❓ Question regarding a soil conservation approval impasse in Kulin, involving deep drainage and potential government funding. Minister denies departmental error, clarifies the Commissioner's role, and expresses willingness to consider federal funding if offered.
AnsweredQoN 264Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND FOOD - KULIN SOIL CONSERVATION APPROVAL
In light of an impasse created by an error of his department in revoking the previous soil conservation approval involving Kulin farmers John Ryan, Les Tyson, Jack Arundel and Peter Lucchesi - (1) Can the minister give an undertaking to address this by creating a working deep drainage model in Kulin? (2) Has the minister received a written offer from the member for O’Connor seeking a one-off matching contribution from the federal government to assist in the construction of the remaining 18 kilometres of deep drainage of Dudinin Creek into Lake Kondinin? (3) If yes, will the minister match the federal grant funding solving the impasse, advantaging all parties as well as creating a state deep drainage pilot model for study? (4) If not, why not? Hon KIM CHANCE
In light of an impasse created by an error of his department in revoking the previous soil conservation approval involving Kulin farmers John Ryan, Les Tyson, Jack Arundel and Peter Lucchesi - (1) Can the minister give an undertaking to address this by creating a working deep drainage model in Kulin? (2) Has the minister received a written offer from the member for O’Connor seeking a one-off matching contribution from the federal government to assist in the construction of the remaining 18 kilometres of deep drainage of Dudinin Creek into Lake Kondinin? (3) If yes, will the minister match the federal grant funding solving the impasse, advantaging all parties as well as creating a state deep drainage pilot model for study? (4) If not, why not? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(4) Firstly, as I recall the question - I did not hear it well - I think it presumed that the Department of Agriculture and Food, which is my department, made a mistake. I specifically deny that. This is not, in any case, a matter for the Department of Agriculture and Food. The only person within my legislative responsibility that could be said to have had a role in this matter is the Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation, who is not a part of the Department of Agriculture and Food. In respect of the commissioner, I specifically deny that that assumption, if indeed the member made that assumption, is the case. What the Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation did was not object to a proposal put by a group of proponents. In other words, the group of proponents must satisfy the commissioner that its proposal will not cause damage. That is the proposition it put and that is the proposition that, ultimately, the Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation accepted on behalf of the proponents. It is not correct to say that the Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation approves or does not approve a particular proposition. Notwithstanding that, the commissioner in looking at the case has determined that the way in which a proponent’s proposition is looked at by him does need to be more profound and, in particular, needs to consider farms further down the drainage line than was formally the practice; that is the reason that he looked at only the first three farms down the drainage line. That seems to me to be a sound proposition, although it will make life rather more difficult for future proponents because they will have to provide the commissioner with information relating to farms further down the drainage line. I have corresponded with Hon Wilson Tuckey, the member for O’Connor and, as always, it has been constructive and helpful correspondence. It is true that now that the State Administrative Tribunal case has been resolved, the Department of Agriculture is able to find a solution to the problem. It could be that the solution proposed by the member for O’Connor, among other people, is possibly what will happen. That seems to me to be a sensible proposition. Importantly, we could not begin on that process until the SAT case had been finalised. As to the last part of the question, we have had no offer from the commonwealth government at all. Hon Bruce Donaldson : Would you be prepared to look at it? Hon KIM CHANCE : We most certainly would, but we have not had an offer.
