❓ Question on Notice regarding the review of the Swan Valley Planning Act 1995. The Minister acknowledges the review is underway but delayed due to a study on area D rural villages.
AnsweredQoN 1581Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I apologise in advance for a typographical error in the question as submitted. (1) Is the minister aware that section 26 of the Swan Valley Planning Act 1995 requires the operation and effectiveness of the Act to be reviewed as soon as is practicable after the expiration of five years from its commencement? (2) Was the commencement date of the Act 25 November 1995 and, if so, was a review required to be completed as soon as practicable after 25 November 1995? That is the typographical error; it should read 2000. (3) Is the minister aware that section 26 requires her to prepare a report based upon the review and, as soon as practicable after the report is prepared, cause it to be laid before each House of Parliament? (4) Has the report been prepared? (5) Will the minister table the report? Hon KEN TRAVERS
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) This answer reflects the typographical error. No. The Act requires the minister to conduct a review of the operation and effectiveness of the Act as soon as is practicable after the expiration of five years from its commencement. The Act therefore became due for review after 25 November 2000. (3) Yes. (4)-(5) A review commenced in March 2000. Comments were sought by stakeholder consultation and newspaper advertisements on the need for any changes to the Act. A key issue in the submissions is the viability of the area D rural villages. The review was held in abeyance pending the outcome of a study into the area D rural villages. The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure announced her decision on area D on 29 April 2003. The review is now being progressed with the consideration of submissions received on the review and taking into account the minister’s decision on the area D rural villages study. A report will be prepared on the completion of the review.
(1) Is the minister aware that section 26 of the Swan Valley Planning Act 1995 requires the operation and effectiveness of the Act to be reviewed as soon as is practicable after the expiration of five years from its commencement? (2) Was the commencement date of the Act 25 November 1995 and, if so, was a review required to be completed as soon as practicable after 25 November 1995? That is the typographical error; it should read 2000. (3) Is the minister aware that section 26 requires her to prepare a report based upon the review and, as soon as practicable after the report is prepared, cause it to be laid before each House of Parliament? (4) Has the report been prepared? (5) Will the minister table the report? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) This answer reflects the typographical error. No. The Act requires the minister to conduct a review of the operation and effectiveness of the Act as soon as is practicable after the expiration of five years from its commencement. The Act therefore became due for review after 25 November 2000. (3) Yes. (4)-(5) A review commenced in March 2000. Comments were sought by stakeholder consultation and newspaper advertisements on the need for any changes to the Act. A key issue in the submissions is the viability of the area D rural villages. The review was held in abeyance pending the outcome of a study into the area D rural villages. The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure announced her decision on area D on 29 April 2003. The review is now being progressed with the consideration of submissions received on the review and taking into account the minister’s decision on the area D rural villages study. A report will be prepared on the completion of the review.
(2) Was the commencement date of the Act 25 November 1995 and, if so, was a review required to be completed as soon as practicable after 25 November 1995? That is the typographical error; it should read 2000. (3) Is the minister aware that section 26 requires her to prepare a report based upon the review and, as soon as practicable after the report is prepared, cause it to be laid before each House of Parliament? (4) Has the report been prepared? (5) Will the minister table the report? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) This answer reflects the typographical error. No. The Act requires the minister to conduct a review of the operation and effectiveness of the Act as soon as is practicable after the expiration of five years from its commencement. The Act therefore became due for review after 25 November 2000. (3) Yes. (4)-(5) A review commenced in March 2000. Comments were sought by stakeholder consultation and newspaper advertisements on the need for any changes to the Act. A key issue in the submissions is the viability of the area D rural villages. The review was held in abeyance pending the outcome of a study into the area D rural villages. The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure announced her decision on area D on 29 April 2003. The review is now being progressed with the consideration of submissions received on the review and taking into account the minister’s decision on the area D rural villages study. A report will be prepared on the completion of the review.
(3) Is the minister aware that section 26 requires her to prepare a report based upon the review and, as soon as practicable after the report is prepared, cause it to be laid before each House of Parliament? (4) Has the report been prepared? (5) Will the minister table the report? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) This answer reflects the typographical error. No. The Act requires the minister to conduct a review of the operation and effectiveness of the Act as soon as is practicable after the expiration of five years from its commencement. The Act therefore became due for review after 25 November 2000. (3) Yes. (4)-(5) A review commenced in March 2000. Comments were sought by stakeholder consultation and newspaper advertisements on the need for any changes to the Act. A key issue in the submissions is the viability of the area D rural villages. The review was held in abeyance pending the outcome of a study into the area D rural villages. The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure announced her decision on area D on 29 April 2003. The review is now being progressed with the consideration of submissions received on the review and taking into account the minister’s decision on the area D rural villages study. A report will be prepared on the completion of the review.
