❓ A parliamentary question regarding the inclusion of regrowth forest in proposed national parks and its impact on the timber industry. The Minister confirms intentional inclusion for ecological reasons and discusses potential block swapping.
AnsweredQoN 49Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
The minister will recall a question asked of him at the Timber Communities Australia breakfast in Fremantle regarding the inclusion of regrowth forest in proposed national parks. (1) Is the minister now in a position to say whether any of the proposals for national parks include regrowth forest? (2) What details is he able to give of that? (3) What impact will this have on the timber industry? (4) Was the inclusion of regrowth forest, if any, by way of inadvertence or ignorance, or was it intentional? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(4) To answer the last part of the question first, the inclusion of regrowth forest within the boundaries of national parks was clearly intentional, because there is a convention that national park boundaries need to make some sense, as does the ecosystem itself. We must separate that very clearly in our minds. Perhaps this question might more properly have been asked of the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. To the extent that I have sought answers to the same question, I am able to say that we must clearly define the issues of reserved old-growth forest and national parks. They are separate issues. National parks can, of course, contain regrowth, old-growth, and two-tier forest, as well as gravel pits and rocky outcrops. However, the issue to which the member refers - that is, the reference I made to the Timber Communities Australia breakfast - related to the matter of whether some of those regrowth blocks that had been nominally placed within indicative boundaries of national parks were or could be released for use by the timber industry. Not all of those questions have been answered, because they will require some fairly sophisticated study, which is what occurs prior to the national park being gazetted. Hon Peter Foss is well aware of that, as a former Minister for the Environment. Similarly, room exists for some block swapping between the national park boundaries and the state forest that may be used for timber extraction on the basis that it is better to have a national park with contiguous areas and boundaries that make sense rather than have a block of state forest within a block of national forest or conservation reserve. Hon Peter Foss: Do you know areas yet? Hon KIM CHANCE: No, because those areas need to be resolved. Members can draw from my answer that the volume that will be announced will be the volume that we believe is sustainable upon the known area that can be used by the timber industry.
(1) Is the minister now in a position to say whether any of the proposals for national parks include regrowth forest? (2) What details is he able to give of that? (3) What impact will this have on the timber industry? (4) Was the inclusion of regrowth forest, if any, by way of inadvertence or ignorance, or was it intentional? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(4) To answer the last part of the question first, the inclusion of regrowth forest within the boundaries of national parks was clearly intentional, because there is a convention that national park boundaries need to make some sense, as does the ecosystem itself. We must separate that very clearly in our minds. Perhaps this question might more properly have been asked of the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. To the extent that I have sought answers to the same question, I am able to say that we must clearly define the issues of reserved old-growth forest and national parks. They are separate issues. National parks can, of course, contain regrowth, old-growth, and two-tier forest, as well as gravel pits and rocky outcrops. However, the issue to which the member refers - that is, the reference I made to the Timber Communities Australia breakfast - related to the matter of whether some of those regrowth blocks that had been nominally placed within indicative boundaries of national parks were or could be released for use by the timber industry. Not all of those questions have been answered, because they will require some fairly sophisticated study, which is what occurs prior to the national park being gazetted. Hon Peter Foss is well aware of that, as a former Minister for the Environment. Similarly, room exists for some block swapping between the national park boundaries and the state forest that may be used for timber extraction on the basis that it is better to have a national park with contiguous areas and boundaries that make sense rather than have a block of state forest within a block of national forest or conservation reserve. Hon Peter Foss: Do you know areas yet? Hon KIM CHANCE: No, because those areas need to be resolved. Members can draw from my answer that the volume that will be announced will be the volume that we believe is sustainable upon the known area that can be used by the timber industry.