(1) Can the minister give an undertaking to address this by creating a working deep drainage model in Kulin? (2) Has the minister received a written offer from the member for O’Connor seeking a one-off matching contribution from the federal government to assist in the construction of the remaining 18 kilometres of deep drainage of Dudinin Creek into Lake Kondinin? (3) If yes, will the minister match the federal grant funding solving the impasse, advantaging all parties as well as creating a state deep drainage pilot model for study? (4) If not, why not? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(4) Firstly, as I recall the question - I did not hear it well - I think it presumed that the Department of Agriculture and Food, which is my department, made a mistake. I specifically deny that. This is not, in any case, a matter for the Department of Agriculture and Food. The only person within my legislative responsibility that could be said to have had a role in this matter is the Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation, who is not a part of the Department of Agriculture and Food. In respect of the commissioner, I specifically deny that that assumption, if indeed the member made that assumption, is the case. What the Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation did was not object to a proposal put by a group of proponents. In other words, the group of proponents must satisfy the commissioner that its proposal will not cause damage. That is the proposition it put and that is the proposition that, ultimately, the Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation accepted on behalf of the proponents. It is not correct to say that the Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation approves or does not approve a particular proposition. Notwithstanding that, the commissioner in looking at the case has determined that the way in which a proponent’s proposition is looked at by him does need to be more profound and, in particular, needs to consider farms further down the drainage line than was formally the practice; that is the reason that he looked at only the first three farms down the drainage line. That seems to me to be a sound proposition, although it will make life rather more difficult for future proponents because they will have to provide the commissioner with information relating to farms further down the drainage line. I have corresponded with Hon Wilson Tuckey, the member for O’Connor and, as always, it has been constructive and helpful correspondence. It is true that now that the State Administrative Tribunal case has been resolved, the Department of Agriculture is able to find a solution to the problem. It could be that the solution proposed by the member for O’Connor, among other people, is possibly what will happen. That seems to me to be a sensible proposition. Importantly, we could not begin on that process until the SAT case had been finalised. As to the last part of the question, we have had no offer from the commonwealth government at all. Hon Bruce Donaldson : Would you be prepared to look at it? Hon KIM CHANCE : We most certainly would, but we have not had an offer.
(2) Has the minister received a written offer from the member for O’Connor seeking a one-off matching contribution from the federal government to assist in the construction of the remaining 18 kilometres of deep drainage of Dudinin Creek into Lake Kondinin? (3) If yes, will the minister match the federal grant funding solving the impasse, advantaging all parties as well as creating a state deep drainage pilot model for study? (4) If not, why not? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(4) Firstly, as I recall the question - I did not hear it well - I think it presumed that the Department of Agriculture and Food, which is my department, made a mistake. I specifically deny that. This is not, in any case, a matter for the Department of Agriculture and Food. The only person within my legislative responsibility that could be said to have had a role in this matter is the Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation, who is not a part of the Department of Agriculture and Food. In respect of the commissioner, I specifically deny that that assumption, if indeed the member made that assumption, is the case. What the Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation did was not object to a proposal put by a group of proponents. In other words, the group of proponents must satisfy the commissioner that its proposal will not cause damage. That is the proposition it put and that is the proposition that, ultimately, the Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation accepted on behalf of the proponents. It is not correct to say that the Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation approves or does not approve a particular proposition. Notwithstanding that, the commissioner in looking at the case has determined that the way in which a proponent’s proposition is looked at by him does need to be more profound and, in particular, needs to consider farms further down the drainage line than was formally the practice; that is the reason that he looked at only the first three farms down the drainage line. That seems to me to be a sound proposition, although it will make life rather more difficult for future proponents because they will have to provide the commissioner with information relating to farms further down the drainage line. I have corresponded with Hon Wilson Tuckey, the member for O’Connor and, as always, it has been constructive and helpful correspondence. It is true that now that the State Administrative Tribunal case has been resolved, the Department of Agriculture is able to find a solution to the problem. It could be that the solution proposed by the member for O’Connor, among other people, is possibly what will happen. That seems to me to be a sensible proposition. Importantly, we could not begin on that process until the SAT case had been finalised. As to the last part of the question, we have had no offer from the commonwealth government at all. Hon Bruce Donaldson : Would you be prepared to look at it? Hon KIM CHANCE : We most certainly would, but we have not had an offer.
