❓ Question regarding the impact of a proposed federal heritage listing of the Kimberley region on the region's development and the state government's response. Premier expresses concern about overreach and increased bureaucracy.
AnsweredQoN 503Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
KIMBERLEY — FEDERAL HERITAGE LISTING PROPOSAL
I refer to the impending announcement by the federal government of the proposed heritage listing of the Kimberley. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time today. As you know, if you wish to ask a question, I will give you the call. It is not your call at the moment though. I formally call you to order for the first time today. Mr V.A. CATANIA : I refer to the impending announcement by the federal government of the proposed heritage listing of the Kimberley. What impact would this listing of the entire Kimberley have on the region and what does the state government propose? Mr C.J. BARNETT
I refer to the impending announcement by the federal government of the proposed heritage listing of the Kimberley. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time today. As you know, if you wish to ask a question, I will give you the call. It is not your call at the moment though. I formally call you to order for the first time today. Mr V.A. CATANIA : I refer to the impending announcement by the federal government of the proposed heritage listing of the Kimberley. What impact would this listing of the entire Kimberley have on the region and what does the state government propose? Mr C.J. BARNETT
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for North West for the question. It is a credible question about an important issue for the state. It shows a bit of a contrast. On this side of the house we are interested in the Kimberley and its future; we are not particularly interested in who made what appointment on what day. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Kwinana, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the Leader of the Opposition—I formally call you to order for the first time today. Members, I will instruct you that in this place a question has been asked and I would like to hear the answer. Mr C.J. BARNETT : At this time of year many members of Parliament seem to travel north. I think all members would agree that the Kimberley is a truly unique and special place. As I and the Minister for Environment have said a number of times, probably the major environmental commitment of this government is the conservation and preservation of the Kimberley. With that in mind, we are in the process of creating four major marine parks and a major new national park, the Prince Regent River national park. We are also creating a corridor right across the Kimberley for migratory species, protecting endangered species by putting them onto island arks, and doing a lot of other scientific work. This is not ad hoc; this is based on the Kimberley science and conservation strategy, and it will go on. As a government we have committed $63 million to put all these programs in place. These are very major and probably the most significant conservation measures ever taken in the nation’s history. With respect to the heritage listing, I do not think that many members in this house would object to some of those iconic places in the Kimberley being included on the National Heritage List—Mitchell Plateau, the Mitchell Falls, some of the islands — Mr T.G. Stephens : Dimond Gorge? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Some of the gorges, yes. Mr T.G. Stephens : Before or after you dam it? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, they are not interested. There are beautiful places of natural environment and places of great cultural significance with ancient paintings and rock carvings and the like. There are places of historic significance. Having looked at some of these sites that have been proposed, from my perspective I do not have an objection to any of those being included on the listing. Most of those sites, particularly the spectacular natural areas of the Kimberley, are already included within the existing national parks and the proposed marine parks. Those areas are protected within the totally state-funded system of state national parks in the Kimberley. What I am afraid of and what I think is likely to happen is that the heritage listing will encompass a wide area of the Kimberley and, therefore, will include not only those iconic places and places of cultural importance and the like, but also everything else. It will include towns, camps, rubbish tips, petrol stations, bottle shops and whatever else; they will all be included. That will immediately create a whole new level of regulation. The federal government will say that it is a matter of the values of the Kimberley and that if something proposed does not affect the values of the Kimberley, it is not a problem. Just imagine the litigation that is going to take place. In any disagreement between any two parties, someone will take it and say, “This affects the values of the Kimberley.” It will cast in doubt the existing pastoral operations, any tourism developments and the pearling industry, which is very successful along that coast. It simply creates a new level of uncertainty, and it creates a new level of approval and bureaucracy. The question, however, is: will this enhance the Kimberley? Is this simply a matter of drawing a line around tens of thousands of square kilometres of the Kimberley and saying, “That is now heritage listed, and by the way, you’ll now need federal environmental approval for virtually anything you do in that”? It would immediately create a whole new layer of bureaucracy. Bear in mind that the Kimberley is twice the size of the state of Victoria. Do members think the federal government would ever draw a line around Victoria? I do not think so. It would not even do it in Queensland, except for some area like the Great Barrier Reef. It is a line around big parts of the Kimberley that will create uncertainty for existing and future projects. But the real test of the bona fides of the federal government when it announces this, probably tomorrow—I expect it will be far reaching—will be whether the federal government will commit extra funding to assist what the state is doing in the conservation and preservation of the Kimberley. If it does not, this is an announcement, and that is all it is. Real commitment is what this government is doing—$63 million into the Kimberley.