(4) Has the report been prepared? (5) Will the minister table the report? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) This answer reflects the typographical error. No. The Act requires the minister to conduct a review of the operation and effectiveness of the Act as soon as is practicable after the expiration of five years from its commencement. The Act therefore became due for review after 25 November 2000. (3) Yes. (4)-(5) A review commenced in March 2000. Comments were sought by stakeholder consultation and newspaper advertisements on the need for any changes to the Act. A key issue in the submissions is the viability of the area D rural villages. The review was held in abeyance pending the outcome of a study into the area D rural villages. The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure announced her decision on area D on 29 April 2003. The review is now being progressed with the consideration of submissions received on the review and taking into account the minister’s decision on the area D rural villages study. A report will be prepared on the completion of the review.
(5) Will the minister table the report? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) This answer reflects the typographical error. No. The Act requires the minister to conduct a review of the operation and effectiveness of the Act as soon as is practicable after the expiration of five years from its commencement. The Act therefore became due for review after 25 November 2000. (3) Yes. (4)-(5) A review commenced in March 2000. Comments were sought by stakeholder consultation and newspaper advertisements on the need for any changes to the Act. A key issue in the submissions is the viability of the area D rural villages. The review was held in abeyance pending the outcome of a study into the area D rural villages. The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure announced her decision on area D on 29 April 2003. The review is now being progressed with the consideration of submissions received on the review and taking into account the minister’s decision on the area D rural villages study. A report will be prepared on the completion of the review.
Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) This answer reflects the typographical error. No. The Act requires the minister to conduct a review of the operation and effectiveness of the Act as soon as is practicable after the expiration of five years from its commencement. The Act therefore became due for review after 25 November 2000. (3) Yes. (4)-(5) A review commenced in March 2000. Comments were sought by stakeholder consultation and newspaper advertisements on the need for any changes to the Act. A key issue in the submissions is the viability of the area D rural villages. The review was held in abeyance pending the outcome of a study into the area D rural villages. The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure announced her decision on area D on 29 April 2003. The review is now being progressed with the consideration of submissions received on the review and taking into account the minister’s decision on the area D rural villages study. A report will be prepared on the completion of the review.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) This answer reflects the typographical error. No. The Act requires the minister to conduct a review of the operation and effectiveness of the Act as soon as is practicable after the expiration of five years from its commencement. The Act therefore became due for review after 25 November 2000. (3) Yes. (4)-(5) A review commenced in March 2000. Comments were sought by stakeholder consultation and newspaper advertisements on the need for any changes to the Act. A key issue in the submissions is the viability of the area D rural villages. The review was held in abeyance pending the outcome of a study into the area D rural villages. The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure announced her decision on area D on 29 April 2003. The review is now being progressed with the consideration of submissions received on the review and taking into account the minister’s decision on the area D rural villages study. A report will be prepared on the completion of the review.
(1) Yes. (2) This answer reflects the typographical error. No. The Act requires the minister to conduct a review of the operation and effectiveness of the Act as soon as is practicable after the expiration of five years from its commencement. The Act therefore became due for review after 25 November 2000. (3) Yes. (4)-(5) A review commenced in March 2000. Comments were sought by stakeholder consultation and newspaper advertisements on the need for any changes to the Act. A key issue in the submissions is the viability of the area D rural villages. The review was held in abeyance pending the outcome of a study into the area D rural villages. The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure announced her decision on area D on 29 April 2003. The review is now being progressed with the consideration of submissions received on the review and taking into account the minister’s decision on the area D rural villages study. A report will be prepared on the completion of the review.
(2) This answer reflects the typographical error. No. The Act requires the minister to conduct a review of the operation and effectiveness of the Act as soon as is practicable after the expiration of five years from its commencement. The Act therefore became due for review after 25 November 2000. (3) Yes. (4)-(5) A review commenced in March 2000. Comments were sought by stakeholder consultation and newspaper advertisements on the need for any changes to the Act. A key issue in the submissions is the viability of the area D rural villages. The review was held in abeyance pending the outcome of a study into the area D rural villages. The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure announced her decision on area D on 29 April 2003. The review is now being progressed with the consideration of submissions received on the review and taking into account the minister’s decision on the area D rural villages study. A report will be prepared on the completion of the review.