(3) If yes, will the minister match the federal grant funding solving the impasse, advantaging all parties as well as creating a state deep drainage pilot model for study? (4) If not, why not? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(4) Firstly, as I recall the question - I did not hear it well - I think it presumed that the Department of Agriculture and Food, which is my department, made a mistake. I specifically deny that. This is not, in any case, a matter for the Department of Agriculture and Food. The only person within my legislative responsibility that could be said to have had a role in this matter is the Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation, who is not a part of the Department of Agriculture and Food. In respect of the commissioner, I specifically deny that that assumption, if indeed the member made that assumption, is the case. What the Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation did was not object to a proposal put by a group of proponents. In other words, the group of proponents must satisfy the commissioner that its proposal will not cause damage. That is the proposition it put and that is the proposition that, ultimately, the Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation accepted on behalf of the proponents. It is not correct to say that the Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation approves or does not approve a particular proposition. Notwithstanding that, the commissioner in looking at the case has determined that the way in which a proponent’s proposition is looked at by him does need to be more profound and, in particular, needs to consider farms further down the drainage line than was formally the practice; that is the reason that he looked at only the first three farms down the drainage line. That seems to me to be a sound proposition, although it will make life rather more difficult for future proponents because they will have to provide the commissioner with information relating to farms further down the drainage line. I have corresponded with Hon Wilson Tuckey, the member for O’Connor and, as always, it has been constructive and helpful correspondence. It is true that now that the State Administrative Tribunal case has been resolved, the Department of Agriculture is able to find a solution to the problem. It could be that the solution proposed by the member for O’Connor, among other people, is possibly what will happen. That seems to me to be a sensible proposition. Importantly, we could not begin on that process until the SAT case had been finalised. As to the last part of the question, we have had no offer from the commonwealth government at all. Hon Bruce Donaldson : Would you be prepared to look at it? Hon KIM CHANCE : We most certainly would, but we have not had an offer.
(4) If not, why not? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(4) Firstly, as I recall the question - I did not hear it well - I think it presumed that the Department of Agriculture and Food, which is my department, made a mistake. I specifically deny that. This is not, in any case, a matter for the Department of Agriculture and Food. The only person within my legislative responsibility that could be said to have had a role in this matter is the Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation, who is not a part of the Department of Agriculture and Food. In respect of the commissioner, I specifically deny that that assumption, if indeed the member made that assumption, is the case. What the Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation did was not object to a proposal put by a group of proponents. In other words, the group of proponents must satisfy the commissioner that its proposal will not cause damage. That is the proposition it put and that is the proposition that, ultimately, the Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation accepted on behalf of the proponents. It is not correct to say that the Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation approves or does not approve a particular proposition. Notwithstanding that, the commissioner in looking at the case has determined that the way in which a proponent’s proposition is looked at by him does need to be more profound and, in particular, needs to consider farms further down the drainage line than was formally the practice; that is the reason that he looked at only the first three farms down the drainage line. That seems to me to be a sound proposition, although it will make life rather more difficult for future proponents because they will have to provide the commissioner with information relating to farms further down the drainage line. I have corresponded with Hon Wilson Tuckey, the member for O’Connor and, as always, it has been constructive and helpful correspondence. It is true that now that the State Administrative Tribunal case has been resolved, the Department of Agriculture is able to find a solution to the problem. It could be that the solution proposed by the member for O’Connor, among other people, is possibly what will happen. That seems to me to be a sensible proposition. Importantly, we could not begin on that process until the SAT case had been finalised. As to the last part of the question, we have had no offer from the commonwealth government at all. Hon Bruce Donaldson : Would you be prepared to look at it? Hon KIM CHANCE : We most certainly would, but we have not had an offer.