure that these forests are properly managed. Dr J.M. Woollard interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Alfred Cove! Dr J.M. EDWARDS: We have allocated $25 million over four years to the 30 new national parks that are well on the way to being created. By the end of this financial year, the Government will have spent $7.5 million on new visitor facilities, new roads and 58 full-time equivalents to deal with the tasks that are associated with creating 30 new national parks. We are serious about this issue and about the funding. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: The member for Nedlands has perseveration, and that is a pity. Last week the Minister for State Development pointed out that the Leader of the Opposition stated that he believed only the vast majority of old-growth forests should be saved. We are curious about the minority that he would have logged. I invite the Opposition to come clean on this issue, and to state which old-growth forests it would cut down. In 1992 the Commonwealth and State Governments released a National Forest Policy Statement, which defined old-growth forests as forests that are ecologically mature and that have been subject to negligible unnatural disturbance such as logging, roading and clearing. The operational definition of old-growth forests is that they are ecologically mature forests in which the effects of disturbance are now negligible. That definition was used by the previous Government in the Regional Forest Agreement, and it was used by us when we wrote our policy. Eighty-year-old regrowth does not meet this definition, and is not classified as old-growth forest. The Opposition must come up to speed on the definitions it has used and it must tell us which old-growth forests it will log.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Dr J.M. EDWARDS: We are making sure that these forests are properly managed. Dr J.M. Woollard interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Alfred Cove! Dr J.M. EDWARDS: We have allocated $25 million over four years to the 30 new national parks that are well on the way to being created. By the end of this financial year, the Government will have spent $7.5 million on new visitor facilities, new roads and 58 full-time equivalents to deal with the tasks that are associated with creating 30 new national parks. We are serious about this issue and about the funding. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: The member for Nedlands has perseveration, and that is a pity. Last week the Minister for State Development pointed out that the Leader of the Opposition stated that he believed only the vast majority of old-growth forests should be saved. We are curious about the minority that he would have logged. I invite the Opposition to come clean on this issue, and to state which old-growth forests it would cut down. In 1992 the Commonwealth and State Governments released a National Forest Policy Statement, which defined old-growth forests as forests that are ecologically mature and that have been subject to negligible unnatural disturbance such as logging, roading and clearing. The operational definition of old-growth forests is that they are ecologically mature forests in which the effects of disturbance are now negligible. That definition was used by the previous Government in the Regional Forest Agreement, and it was used by us when we wrote our policy. Eighty-year-old regrowth does not meet this definition, and is not classified as old-growth forest. The Opposition must come up to speed on the definitions it has used and it must tell us which old-growth forests it will log.
The SPEAKER: Order, members! Dr J.M. EDWARDS: We are making sure that these forests are properly managed. Dr J.M. Woollard interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Alfred Cove! Dr J.M. EDWARDS: We have allocated $25 million over four years to the 30 new national parks that are well on the way to being created. By the end of this financial year, the Government will have spent $7.5 million on new visitor facilities, new roads and 58 full-time equivalents to deal with the tasks that are associated with creating 30 new national parks. We are serious about this issue and about the funding. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: The member for Nedlands has perseveration, and that is a pity. Last week the Minister for State Development pointed out that the Leader of the Opposition stated that he believed only the vast majority of old-growth forests should be saved. We are curious about the minority that he would have logged. I invite the Opposition to come clean on this issue, and to state which old-growth forests it would cut down. In 1992 the Commonwealth and State Governments released a National Forest Policy Statement, which defined old-growth forests as forests that are ecologically mature and that have been subject to negligible unnatural disturbance such as logging, roading and clearing. The operational definition of old-growth forests is that they are ecologically mature forests in which the effects of disturbance are now negligible. That definition was used by the previous Government in the Regional Forest Agreement, and it was used by us when we wrote our policy. Eighty-year-old regrowth does not meet this definition, and is not classified as old-growth forest. The Opposition must come up to speed on the definitions it has used and it must tell us which old-growth forests it will log.