(2) What details is he able to give of that? (3) What impact will this have on the timber industry? (4) Was the inclusion of regrowth forest, if any, by way of inadvertence or ignorance, or was it intentional? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(4) To answer the last part of the question first, the inclusion of regrowth forest within the boundaries of national parks was clearly intentional, because there is a convention that national park boundaries need to make some sense, as does the ecosystem itself. We must separate that very clearly in our minds. Perhaps this question might more properly have been asked of the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. To the extent that I have sought answers to the same question, I am able to say that we must clearly define the issues of reserved old-growth forest and national parks. They are separate issues. National parks can, of course, contain regrowth, old-growth, and two-tier forest, as well as gravel pits and rocky outcrops. However, the issue to which the member refers - that is, the reference I made to the Timber Communities Australia breakfast - related to the matter of whether some of those regrowth blocks that had been nominally placed within indicative boundaries of national parks were or could be released for use by the timber industry. Not all of those questions have been answered, because they will require some fairly sophisticated study, which is what occurs prior to the national park being gazetted. Hon Peter Foss is well aware of that, as a former Minister for the Environment. Similarly, room exists for some block swapping between the national park boundaries and the state forest that may be used for timber extraction on the basis that it is better to have a national park with contiguous areas and boundaries that make sense rather than have a block of state forest within a block of national forest or conservation reserve. Hon Peter Foss: Do you know areas yet? Hon KIM CHANCE: No, because those areas need to be resolved. Members can draw from my answer that the volume that will be announced will be the volume that we believe is sustainable upon the known area that can be used by the timber industry.
(3) What impact will this have on the timber industry? (4) Was the inclusion of regrowth forest, if any, by way of inadvertence or ignorance, or was it intentional? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(4) To answer the last part of the question first, the inclusion of regrowth forest within the boundaries of national parks was clearly intentional, because there is a convention that national park boundaries need to make some sense, as does the ecosystem itself. We must separate that very clearly in our minds. Perhaps this question might more properly have been asked of the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. To the extent that I have sought answers to the same question, I am able to say that we must clearly define the issues of reserved old-growth forest and national parks. They are separate issues. National parks can, of course, contain regrowth, old-growth, and two-tier forest, as well as gravel pits and rocky outcrops. However, the issue to which the member refers - that is, the reference I made to the Timber Communities Australia breakfast - related to the matter of whether some of those regrowth blocks that had been nominally placed within indicative boundaries of national parks were or could be released for use by the timber industry. Not all of those questions have been answered, because they will require some fairly sophisticated study, which is what occurs prior to the national park being gazetted. Hon Peter Foss is well aware of that, as a former Minister for the Environment. Similarly, room exists for some block swapping between the national park boundaries and the state forest that may be used for timber extraction on the basis that it is better to have a national park with contiguous areas and boundaries that make sense rather than have a block of state forest within a block of national forest or conservation reserve. Hon Peter Foss: Do you know areas yet? Hon KIM CHANCE: No, because those areas need to be resolved. Members can draw from my answer that the volume that will be announced will be the volume that we believe is sustainable upon the known area that can be used by the timber industry.
(4) Was the inclusion of regrowth forest, if any, by way of inadvertence or ignorance, or was it intentional? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(4) To answer the last part of the question first, the inclusion of regrowth forest within the boundaries of national parks was clearly intentional, because there is a convention that national park boundaries need to make some sense, as does the ecosystem itself. We must separate that very clearly in our minds. Perhaps this question might more properly have been asked of the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. To the extent that I have sought answers to the same question, I am able to say that we must clearly define the issues of reserved old-growth forest and national parks. They are separate issues. National parks can, of course, contain regrowth, old-growth, and two-tier forest, as well as gravel pits and rocky outcrops. However, the issue to which the member refers - that is, the reference I made to the Timber Communities Australia breakfast - related to the matter of whether some of those regrowth blocks that had been nominally placed within indicative boundaries of national parks were or could be released for use by the timber industry. Not all of those questions have been answered, because they will require some fairly sophisticated study, which is what occurs prior to the national park being gazetted. Hon Peter Foss is well aware of that, as a former Minister for the Environment. Similarly, room exists for some block swapping between the national park boundaries and the state forest that may be used for timber extraction on the basis that it is better to have a national park with contiguous areas and boundaries that make sense rather than have a block of state forest within a block of national forest or conservation reserve. Hon Peter Foss: Do you know areas yet? Hon KIM CHANCE: No, because those areas need to be resolved. Members can draw from my answer that the volume that will be announced will be the volume that we believe is sustainable upon the known area that can be used by the timber industry.