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(4) Firstly, as I recall the question - I did not hear it well - I think it presumed that the Department of Agriculture and Food, which is my department, made a mistake. I specifically deny that. This is not, in any case, a matter for the Department of Agriculture and Food. The only person within my legislative responsibility that could be said to have had a role in this matter is the Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation, who is not a part of the Department of Agriculture and Food. In respect of the commissioner, I specifically deny that that assumption, if indeed the member made that assumption, is the case. What the Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation did was not object to a proposal put by a group of proponents. In other words, the group of proponents must satisfy the commissioner that its proposal will not cause damage. That is the proposition it put and that is the proposition that, ultimately, the Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation accepted on behalf of the proponents. It is not correct to say that the Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation approves or does not approve a particular proposition. Notwithstanding that, the commissioner in looking at the case has determined that the way in which a proponent’s proposition is looked at by him does need to be more profound and, in particular, needs to consider farms further down the drainage line than was formally the practice; that is the reason that he looked at only the first three farms down the drainage line. That seems to me to be a sound proposition, although it will make life rather more difficult for future proponents because they will have to provide the commissioner with information relating to farms further down the drainage line. I have corresponded with Hon Wilson Tuckey, the member for O’Connor and, as always, it has been constructive and helpful correspondence. It is true that now that the State Administrative Tribunal case has been resolved, the Department of Agriculture is able to find a solution to the problem. It could be that the solution proposed by the member for O’Connor, among other people, is possibly what will happen. That seems to me to be a sensible proposition. Importantly, we could not begin on that process until the SAT case had been finalised. As to the last part of the question, we have had no offer from the commonwealth government at all. Hon Bruce Donaldson : Would you be prepared to look at it? Hon KIM CHANCE : We most certainly would, but we have not had an offer.
(1)-(4) Firstly, as I recall the question - I did not hear it well - I think it presumed that the Department of Agriculture and Food, which is my department, made a mistake. I specifically deny that. This is not, in any case, a matter for the Department of Agriculture and Food. The only person within my legislative responsibility that could be said to have had a role in this matter is the Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation, who is not a part of the Department of Agriculture and Food. In respect of the commissioner, I specifically deny that that assumption, if indeed the member made that assumption, is the case. What the Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation did was not object to a proposal put by a group of proponents. In other words, the group of proponents must satisfy the commissioner that its proposal will not cause damage. That is the proposition it put and that is the proposition that, ultimately, the Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation accepted on behalf of the proponents. It is not correct to say that the Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation approves or does not approve a particular proposition. Notwithstanding that, the commissioner in looking at the case has determined that the way in which a proponent’s proposition is looked at by him does need to be more profound and, in particular, needs to consider farms further down the drainage line than was formally the practice; that is the reason that he looked at only the first three farms down the drainage line. That seems to me to be a sound proposition, although it will make life rather more difficult for future proponents because they will have to provide the commissioner with information relating to farms further down the drainage line. I have corresponded with Hon Wilson Tuckey, the member for O’Connor and, as always, it has been constructive and helpful correspondence. It is true that now that the State Administrative Tribunal case has been resolved, the Department of Agriculture is able to find a solution to the problem. It could be that the solution proposed by the member for O’Connor, among other people, is possibly what will happen. That seems to me to be a sensible proposition. Importantly, we could not begin on that process until the SAT case had been finalised. As to the last part of the question, we have had no offer from the commonwealth government at all. Hon Bruce Donaldson : Would you be prepared to look at it? Hon KIM CHANCE : We most certainly would, but we have not had an offer.
I have corresponded with Hon Wilson Tuckey, the member for O’Connor and, as always, it has been constructive and helpful correspondence. It is true that now that the State Administrative Tribunal case has been resolved, the Department of Agriculture is able to find a solution to the problem. It could be that the solution proposed by the member for O’Connor, among other people, is possibly what will happen. That seems to me to be a sensible proposition. Importantly, we could not begin on that process until the SAT case had been finalised. As to the last part of the question, we have had no offer from the commonwealth government at all.
Hon KIM CHANCE : We most certainly would, but we have not had an offer.