Dr J.M. EDWARDS: We are making sure that these forests are properly managed. Dr J.M. Woollard interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Alfred Cove! Dr J.M. EDWARDS: We have allocated $25 million over four years to the 30 new national parks that are well on the way to being created. By the end of this financial year, the Government will have spent $7.5 million on new visitor facilities, new roads and 58 full-time equivalents to deal with the tasks that are associated with creating 30 new national parks. We are serious about this issue and about the funding. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: The member for Nedlands has perseveration, and that is a pity. Last week the Minister for State Development pointed out that the Leader of the Opposition stated that he believed only the vast majority of old-growth forests should be saved. We are curious about the minority that he would have logged. I invite the Opposition to come clean on this issue, and to state which old-growth forests it would cut down. In 1992 the Commonwealth and State Governments released a National Forest Policy Statement, which defined old-growth forests as forests that are ecologically mature and that have been subject to negligible unnatural disturbance such as logging, roading and clearing. The operational definition of old-growth forests is that they are ecologically mature forests in which the effects of disturbance are now negligible. That definition was used by the previous Government in the Regional Forest Agreement, and it was used by us when we wrote our policy. Eighty-year-old regrowth does not meet this definition, and is not classified as old-growth forest. The Opposition must come up to speed on the definitions it has used and it must tell us which old-growth forests it will log.
Dr J.M. Woollard interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Alfred Cove! Dr J.M. EDWARDS: We have allocated $25 million over four years to the 30 new national parks that are well on the way to being created. By the end of this financial year, the Government will have spent $7.5 million on new visitor facilities, new roads and 58 full-time equivalents to deal with the tasks that are associated with creating 30 new national parks. We are serious about this issue and about the funding. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: The member for Nedlands has perseveration, and that is a pity. Last week the Minister for State Development pointed out that the Leader of the Opposition stated that he believed only the vast majority of old-growth forests should be saved. We are curious about the minority that he would have logged. I invite the Opposition to come clean on this issue, and to state which old-growth forests it would cut down. In 1992 the Commonwealth and State Governments released a National Forest Policy Statement, which defined old-growth forests as forests that are ecologically mature and that have been subject to negligible unnatural disturbance such as logging, roading and clearing. The operational definition of old-growth forests is that they are ecologically mature forests in which the effects of disturbance are now negligible. That definition was used by the previous Government in the Regional Forest Agreement, and it was used by us when we wrote our policy. Eighty-year-old regrowth does not meet this definition, and is not classified as old-growth forest. The Opposition must come up to speed on the definitions it has used and it must tell us which old-growth forests it will log.
The SPEAKER: Order, member for Alfred Cove! Dr J.M. EDWARDS: We have allocated $25 million over four years to the 30 new national parks that are well on the way to being created. By the end of this financial year, the Government will have spent $7.5 million on new visitor facilities, new roads and 58 full-time equivalents to deal with the tasks that are associated with creating 30 new national parks. We are serious about this issue and about the funding. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: The member for Nedlands has perseveration, and that is a pity. Last week the Minister for State Development pointed out that the Leader of the Opposition stated that he believed only the vast majority of old-growth forests should be saved. We are curious about the minority that he would have logged. I invite the Opposition to come clean on this issue, and to state which old-growth forests it would cut down. In 1992 the Commonwealth and State Governments released a National Forest Policy Statement, which defined old-growth forests as forests that are ecologically mature and that have been subject to negligible unnatural disturbance such as logging, roading and clearing. The operational definition of old-growth forests is that they are ecologically mature forests in which the effects of disturbance are now negligible. That definition was used by the previous Government in the Regional Forest Agreement, and it was used by us when we wrote our policy. Eighty-year-old regrowth does not meet this definition, and is not classified as old-growth forest. The Opposition must come up to speed on the definitions it has used and it must tell us which old-growth forests it will log.