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time today. As you know, if you wish to ask a question, I will give you the call. It is not your call at the moment though. I formally call you to order for the first time today. Mr V.A. CATANIA : I refer to the impending announcement by the federal government of the proposed heritage listing of the Kimberley. What impact would this listing of the entire Kimberley have on the region and what does the state government propose? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: I thank the member for North West for the question. It is a credible question about an important issue for the state. It shows a bit of a contrast. On this side of the house we are interested in the Kimberley and its future; we are not particularly interested in who made what appointment on what day. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Kwinana, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the Leader of the Opposition—I formally call you to order for the first time today. Members, I will instruct you that in this place a question has been asked and I would like to hear the answer. Mr C.J. BARNETT : At this time of year many members of Parliament seem to travel north. I think all members would agree that the Kimberley is a truly unique and special place. As I and the Minister for Environment have said a number of times, probably the major environmental commitment of this government is the conservation and preservation of the Kimberley. With that in mind, we are in the process of creating four major marine parks and a major new national park, the Prince Regent River national park. We are also creating a corridor right across the Kimberley for migratory species, protecting endangered species by putting them onto island arks, and doing a lot of other scientific work. This is not ad hoc; this is based on the Kimberley science and conservation strategy, and it will go on. As a government we have committed $63 million to put all these programs in place. These are very major and probably the most significant conservation measures ever taken in the nation’s history. With respect to the heritage listing, I do not think that many members in this house would object to some of those iconic places in the Kimberley being included on the National Heritage List—Mitchell Plateau, the Mitchell Falls, some of the islands — Mr T.G. Stephens : Dimond Gorge? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Some of the gorges, yes. Mr T.G. Stephens : Before or after you dam it? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, they are not interested. There are beautiful places of natural environment and places of great cultural significance with ancient paintings and rock carvings and the like. There are places of historic significance. Having looked at some of these sites that have been proposed, from my perspective I do not have an objection to any of those being included on the listing. Most of those sites, particularly the spectacular natural areas of the Kimberley, are already included within the existing national parks and the proposed marine parks. Those areas are protected within the totally state-funded system of state national parks in the Kimberley. What I am afraid of and what I think is likely to happen is that the heritage listing will encompass a wide area of the Kimberley and, therefore, will include not only those iconic places and places of cultural importance and the like, but also everything else. It will include towns, camps, rubbish tips, petrol stations, bottle shops and whatever else; they will all be included. That will immediately create a whole new level of regulation. The federal government will say that it is a matter of the values of the Kimberley and that if something proposed does not affect the values of the Kimberley, it is not a problem. Just imagine the litigation that is going to take place. In any disagreement between any two parties, someone will take it and say, “This affects the values of the Kimberley.” It will cast in doubt the existing pastoral operations, any tourism developments and the pearling industry, which is very successful along that coast. It simply creates a new level of uncertainty, and it creates a new level of approval and bureaucracy. The question, however, is: will this enhance the Kimberley? Is this simply a matter of drawing a line around tens of thousands of square kilometres of the Kimberley and saying, “That is now heritage listed, and by the way, you’ll now need federal environmental approval for virtually anything you do in that”? It would immediately create a whole new layer of bureaucracy. Bear in mind that the Kimberley is twice the size of the state of Victoria. Do members think the federal government would ever draw a line around Victoria? I do not think so. It would not even do it in Queensland, except for some area like the Great Barrier Reef. It is a line around big parts of the Kimberley that will create uncertainty for existing and future projects. But the real test of the bona fides of the federal government when it announces this, probably tomorrow—I expect it will be far reaching—will be whether the federal government will commit extra funding to assist what the state is doing in the conservation and preservation of the Kimberley. If it does not, this is an announcement, and that is all it is. Real commitment is what this government is doing—$63 million into the Kimberley.