(4)-(5) A review commenced in March 2000. Comments were sought by stakeholder consultation and newspaper advertisements on the need for any changes to the Act. A key issue in the submissions is the viability of the area D rural villages. The review was held in abeyance pending the outcome of a study into the area D rural villages. The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure announced her decision on area D on 29 April 2003. The review is now being progressed with the consideration of submissions received on the review and taking into account the minister’s decision on the area D rural villages study. A report will be prepared on the completion of the review.
(1) Is the minister aware that section 26 of the Swan Valley Planning Act 1995 requires the operation and effectiveness of the Act to be reviewed as soon as is practicable after the expiration of five years from its commencement? (2) Was the commencement date of the Act 25 November 1995 and, if so, was a review required to be completed as soon as practicable after 25 November 1995? That is the typographical error; it should read 2000. (3) Is the minister aware that section 26 requires her to prepare a report based upon the review and, as soon as practicable after the report is prepared, cause it to be laid before each House of Parliament? (4) Has the report been prepared? (5) Will the minister table the report? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) This answer reflects the typographical error. No. The Act requires the minister to conduct a review of the operation and effectiveness of the Act as soon as is practicable after the expiration of five years from its commencement. The Act therefore became due for review after 25 November 2000. (3) Yes. (4)-(5) A review commenced in March 2000. Comments were sought by stakeholder consultation and newspaper advertisements on the need for any changes to the Act. A key issue in the submissions is the viability of the area D rural villages. The review was held in abeyance pending the outcome of a study into the area D rural villages. The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure announced her decision on area D on 29 April 2003. The review is now being progressed with the consideration of submissions received on the review and taking into account the minister’s decision on the area D rural villages study. A report will be prepared on the completion of the review.
(2) Was the commencement date of the Act 25 November 1995 and, if so, was a review required to be completed as soon as practicable after 25 November 1995? That is the typographical error; it should read 2000. (3) Is the minister aware that section 26 requires her to prepare a report based upon the review and, as soon as practicable after the report is prepared, cause it to be laid before each House of Parliament? (4) Has the report been prepared? (5) Will the minister table the report? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) This answer reflects the typographical error. No. The Act requires the minister to conduct a review of the operation and effectiveness of the Act as soon as is practicable after the expiration of five years from its commencement. The Act therefore became due for review after 25 November 2000. (3) Yes. (4)-(5) A review commenced in March 2000. Comments were sought by stakeholder consultation and newspaper advertisements on the need for any changes to the Act. A key issue in the submissions is the viability of the area D rural villages. The review was held in abeyance pending the outcome of a study into the area D rural villages. The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure announced her decision on area D on 29 April 2003. The review is now being progressed with the consideration of submissions received on the review and taking into account the minister’s decision on the area D rural villages study. A report will be prepared on the completion of the review.
(3) Is the minister aware that section 26 requires her to prepare a report based upon the review and, as soon as practicable after the report is prepared, cause it to be laid before each House of Parliament? (4) Has the report been prepared? (5) Will the minister table the report? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) This answer reflects the typographical error. No. The Act requires the minister to conduct a review of the operation and effectiveness of the Act as soon as is practicable after the expiration of five years from its commencement. The Act therefore became due for review after 25 November 2000. (3) Yes. (4)-(5) A review commenced in March 2000. Comments were sought by stakeholder consultation and newspaper advertisements on the need for any changes to the Act. A key issue in the submissions is the viability of the area D rural villages. The review was held in abeyance pending the outcome of a study into the area D rural villages. The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure announced her decision on area D on 29 April 2003. The review is now being progressed with the consideration of submissions received on the review and taking into account the minister’s decision on the area D rural villages study. A report will be prepared on the completion of the review.