Dr J.M. EDWARDS: We have allocated $25 million over four years to the 30 new national parks that are well on the way to being created. By the end of this financial year, the Government will have spent $7.5 million on new visitor facilities, new roads and 58 full-time equivalents to deal with the tasks that are associated with creating 30 new national parks. We are serious about this issue and about the funding. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: The member for Nedlands has perseveration, and that is a pity. Last week the Minister for State Development pointed out that the Leader of the Opposition stated that he believed only the vast majority of old-growth forests should be saved. We are curious about the minority that he would have logged. I invite the Opposition to come clean on this issue, and to state which old-growth forests it would cut down. In 1992 the Commonwealth and State Governments released a National Forest Policy Statement, which defined old-growth forests as forests that are ecologically mature and that have been subject to negligible unnatural disturbance such as logging, roading and clearing. The operational definition of old-growth forests is that they are ecologically mature forests in which the effects of disturbance are now negligible. That definition was used by the previous Government in the Regional Forest Agreement, and it was used by us when we wrote our policy. Eighty-year-old regrowth does not meet this definition, and is not classified as old-growth forest. The Opposition must come up to speed on the definitions it has used and it must tell us which old-growth forests it will log.
Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: The member for Nedlands has perseveration, and that is a pity. Last week the Minister for State Development pointed out that the Leader of the Opposition stated that he believed only the vast majority of old-growth forests should be saved. We are curious about the minority that he would have logged. I invite the Opposition to come clean on this issue, and to state which old-growth forests it would cut down. In 1992 the Commonwealth and State Governments released a National Forest Policy Statement, which defined old-growth forests as forests that are ecologically mature and that have been subject to negligible unnatural disturbance such as logging, roading and clearing. The operational definition of old-growth forests is that they are ecologically mature forests in which the effects of disturbance are now negligible. That definition was used by the previous Government in the Regional Forest Agreement, and it was used by us when we wrote our policy. Eighty-year-old regrowth does not meet this definition, and is not classified as old-growth forest. The Opposition must come up to speed on the definitions it has used and it must tell us which old-growth forests it will log.
Dr J.M. EDWARDS: The member for Nedlands has perseveration, and that is a pity. Last week the Minister for State Development pointed out that the Leader of the Opposition stated that he believed only the vast majority of old-growth forests should be saved. We are curious about the minority that he would have logged. I invite the Opposition to come clean on this issue, and to state which old-growth forests it would cut down. In 1992 the Commonwealth and State Governments released a National Forest Policy Statement, which defined old-growth forests as forests that are ecologically mature and that have been subject to negligible unnatural disturbance such as logging, roading and clearing. The operational definition of old-growth forests is that they are ecologically mature forests in which the effects of disturbance are now negligible. That definition was used by the previous Government in the Regional Forest Agreement, and it was used by us when we wrote our policy. Eighty-year-old regrowth does not meet this definition, and is not classified as old-growth forest. The Opposition must come up to speed on the definitions it has used and it must tell us which old-growth forests it will log.
Last week the Minister for State Development pointed out that the Leader of the Opposition stated that he believed only the vast majority of old-growth forests should be saved. We are curious about the minority that he would have logged. I invite the Opposition to come clean on this issue, and to state which old-growth forests it would cut down. In 1992 the Commonwealth and State Governments released a National Forest Policy Statement, which defined old-growth forests as forests that are ecologically mature and that have been subject to negligible unnatural disturbance such as logging, roading and clearing. The operational definition of old-growth forests is that they are ecologically mature forests in which the effects of disturbance are now negligible. That definition was used by the previous Government in the Regional Forest Agreement, and it was used by us when we wrote our policy. Eighty-year-old regrowth does not meet this definition, and is not classified as old-growth forest. The Opposition must come up to speed on the definitions it has used and it must tell us which old-growth forests it will log.
In 1992 the Commonwealth and State Governments released a National Forest Policy Statement, which defined old-growth forests as forests that are ecologically mature and that have been subject to negligible unnatural disturbance such as logging, roading and clearing. The operational definition of old-growth forests is that they are ecologically mature forests in which the effects of disturbance are now negligible. That definition was used by the previous Government in the Regional Forest Agreement, and it was used by us when we wrote our policy. Eighty-year-old regrowth does not meet this definition, and is not classified as old-growth forest. The Opposition must come up to speed on the definitions it has used and it must tell us which old-growth forests it will log.