(1) Can the minister give an undertaking to address this by creating a working deep drainage model in Kulin? (2) Has the minister received a written offer from the member for O’Connor seeking a one-off matching contribution from the federal government to assist in the construction of the remaining 18 kilometres of deep drainage of Dudinin Creek into Lake Kondinin? (3) If yes, will the minister match the federal grant funding solving the impasse, advantaging all parties as well as creating a state deep drainage pilot model for study? (4) If not, why not? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(4) Firstly, as I recall the question - I did not hear it well - I think it presumed that the Department of Agriculture and Food, which is my department, made a mistake. I specifically deny that. This is not, in any case, a matter for the Department of Agriculture and Food. The only person within my legislative responsibility that could be said to have had a role in this matter is the Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation, who is not a part of the Department of Agriculture and Food. In respect of the commissioner, I specifically deny that that assumption, if indeed the member made that assumption, is the case. What the Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation did was not object to a proposal put by a group of proponents. In other words, the group of proponents must satisfy the commissioner that its proposal will not cause damage. That is the proposition it put and that is the proposition that, ultimately, the Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation accepted on behalf of the proponents. It is not correct to say that the Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation approves or does not approve a particular proposition. Notwithstanding that, the commissioner in looking at the case has determined that the way in which a proponent’s proposition is looked at by him does need to be more profound and, in particular, needs to consider farms further down the drainage line than was formally the practice; that is the reason that he looked at only the first three farms down the drainage line. That seems to me to be a sound proposition, although it will make life rather more difficult for future proponents because they will have to provide the commissioner with information relating to farms further down the drainage line. I have corresponded with Hon Wilson Tuckey, the member for O’Connor and, as always, it has been constructive and helpful correspondence. It is true that now that the State Administrative Tribunal case has been resolved, the Department of Agriculture is able to find a solution to the problem. It could be that the solution proposed by the member for O’Connor, among other people, is possibly what will happen. That seems to me to be a sensible proposition. Importantly, we could not begin on that process until the SAT case had been finalised. As to the last part of the question, we have had no offer from the commonwealth government at all. Hon Bruce Donaldson : Would you be prepared to look at it? Hon KIM CHANCE : We most certainly would, but we have not had an offer.
(2) Has the minister received a written offer from the member for O’Connor seeking a one-off matching contribution from the federal government to assist in the construction of the remaining 18 kilometres of deep drainage of Dudinin Creek into Lake Kondinin? (3) If yes, will the minister match the federal grant funding solving the impasse, advantaging all parties as well as creating a state deep drainage pilot model for study? (4) If not, why not? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(4) Firstly, as I recall the question - I did not hear it well - I think it presumed that the Department of Agriculture and Food, which is my department, made a mistake. I specifically deny that. This is not, in any case, a matter for the Department of Agriculture and Food. The only person within my legislative responsibility that could be said to have had a role in this matter is the Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation, who is not a part of the Department of Agriculture and Food. In respect of the commissioner, I specifically deny that that assumption, if indeed the member made that assumption, is the case. What the Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation did was not object to a proposal put by a group of proponents. In other words, the group of proponents must satisfy the commissioner that its proposal will not cause damage. That is the proposition it put and that is the proposition that, ultimately, the Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation accepted on behalf of the proponents. It is not correct to say that the Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation approves or does not approve a particular proposition. Notwithstanding that, the commissioner in looking at the case has determined that the way in which a proponent’s proposition is looked at by him does need to be more profound and, in particular, needs to consider farms further down the drainage line than was formally the practice; that is the reason that he looked at only the first three farms down the drainage line. That seems to me to be a sound proposition, although it will make life rather more difficult for future proponents because they will have to provide the commissioner with information relating to farms further down the drainage line. I have corresponded with Hon Wilson Tuckey, the member for O’Connor and, as always, it has been constructive and helpful correspondence. It is true that now that the State Administrative Tribunal case has been resolved, the Department of Agriculture is able to find a solution to the problem. It could be that the solution proposed by the member for O’Connor, among other people, is possibly what will happen. That seems to me to be a sensible proposition. Importantly, we could not begin on that process until the SAT case had been finalised. As to the last part of the question, we have had no offer from the commonwealth government at all. Hon Bruce Donaldson : Would you be prepared to look at it? Hon KIM CHANCE : We most certainly would, but we have not had an offer.