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(4) To answer the last part of the question first, the inclusion of regrowth forest within the boundaries of national parks was clearly intentional, because there is a convention that national park boundaries need to make some sense, as does the ecosystem itself. We must separate that very clearly in our minds. Perhaps this question might more properly have been asked of the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. To the extent that I have sought answers to the same question, I am able to say that we must clearly define the issues of reserved old-growth forest and national parks. They are separate issues. National parks can, of course, contain regrowth, old-growth, and two-tier forest, as well as gravel pits and rocky outcrops. However, the issue to which the member refers - that is, the reference I made to the Timber Communities Australia breakfast - related to the matter of whether some of those regrowth blocks that had been nominally placed within indicative boundaries of national parks were or could be released for use by the timber industry. Not all of those questions have been answered, because they will require some fairly sophisticated study, which is what occurs prior to the national park being gazetted. Hon Peter Foss is well aware of that, as a former Minister for the Environment. Similarly, room exists for some block swapping between the national park boundaries and the state forest that may be used for timber extraction on the basis that it is better to have a national park with contiguous areas and boundaries that make sense rather than have a block of state forest within a block of national forest or conservation reserve. Hon Peter Foss: Do you know areas yet? Hon KIM CHANCE: No, because those areas need to be resolved. Members can draw from my answer that the volume that will be announced will be the volume that we believe is sustainable upon the known area that can be used by the timber industry.
(1)-(4) To answer the last part of the question first, the inclusion of regrowth forest within the boundaries of national parks was clearly intentional, because there is a convention that national park boundaries need to make some sense, as does the ecosystem itself. We must separate that very clearly in our minds. Perhaps this question might more properly have been asked of the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. To the extent that I have sought answers to the same question, I am able to say that we must clearly define the issues of reserved old-growth forest and national parks. They are separate issues. National parks can, of course, contain regrowth, old-growth, and two-tier forest, as well as gravel pits and rocky outcrops. However, the issue to which the member refers - that is, the reference I made to the Timber Communities Australia breakfast - related to the matter of whether some of those regrowth blocks that had been nominally placed within indicative boundaries of national parks were or could be released for use by the timber industry. Not all of those questions have been answered, because they will require some fairly sophisticated study, which is what occurs prior to the national park being gazetted. Hon Peter Foss is well aware of that, as a former Minister for the Environment. Similarly, room exists for some block swapping between the national park boundaries and the state forest that may be used for timber extraction on the basis that it is better to have a national park with contiguous areas and boundaries that make sense rather than have a block of state forest within a block of national forest or conservation reserve. Hon Peter Foss: Do you know areas yet? Hon KIM CHANCE: No, because those areas need to be resolved. Members can draw from my answer that the volume that will be announced will be the volume that we believe is sustainable upon the known area that can be used by the timber industry.
Hon Peter Foss: Do you know areas yet? Hon KIM CHANCE: No, because those areas need to be resolved. Members can draw from my answer that the volume that will be announced will be the volume that we believe is sustainable upon the known area that can be used by the timber industry.
Hon KIM CHANCE: No, because those areas need to be resolved. Members can draw from my answer that the volume that will be announced will be the volume that we believe is sustainable upon the known area that can be used by the timber industry.
(1) Is the minister now in a position to say whether any of the proposals for national parks include regrowth forest? (2) What details is he able to give of that? (3) What impact will this have on the timber industry? (4) Was the inclusion of regrowth forest, if any, by way of inadvertence or ignorance, or was it intentional? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(4) To answer the last part of the question first, the inclusion of regrowth forest within the boundaries of national parks was clearly intentional, because there is a convention that national park boundaries need to make some sense, as does the ecosystem itself. We must separate that very clearly in our minds. Perhaps this question might more properly have been asked of the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. To the extent that I have sought answers to the same question, I am able to say that we must clearly define the issues of reserved old-growth forest and national parks. They are separate issues. National parks can, of course, contain regrowth, old-growth, and two-tier forest, as well as gravel pits and rocky outcrops. However, the issue to which the member refers - that is, the reference I made to the Timber Communities Australia breakfast - related to the matter of whether some of those regrowth blocks that had been nominally placed within indicative boundaries of national parks were or could be released for use by the timber industry. Not all of those questions have been answered, because they will require some fairly sophisticated study, which is what occurs prior to the national park being gazetted. Hon Peter Foss is well aware of that, as a former Minister for the Environment. Similarly, room exists for some block swapping between the national park boundaries and the state forest that may be used for timber extraction on the basis that it is better to have a national park with contiguous areas and boundaries that make sense rather than have a block of state forest within a block of national forest or conservation reserve. Hon Peter Foss: Do you know areas yet? Hon KIM CHANCE: No, because those areas need to be resolved. Members can draw from my answer that the volume that will be announced will be the volume that we believe is sustainable upon the known area that can be used by the timber industry.