Dr J.M. EDWARDS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. I was somewhat surprised by the Leader of the Opposition’s comments so I checked the transcript of the interview. The Leader of the Opposition stated - . . . Old-growth forests, what is called an old-growth forest today in many cases is regrowth, eighty-year-old forests. He also stated that forests must be managed properly. I agree that forests must be managed properly, and that is why this Government stopped logging in old-growth forests as it promised. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Dr J.M. EDWARDS: We are making sure that these forests are properly managed. Dr J.M. Woollard interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Alfred Cove! Dr J.M. EDWARDS: We have allocated $25 million over four years to the 30 new national parks that are well on the way to being created. By the end of this financial year, the Government will have spent $7.5 million on new visitor facilities, new roads and 58 full-time equivalents to deal with the tasks that are associated with creating 30 new national parks. We are serious about this issue and about the funding. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: The member for Nedlands has perseveration, and that is a pity. Last week the Minister for State Development pointed out that the Leader of the Opposition stated that he believed only the vast majority of old-growth forests should be saved. We are curious about the minority that he would have logged. I invite the Opposition to come clean on this issue, and to state which old-growth forests it would cut down. In 1992 the Commonwealth and State Governments released a National Forest Policy Statement, which defined old-growth forests as forests that are ecologically mature and that have been subject to negligible unnatural disturbance such as logging, roading and clearing. The operational definition of old-growth forests is that they are ecologically mature forests in which the effects of disturbance are now negligible. That definition was used by the previous Government in the Regional Forest Agreement, and it was used by us when we wrote our policy. Eighty-year-old regrowth does not meet this definition, and is not classified as old-growth forest. The Opposition must come up to speed on the definitions it has used and it must tell us which old-growth forests it will log.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. I was somewhat surprised by the Leader of the Opposition’s comments so I checked the transcript of the interview. The Leader of the Opposition stated - . . . Old-growth forests, what is called an old-growth forest today in many cases is regrowth, eighty-year-old forests. He also stated that forests must be managed properly. I agree that forests must be managed properly, and that is why this Government stopped logging in old-growth forests as it promised. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Dr J.M. EDWARDS: We are making sure that these forests are properly managed. Dr J.M. Woollard interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Alfred Cove! Dr J.M. EDWARDS: We have allocated $25 million over four years to the 30 new national parks that are well on the way to being created. By the end of this financial year, the Government will have spent $7.5 million on new visitor facilities, new roads and 58 full-time equivalents to deal with the tasks that are associated with creating 30 new national parks. We are serious about this issue and about the funding. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: The member for Nedlands has perseveration, and that is a pity. Last week the Minister for State Development pointed out that the Leader of the Opposition stated that he believed only the vast majority of old-growth forests should be saved. We are curious about the minority that he would have logged. I invite the Opposition to come clean on this issue, and to state which old-growth forests it would cut down. In 1992 the Commonwealth and State Governments released a National Forest Policy Statement, which defined old-growth forests as forests that are ecologically mature and that have been subject to negligible unnatural disturbance such as logging, roading and clearing. The operational definition of old-growth forests is that they are ecologically mature forests in which the effects of disturbance are now negligible. That definition was used by the previous Government in the Regional Forest Agreement, and it was used by us when we wrote our policy. Eighty-year-old regrowth does not meet this definition, and is not classified as old-growth forest. The Opposition must come up to speed on the definitions it has used and it must tell us which old-growth forests it will log.