(3) If yes, will the minister match the federal grant funding solving the impasse, advantaging all parties as well as creating a state deep drainage pilot model for study? (4) If not, why not? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(4) Firstly, as I recall the question - I did not hear it well - I think it presumed that the Department of Agriculture and Food, which is my department, made a mistake. I specifically deny that. This is not, in any case, a matter for the Department of Agriculture and Food. The only person within my legislative responsibility that could be said to have had a role in this matter is the Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation, who is not a part of the Department of Agriculture and Food. In respect of the commissioner, I specifically deny that that assumption, if indeed the member made that assumption, is the case. What the Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation did was not object to a proposal put by a group of proponents. In other words, the group of proponents must satisfy the commissioner that its proposal will not cause damage. That is the proposition it put and that is the proposition that, ultimately, the Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation accepted on behalf of the proponents. It is not correct to say that the Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation approves or does not approve a particular proposition. Notwithstanding that, the commissioner in looking at the case has determined that the way in which a proponent’s proposition is looked at by him does need to be more profound and, in particular, needs to consider farms further down the drainage line than was formally the practice; that is the reason that he looked at only the first three farms down the drainage line. That seems to me to be a sound proposition, although it will make life rather more difficult for future proponents because they will have to provide the commissioner with information relating to farms further down the drainage line. I have corresponded with Hon Wilson Tuckey, the member for O’Connor and, as always, it has been constructive and helpful correspondence. It is true that now that the State Administrative Tribunal case has been resolved, the Department of Agriculture is able to find a solution to the problem. It could be that the solution proposed by the member for O’Connor, among other people, is possibly what will happen. That seems to me to be a sensible proposition. Importantly, we could not begin on that process until the SAT case had been finalised. As to the last part of the question, we have had no offer from the commonwealth government at all. Hon Bruce Donaldson : Would you be prepared to look at it? Hon KIM CHANCE : We most certainly would, but we have not had an offer.
(4) If not, why not? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(4) Firstly, as I recall the question - I did not hear it well - I think it presumed that the Department of Agriculture and Food, which is my department, made a mistake. I specifically deny that. This is not, in any case, a matter for the Department of Agriculture and Food. The only person within my legislative responsibility that could be said to have had a role in this matter is the Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation, who is not a part of the Department of Agriculture and Food. In respect of the commissioner, I specifically deny that that assumption, if indeed the member made that assumption, is the case. What the Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation did was not object to a proposal put by a group of proponents. In other words, the group of proponents must satisfy the commissioner that its proposal will not cause damage. That is the proposition it put and that is the proposition that, ultimately, the Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation accepted on behalf of the proponents. It is not correct to say that the Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation approves or does not approve a particular proposition. Notwithstanding that, the commissioner in looking at the case has determined that the way in which a proponent’s proposition is looked at by him does need to be more profound and, in particular, needs to consider farms further down the drainage line than was formally the practice; that is the reason that he looked at only the first three farms down the drainage line. That seems to me to be a sound proposition, although it will make life rather more difficult for future proponents because they will have to provide the commissioner with information relating to farms further down the drainage line. I have corresponded with Hon Wilson Tuckey, the member for O’Connor and, as always, it has been constructive and helpful correspondence. It is true that now that the State Administrative Tribunal case has been resolved, the Department of Agriculture is able to find a solution to the problem. It could be that the solution proposed by the member for O’Connor, among other people, is possibly what will happen. That seems to me to be a sensible proposition. Importantly, we could not begin on that process until the SAT case had been finalised. As to the last part of the question, we have had no offer from the commonwealth government at all. Hon Bruce Donaldson : Would you be prepared to look at it? Hon KIM CHANCE : We most certainly would, but we have not had an offer.