❓ Hon Jim Scott questions the Minister regarding consultation with the DEP and CALM about land compensation for the Jervoise Bay Harbour proposal's impact on Reserve M91. The answer reveals no legally binding requirement for compensation was established.
AnsweredQoN 125Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
Further to Question on Notice No. 11 of Thursday, May 3 2001 to the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning -
(1) Did the proponent of the Jervoise Bay Harbour proposal consult with the DEP and the Department of Conservation and Land Management on the land to be incorporated into parks and recreation as compensation for the loss of part of the M91 Reserve?
(2) If yes, will the Minister table comments and/or recommendations from the DEP and CALM to the proponent on the land proposed to be transferred into the parks and recreation zoning?
(3) Did the DEP and/or CALM consider any of the proposed land to be of high environmental value?
(4) If yes, which areas of land and what was the environmental significance of each section of land?
(1) Did the proponent of the Jervoise Bay Harbour proposal consult with the DEP and the Department of Conservation and Land Management on the land to be incorporated into parks and recreation as compensation for the loss of part of the M91 Reserve?
(2) If yes, will the Minister table comments and/or recommendations from the DEP and CALM to the proponent on the land proposed to be transferred into the parks and recreation zoning?
(3) Did the DEP and/or CALM consider any of the proposed land to be of high environmental value?
(4) If yes, which areas of land and what was the environmental significance of each section of land?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
29 August 2001
Responded by
Minister for Housing and Works representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage
Response time
29 days
(1) No. The Environmental Protection Authority's recommended condition requiring the replacement of the M91 reserve was not set as part of the then Minister for the Environments' statement of conditions for the Jervoise Bay Harbour Proposal. As a result, the requirement to compensate for the loss of Reserve M91 is not legally binding on the proponent for the Jervoise Bay Harbour Project.
(2) N/A.
(3) N/A.
(4) N/A.
(2) N/A.
(3) N/A.
(4) N/A.
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.