I was somewhat surprised by the Leader of the Opposition’s comments so I checked the transcript of the interview. The Leader of the Opposition stated - . . . Old-growth forests, what is called an old-growth forest today in many cases is regrowth, eighty-year-old forests. He also stated that forests must be managed properly. I agree that forests must be managed properly, and that is why this Government stopped logging in old-growth forests as it promised. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Dr J.M. EDWARDS: We are making sure that these forests are properly managed. Dr J.M. Woollard interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Alfred Cove! Dr J.M. EDWARDS: We have allocated $25 million over four years to the 30 new national parks that are well on the way to being created. By the end of this financial year, the Government will have spent $7.5 million on new visitor facilities, new roads and 58 full-time equivalents to deal with the tasks that are associated with creating 30 new national parks. We are serious about this issue and about the funding. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: The member for Nedlands has perseveration, and that is a pity. Last week the Minister for State Development pointed out that the Leader of the Opposition stated that he believed only the vast majority of old-growth forests should be saved. We are curious about the minority that he would have logged. I invite the Opposition to come clean on this issue, and to state which old-growth forests it would cut down. In 1992 the Commonwealth and State Governments released a National Forest Policy Statement, which defined old-growth forests as forests that are ecologically mature and that have been subject to negligible unnatural disturbance such as logging, roading and clearing. The operational definition of old-growth forests is that they are ecologically mature forests in which the effects of disturbance are now negligible. That definition was used by the previous Government in the Regional Forest Agreement, and it was used by us when we wrote our policy. Eighty-year-old regrowth does not meet this definition, and is not classified as old-growth forest. The Opposition must come up to speed on the definitions it has used and it must tell us which old-growth forests it will log.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Dr J.M. EDWARDS: We are making sure that these forests are properly managed. Dr J.M. Woollard interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Alfred Cove! Dr J.M. EDWARDS: We have allocated $25 million over four years to the 30 new national parks that are well on the way to being created. By the end of this financial year, the Government will have spent $7.5 million on new visitor facilities, new roads and 58 full-time equivalents to deal with the tasks that are associated with creating 30 new national parks. We are serious about this issue and about the funding. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: The member for Nedlands has perseveration, and that is a pity. Last week the Minister for State Development pointed out that the Leader of the Opposition stated that he believed only the vast majority of old-growth forests should be saved. We are curious about the minority that he would have logged. I invite the Opposition to come clean on this issue, and to state which old-growth forests it would cut down. In 1992 the Commonwealth and State Governments released a National Forest Policy Statement, which defined old-growth forests as forests that are ecologically mature and that have been subject to negligible unnatural disturbance such as logging, roading and clearing. The operational definition of old-growth forests is that they are ecologically mature forests in which the effects of disturbance are now negligible. That definition was used by the previous Government in the Regional Forest Agreement, and it was used by us when we wrote our policy. Eighty-year-old regrowth does not meet this definition, and is not classified as old-growth forest. The Opposition must come up to speed on the definitions it has used and it must tell us which old-growth forests it will log.
The SPEAKER: Order, members! Dr J.M. EDWARDS: We are making sure that these forests are properly managed. Dr J.M. Woollard interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Alfred Cove! Dr J.M. EDWARDS: We have allocated $25 million over four years to the 30 new national parks that are well on the way to being created. By the end of this financial year, the Government will have spent $7.5 million on new visitor facilities, new roads and 58 full-time equivalents to deal with the tasks that are associated with creating 30 new national parks. We are serious about this issue and about the funding. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: The member for Nedlands has perseveration, and that is a pity. Last week the Minister for State Development pointed out that the Leader of the Opposition stated that he believed only the vast majority of old-growth forests should be saved. We are curious about the minority that he would have logged. I invite the Opposition to come clean on this issue, and to state which old-growth forests it would cut down. In 1992 the Commonwealth and State Governments released a National Forest Policy Statement, which defined old-growth forests as forests that are ecologically mature and that have been subject to negligible unnatural disturbance such as logging, roading and clearing. The operational definition of old-growth forests is that they are ecologically mature forests in which the effects of disturbance are now negligible. That definition was used by the previous Government in the Regional Forest Agreement, and it was used by us when we wrote our policy. Eighty-year-old regrowth does not meet this definition, and is not classified as old-growth forest. The Opposition must come up to speed on the definitions it has used and it must tell us which old-growth forests it will log.