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(4) Firstly, as I recall the question - I did not hear it well - I think it presumed that the Department of Agriculture and Food, which is my department, made a mistake. I specifically deny that. This is not, in any case, a matter for the Department of Agriculture and Food. The only person within my legislative responsibility that could be said to have had a role in this matter is the Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation, who is not a part of the Department of Agriculture and Food. In respect of the commissioner, I specifically deny that that assumption, if indeed the member made that assumption, is the case. What the Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation did was not object to a proposal put by a group of proponents. In other words, the group of proponents must satisfy the commissioner that its proposal will not cause damage. That is the proposition it put and that is the proposition that, ultimately, the Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation accepted on behalf of the proponents. It is not correct to say that the Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation approves or does not approve a particular proposition. Notwithstanding that, the commissioner in looking at the case has determined that the way in which a proponent’s proposition is looked at by him does need to be more profound and, in particular, needs to consider farms further down the drainage line than was formally the practice; that is the reason that he looked at only the first three farms down the drainage line. That seems to me to be a sound proposition, although it will make life rather more difficult for future proponents because they will have to provide the commissioner with information relating to farms further down the drainage line. I have corresponded with Hon Wilson Tuckey, the member for O’Connor and, as always, it has been constructive and helpful correspondence. It is true that now that the State Administrative Tribunal case has been resolved, the Department of Agriculture is able to find a solution to the problem. It could be that the solution proposed by the member for O’Connor, among other people, is possibly what will happen. That seems to me to be a sensible proposition. Importantly, we could not begin on that process until the SAT case had been finalised. As to the last part of the question, we have had no offer from the commonwealth government at all. Hon Bruce Donaldson : Would you be prepared to look at it? Hon KIM CHANCE : We most certainly would, but we have not had an offer.
(1)-(4) Firstly, as I recall the question - I did not hear it well - I think it presumed that the Department of Agriculture and Food, which is my department, made a mistake. I specifically deny that. This is not, in any case, a matter for the Department of Agriculture and Food. The only person within my legislative responsibility that could be said to have had a role in this matter is the Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation, who is not a part of the Department of Agriculture and Food. In respect of the commissioner, I specifically deny that that assumption, if indeed the member made that assumption, is the case. What the Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation did was not object to a proposal put by a group of proponents. In other words, the group of proponents must satisfy the commissioner that its proposal will not cause damage. That is the proposition it put and that is the proposition that, ultimately, the Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation accepted on behalf of the proponents. It is not correct to say that the Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation approves or does not approve a particular proposition. Notwithstanding that, the commissioner in looking at the case has determined that the way in which a proponent’s proposition is looked at by him does need to be more profound and, in particular, needs to consider farms further down the drainage line than was formally the practice; that is the reason that he looked at only the first three farms down the drainage line. That seems to me to be a sound proposition, although it will make life rather more difficult for future proponents because they will have to provide the commissioner with information relating to farms further down the drainage line. I have corresponded with Hon Wilson Tuckey, the member for O’Connor and, as always, it has been constructive and helpful correspondence. It is true that now that the State Administrative Tribunal case has been resolved, the Department of Agriculture is able to find a solution to the problem. It could be that the solution proposed by the member for O’Connor, among other people, is possibly what will happen. That seems to me to be a sensible proposition. Importantly, we could not begin on that process until the SAT case had been finalised. As to the last part of the question, we have had no offer from the commonwealth government at all. Hon Bruce Donaldson : Would you be prepared to look at it? Hon KIM CHANCE : We most certainly would, but we have not had an offer.
I have corresponded with Hon Wilson Tuckey, the member for O’Connor and, as always, it has been constructive and helpful correspondence. It is true that now that the State Administrative Tribunal case has been resolved, the Department of Agriculture is able to find a solution to the problem. It could be that the solution proposed by the member for O’Connor, among other people, is possibly what will happen. That seems to me to be a sensible proposition. Importantly, we could not begin on that process until the SAT case had been finalised. As to the last part of the question, we have had no offer from the commonwealth government at all.
Hon KIM CHANCE : We most certainly would, but we have not had an offer.
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.