(4) Has the report been prepared? (5) Will the minister table the report? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) This answer reflects the typographical error. No. The Act requires the minister to conduct a review of the operation and effectiveness of the Act as soon as is practicable after the expiration of five years from its commencement. The Act therefore became due for review after 25 November 2000. (3) Yes. (4)-(5) A review commenced in March 2000. Comments were sought by stakeholder consultation and newspaper advertisements on the need for any changes to the Act. A key issue in the submissions is the viability of the area D rural villages. The review was held in abeyance pending the outcome of a study into the area D rural villages. The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure announced her decision on area D on 29 April 2003. The review is now being progressed with the consideration of submissions received on the review and taking into account the minister’s decision on the area D rural villages study. A report will be prepared on the completion of the review.
(5) Will the minister table the report? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) This answer reflects the typographical error. No. The Act requires the minister to conduct a review of the operation and effectiveness of the Act as soon as is practicable after the expiration of five years from its commencement. The Act therefore became due for review after 25 November 2000. (3) Yes. (4)-(5) A review commenced in March 2000. Comments were sought by stakeholder consultation and newspaper advertisements on the need for any changes to the Act. A key issue in the submissions is the viability of the area D rural villages. The review was held in abeyance pending the outcome of a study into the area D rural villages. The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure announced her decision on area D on 29 April 2003. The review is now being progressed with the consideration of submissions received on the review and taking into account the minister’s decision on the area D rural villages study. A report will be prepared on the completion of the review.
Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) This answer reflects the typographical error. No. The Act requires the minister to conduct a review of the operation and effectiveness of the Act as soon as is practicable after the expiration of five years from its commencement. The Act therefore became due for review after 25 November 2000. (3) Yes. (4)-(5) A review commenced in March 2000. Comments were sought by stakeholder consultation and newspaper advertisements on the need for any changes to the Act. A key issue in the submissions is the viability of the area D rural villages. The review was held in abeyance pending the outcome of a study into the area D rural villages. The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure announced her decision on area D on 29 April 2003. The review is now being progressed with the consideration of submissions received on the review and taking into account the minister’s decision on the area D rural villages study. A report will be prepared on the completion of the review.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) This answer reflects the typographical error. No. The Act requires the minister to conduct a review of the operation and effectiveness of the Act as soon as is practicable after the expiration of five years from its commencement. The Act therefore became due for review after 25 November 2000. (3) Yes. (4)-(5) A review commenced in March 2000. Comments were sought by stakeholder consultation and newspaper advertisements on the need for any changes to the Act. A key issue in the submissions is the viability of the area D rural villages. The review was held in abeyance pending the outcome of a study into the area D rural villages. The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure announced her decision on area D on 29 April 2003. The review is now being progressed with the consideration of submissions received on the review and taking into account the minister’s decision on the area D rural villages study. A report will be prepared on the completion of the review.
(1) Yes. (2) This answer reflects the typographical error. No. The Act requires the minister to conduct a review of the operation and effectiveness of the Act as soon as is practicable after the expiration of five years from its commencement. The Act therefore became due for review after 25 November 2000. (3) Yes. (4)-(5) A review commenced in March 2000. Comments were sought by stakeholder consultation and newspaper advertisements on the need for any changes to the Act. A key issue in the submissions is the viability of the area D rural villages. The review was held in abeyance pending the outcome of a study into the area D rural villages. The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure announced her decision on area D on 29 April 2003. The review is now being progressed with the consideration of submissions received on the review and taking into account the minister’s decision on the area D rural villages study. A report will be prepared on the completion of the review.
(2) This answer reflects the typographical error. No. The Act requires the minister to conduct a review of the operation and effectiveness of the Act as soon as is practicable after the expiration of five years from its commencement. The Act therefore became due for review after 25 November 2000. (3) Yes. (4)-(5) A review commenced in March 2000. Comments were sought by stakeholder consultation and newspaper advertisements on the need for any changes to the Act. A key issue in the submissions is the viability of the area D rural villages. The review was held in abeyance pending the outcome of a study into the area D rural villages. The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure announced her decision on area D on 29 April 2003. The review is now being progressed with the consideration of submissions received on the review and taking into account the minister’s decision on the area D rural villages study. A report will be prepared on the completion of the review.
(4)-(5) A review commenced in March 2000. Comments were sought by stakeholder consultation and newspaper advertisements on the need for any changes to the Act. A key issue in the submissions is the viability of the area D rural villages. The review was held in abeyance pending the outcome of a study into the area D rural villages. The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure announced her decision on area D on 29 April 2003. The review is now being progressed with the consideration of submissions received on the review and taking into account the minister’s decision on the area D rural villages study. A report will be prepared on the completion of the review.
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.