Dr J.M. EDWARDS: We are making sure that these forests are properly managed. Dr J.M. Woollard interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Alfred Cove! Dr J.M. EDWARDS: We have allocated $25 million over four years to the 30 new national parks that are well on the way to being created. By the end of this financial year, the Government will have spent $7.5 million on new visitor facilities, new roads and 58 full-time equivalents to deal with the tasks that are associated with creating 30 new national parks. We are serious about this issue and about the funding. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: The member for Nedlands has perseveration, and that is a pity. Last week the Minister for State Development pointed out that the Leader of the Opposition stated that he believed only the vast majority of old-growth forests should be saved. We are curious about the minority that he would have logged. I invite the Opposition to come clean on this issue, and to state which old-growth forests it would cut down. In 1992 the Commonwealth and State Governments released a National Forest Policy Statement, which defined old-growth forests as forests that are ecologically mature and that have been subject to negligible unnatural disturbance such as logging, roading and clearing. The operational definition of old-growth forests is that they are ecologically mature forests in which the effects of disturbance are now negligible. That definition was used by the previous Government in the Regional Forest Agreement, and it was used by us when we wrote our policy. Eighty-year-old regrowth does not meet this definition, and is not classified as old-growth forest. The Opposition must come up to speed on the definitions it has used and it must tell us which old-growth forests it will log.
Dr J.M. Woollard interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Alfred Cove! Dr J.M. EDWARDS: We have allocated $25 million over four years to the 30 new national parks that are well on the way to being created. By the end of this financial year, the Government will have spent $7.5 million on new visitor facilities, new roads and 58 full-time equivalents to deal with the tasks that are associated with creating 30 new national parks. We are serious about this issue and about the funding. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: The member for Nedlands has perseveration, and that is a pity. Last week the Minister for State Development pointed out that the Leader of the Opposition stated that he believed only the vast majority of old-growth forests should be saved. We are curious about the minority that he would have logged. I invite the Opposition to come clean on this issue, and to state which old-growth forests it would cut down. In 1992 the Commonwealth and State Governments released a National Forest Policy Statement, which defined old-growth forests as forests that are ecologically mature and that have been subject to negligible unnatural disturbance such as logging, roading and clearing. The operational definition of old-growth forests is that they are ecologically mature forests in which the effects of disturbance are now negligible. That definition was used by the previous Government in the Regional Forest Agreement, and it was used by us when we wrote our policy. Eighty-year-old regrowth does not meet this definition, and is not classified as old-growth forest. The Opposition must come up to speed on the definitions it has used and it must tell us which old-growth forests it will log.
The SPEAKER: Order, member for Alfred Cove! Dr J.M. EDWARDS: We have allocated $25 million over four years to the 30 new national parks that are well on the way to being created. By the end of this financial year, the Government will have spent $7.5 million on new visitor facilities, new roads and 58 full-time equivalents to deal with the tasks that are associated with creating 30 new national parks. We are serious about this issue and about the funding. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: The member for Nedlands has perseveration, and that is a pity. Last week the Minister for State Development pointed out that the Leader of the Opposition stated that he believed only the vast majority of old-growth forests should be saved. We are curious about the minority that he would have logged. I invite the Opposition to come clean on this issue, and to state which old-growth forests it would cut down. In 1992 the Commonwealth and State Governments released a National Forest Policy Statement, which defined old-growth forests as forests that are ecologically mature and that have been subject to negligible unnatural disturbance such as logging, roading and clearing. The operational definition of old-growth forests is that they are ecologically mature forests in which the effects of disturbance are now negligible. That definition was used by the previous Government in the Regional Forest Agreement, and it was used by us when we wrote our policy. Eighty-year-old regrowth does not meet this definition, and is not classified as old-growth forest. The Opposition must come up to speed on the definitions it has used and it must tell us which old-growth forests it will log.