(2) What details is he able to give of that? (3) What impact will this have on the timber industry? (4) Was the inclusion of regrowth forest, if any, by way of inadvertence or ignorance, or was it intentional? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(4) To answer the last part of the question first, the inclusion of regrowth forest within the boundaries of national parks was clearly intentional, because there is a convention that national park boundaries need to make some sense, as does the ecosystem itself. We must separate that very clearly in our minds. Perhaps this question might more properly have been asked of the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. To the extent that I have sought answers to the same question, I am able to say that we must clearly define the issues of reserved old-growth forest and national parks. They are separate issues. National parks can, of course, contain regrowth, old-growth, and two-tier forest, as well as gravel pits and rocky outcrops. However, the issue to which the member refers - that is, the reference I made to the Timber Communities Australia breakfast - related to the matter of whether some of those regrowth blocks that had been nominally placed within indicative boundaries of national parks were or could be released for use by the timber industry. Not all of those questions have been answered, because they will require some fairly sophisticated study, which is what occurs prior to the national park being gazetted. Hon Peter Foss is well aware of that, as a former Minister for the Environment. Similarly, room exists for some block swapping between the national park boundaries and the state forest that may be used for timber extraction on the basis that it is better to have a national park with contiguous areas and boundaries that make sense rather than have a block of state forest within a block of national forest or conservation reserve. Hon Peter Foss: Do you know areas yet? Hon KIM CHANCE: No, because those areas need to be resolved. Members can draw from my answer that the volume that will be announced will be the volume that we believe is sustainable upon the known area that can be used by the timber industry.
(3) What impact will this have on the timber industry? (4) Was the inclusion of regrowth forest, if any, by way of inadvertence or ignorance, or was it intentional? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(4) To answer the last part of the question first, the inclusion of regrowth forest within the boundaries of national parks was clearly intentional, because there is a convention that national park boundaries need to make some sense, as does the ecosystem itself. We must separate that very clearly in our minds. Perhaps this question might more properly have been asked of the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. To the extent that I have sought answers to the same question, I am able to say that we must clearly define the issues of reserved old-growth forest and national parks. They are separate issues. National parks can, of course, contain regrowth, old-growth, and two-tier forest, as well as gravel pits and rocky outcrops. However, the issue to which the member refers - that is, the reference I made to the Timber Communities Australia breakfast - related to the matter of whether some of those regrowth blocks that had been nominally placed within indicative boundaries of national parks were or could be released for use by the timber industry. Not all of those questions have been answered, because they will require some fairly sophisticated study, which is what occurs prior to the national park being gazetted. Hon Peter Foss is well aware of that, as a former Minister for the Environment. Similarly, room exists for some block swapping between the national park boundaries and the state forest that may be used for timber extraction on the basis that it is better to have a national park with contiguous areas and boundaries that make sense rather than have a block of state forest within a block of national forest or conservation reserve. Hon Peter Foss: Do you know areas yet? Hon KIM CHANCE: No, because those areas need to be resolved. Members can draw from my answer that the volume that will be announced will be the volume that we believe is sustainable upon the known area that can be used by the timber industry.
(4) Was the inclusion of regrowth forest, if any, by way of inadvertence or ignorance, or was it intentional? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(4) To answer the last part of the question first, the inclusion of regrowth forest within the boundaries of national parks was clearly intentional, because there is a convention that national park boundaries need to make some sense, as does the ecosystem itself. We must separate that very clearly in our minds. Perhaps this question might more properly have been asked of the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. To the extent that I have sought answers to the same question, I am able to say that we must clearly define the issues of reserved old-growth forest and national parks. They are separate issues. National parks can, of course, contain regrowth, old-growth, and two-tier forest, as well as gravel pits and rocky outcrops. However, the issue to which the member refers - that is, the reference I made to the Timber Communities Australia breakfast - related to the matter of whether some of those regrowth blocks that had been nominally placed within indicative boundaries of national parks were or could be released for use by the timber industry. Not all of those questions have been answered, because they will require some fairly sophisticated study, which is what occurs prior to the national park being gazetted. Hon Peter Foss is well aware of that, as a former Minister for the Environment. Similarly, room exists for some block swapping between the national park boundaries and the state forest that may be used for timber extraction on the basis that it is better to have a national park with contiguous areas and boundaries that make sense rather than have a block of state forest within a block of national forest or conservation reserve. Hon Peter Foss: Do you know areas yet? Hon KIM CHANCE: No, because those areas need to be resolved. Members can draw from my answer that the volume that will be announced will be the volume that we believe is sustainable upon the known area that can be used by the timber industry.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(4) To answer the last part of the question first, the inclusion of regrowth forest within the boundaries of national parks was clearly intentional, because there is a convention that national park boundaries need to make some sense, as does the ecosystem itself. We must separate that very clearly in our minds. Perhaps this question might more properly have been asked of the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. To the extent that I have sought answers to the same question, I am able to say that we must clearly define the issues of reserved old-growth forest and national parks. They are separate issues. National parks can, of course, contain regrowth, old-growth, and two-tier forest, as well as gravel pits and rocky outcrops. However, the issue to which the member refers - that is, the reference I made to the Timber Communities Australia breakfast - related to the matter of whether some of those regrowth blocks that had been nominally placed within indicative boundaries of national parks were or could be released for use by the timber industry. Not all of those questions have been answered, because they will require some fairly sophisticated study, which is what occurs prior to the national park being gazetted. Hon Peter Foss is well aware of that, as a former Minister for the Environment. Similarly, room exists for some block swapping between the national park boundaries and the state forest that may be used for timber extraction on the basis that it is better to have a national park with contiguous areas and boundaries that make sense rather than have a block of state forest within a block of national forest or conservation reserve. Hon Peter Foss: Do you know areas yet? Hon KIM CHANCE: No, because those areas need to be resolved. Members can draw from my answer that the volume that will be announced will be the volume that we believe is sustainable upon the known area that can be used by the timber industry.
(1)-(4) To answer the last part of the question first, the inclusion of regrowth forest within the boundaries of national parks was clearly intentional, because there is a convention that national park boundaries need to make some sense, as does the ecosystem itself. We must separate that very clearly in our minds. Perhaps this question might more properly have been asked of the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. To the extent that I have sought answers to the same question, I am able to say that we must clearly define the issues of reserved old-growth forest and national parks. They are separate issues. National parks can, of course, contain regrowth, old-growth, and two-tier forest, as well as gravel pits and rocky outcrops. However, the issue to which the member refers - that is, the reference I made to the Timber Communities Australia breakfast - related to the matter of whether some of those regrowth blocks that had been nominally placed within indicative boundaries of national parks were or could be released for use by the timber industry. Not all of those questions have been answered, because they will require some fairly sophisticated study, which is what occurs prior to the national park being gazetted. Hon Peter Foss is well aware of that, as a former Minister for the Environment. Similarly, room exists for some block swapping between the national park boundaries and the state forest that may be used for timber extraction on the basis that it is better to have a national park with contiguous areas and boundaries that make sense rather than have a block of state forest within a block of national forest or conservation reserve. Hon Peter Foss: Do you know areas yet? Hon KIM CHANCE: No, because those areas need to be resolved. Members can draw from my answer that the volume that will be announced will be the volume that we believe is sustainable upon the known area that can be used by the timber industry.
Hon Peter Foss: Do you know areas yet? Hon KIM CHANCE: No, because those areas need to be resolved. Members can draw from my answer that the volume that will be announced will be the volume that we believe is sustainable upon the known area that can be used by the timber industry.
Hon KIM CHANCE: No, because those areas need to be resolved. Members can draw from my answer that the volume that will be announced will be the volume that we believe is sustainable upon the known area that can be used by the timber industry.
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.