Dr J.M. EDWARDS: We have allocated $25 million over four years to the 30 new national parks that are well on the way to being created. By the end of this financial year, the Government will have spent $7.5 million on new visitor facilities, new roads and 58 full-time equivalents to deal with the tasks that are associated with creating 30 new national parks. We are serious about this issue and about the funding. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: The member for Nedlands has perseveration, and that is a pity. Last week the Minister for State Development pointed out that the Leader of the Opposition stated that he believed only the vast majority of old-growth forests should be saved. We are curious about the minority that he would have logged. I invite the Opposition to come clean on this issue, and to state which old-growth forests it would cut down. In 1992 the Commonwealth and State Governments released a National Forest Policy Statement, which defined old-growth forests as forests that are ecologically mature and that have been subject to negligible unnatural disturbance such as logging, roading and clearing. The operational definition of old-growth forests is that they are ecologically mature forests in which the effects of disturbance are now negligible. That definition was used by the previous Government in the Regional Forest Agreement, and it was used by us when we wrote our policy. Eighty-year-old regrowth does not meet this definition, and is not classified as old-growth forest. The Opposition must come up to speed on the definitions it has used and it must tell us which old-growth forests it will log.
Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: The member for Nedlands has perseveration, and that is a pity. Last week the Minister for State Development pointed out that the Leader of the Opposition stated that he believed only the vast majority of old-growth forests should be saved. We are curious about the minority that he would have logged. I invite the Opposition to come clean on this issue, and to state which old-growth forests it would cut down. In 1992 the Commonwealth and State Governments released a National Forest Policy Statement, which defined old-growth forests as forests that are ecologically mature and that have been subject to negligible unnatural disturbance such as logging, roading and clearing. The operational definition of old-growth forests is that they are ecologically mature forests in which the effects of disturbance are now negligible. That definition was used by the previous Government in the Regional Forest Agreement, and it was used by us when we wrote our policy. Eighty-year-old regrowth does not meet this definition, and is not classified as old-growth forest. The Opposition must come up to speed on the definitions it has used and it must tell us which old-growth forests it will log.
Dr J.M. EDWARDS: The member for Nedlands has perseveration, and that is a pity. Last week the Minister for State Development pointed out that the Leader of the Opposition stated that he believed only the vast majority of old-growth forests should be saved. We are curious about the minority that he would have logged. I invite the Opposition to come clean on this issue, and to state which old-growth forests it would cut down. In 1992 the Commonwealth and State Governments released a National Forest Policy Statement, which defined old-growth forests as forests that are ecologically mature and that have been subject to negligible unnatural disturbance such as logging, roading and clearing. The operational definition of old-growth forests is that they are ecologically mature forests in which the effects of disturbance are now negligible. That definition was used by the previous Government in the Regional Forest Agreement, and it was used by us when we wrote our policy. Eighty-year-old regrowth does not meet this definition, and is not classified as old-growth forest. The Opposition must come up to speed on the definitions it has used and it must tell us which old-growth forests it will log.
Last week the Minister for State Development pointed out that the Leader of the Opposition stated that he believed only the vast majority of old-growth forests should be saved. We are curious about the minority that he would have logged. I invite the Opposition to come clean on this issue, and to state which old-growth forests it would cut down. In 1992 the Commonwealth and State Governments released a National Forest Policy Statement, which defined old-growth forests as forests that are ecologically mature and that have been subject to negligible unnatural disturbance such as logging, roading and clearing. The operational definition of old-growth forests is that they are ecologically mature forests in which the effects of disturbance are now negligible. That definition was used by the previous Government in the Regional Forest Agreement, and it was used by us when we wrote our policy. Eighty-year-old regrowth does not meet this definition, and is not classified as old-growth forest. The Opposition must come up to speed on the definitions it has used and it must tell us which old-growth forests it will log.
In 1992 the Commonwealth and State Governments released a National Forest Policy Statement, which defined old-growth forests as forests that are ecologically mature and that have been subject to negligible unnatural disturbance such as logging, roading and clearing. The operational definition of old-growth forests is that they are ecologically mature forests in which the effects of disturbance are now negligible. That definition was used by the previous Government in the Regional Forest Agreement, and it was used by us when we wrote our policy. Eighty-year-old regrowth does not meet this definition, and is not classified as old-growth forest. The Opposition must come up to speed on the definitions it has used and it must tell us which old-growth forests it will log.
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.