The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time today. As you know, if you wish to ask a question, I will give you the call. It is not your call at the moment though. I formally call you to order for the first time today. Mr V.A. CATANIA : I refer to the impending announcement by the federal government of the proposed heritage listing of the Kimberley. What impact would this listing of the entire Kimberley have on the region and what does the state government propose? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: I thank the member for North West for the question. It is a credible question about an important issue for the state. It shows a bit of a contrast. On this side of the house we are interested in the Kimberley and its future; we are not particularly interested in who made what appointment on what day. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Kwinana, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the Leader of the Opposition—I formally call you to order for the first time today. Members, I will instruct you that in this place a question has been asked and I would like to hear the answer. Mr C.J. BARNETT : At this time of year many members of Parliament seem to travel north. I think all members would agree that the Kimberley is a truly unique and special place. As I and the Minister for Environment have said a number of times, probably the major environmental commitment of this government is the conservation and preservation of the Kimberley. With that in mind, we are in the process of creating four major marine parks and a major new national park, the Prince Regent River national park. We are also creating a corridor right across the Kimberley for migratory species, protecting endangered species by putting them onto island arks, and doing a lot of other scientific work. This is not ad hoc; this is based on the Kimberley science and conservation strategy, and it will go on. As a government we have committed $63 million to put all these programs in place. These are very major and probably the most significant conservation measures ever taken in the nation’s history. With respect to the heritage listing, I do not think that many members in this house would object to some of those iconic places in the Kimberley being included on the National Heritage List—Mitchell Plateau, the Mitchell Falls, some of the islands — Mr T.G. Stephens : Dimond Gorge? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Some of the gorges, yes. Mr T.G. Stephens : Before or after you dam it? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, they are not interested. There are beautiful places of natural environment and places of great cultural significance with ancient paintings and rock carvings and the like. There are places of historic significance. Having looked at some of these sites that have been proposed, from my perspective I do not have an objection to any of those being included on the listing. Most of those sites, particularly the spectacular natural areas of the Kimberley, are already included within the existing national parks and the proposed marine parks. Those areas are protected within the totally state-funded system of state national parks in the Kimberley. What I am afraid of and what I think is likely to happen is that the heritage listing will encompass a wide area of the Kimberley and, therefore, will include not only those iconic places and places of cultural importance and the like, but also everything else. It will include towns, camps, rubbish tips, petrol stations, bottle shops and whatever else; they will all be included. That will immediately create a whole new level of regulation. The federal government will say that it is a matter of the values of the Kimberley and that if something proposed does not affect the values of the Kimberley, it is not a problem. Just imagine the litigation that is going to take place. In any disagreement between any two parties, someone will take it and say, “This affects the values of the Kimberley.” It will cast in doubt the existing pastoral operations, any tourism developments and the pearling industry, which is very successful along that coast. It simply creates a new level of uncertainty, and it creates a new level of approval and bureaucracy. The question, however, is: will this enhance the Kimberley? Is this simply a matter of drawing a line around tens of thousands of square kilometres of the Kimberley and saying, “That is now heritage listed, and by the way, you’ll now need federal environmental approval for virtually anything you do in that”? It would immediately create a whole new layer of bureaucracy. Bear in mind that the Kimberley is twice the size of the state of Victoria. Do members think the federal government would ever draw a line around Victoria? I do not think so. It would not even do it in Queensland, except for some area like the Great Barrier Reef. It is a line around big parts of the Kimberley that will create uncertainty for existing and future projects. But the real test of the bona fides of the federal government when it announces this, probably tomorrow—I expect it will be far reaching—will be whether the federal government will commit extra funding to assist what the state is doing in the conservation and preservation of the Kimberley. If it does not, this is an announcement, and that is all it is. Real commitment is what this government is doing—$63 million into the Kimberley.
Mr V.A. CATANIA : I refer to the impending announcement by the federal government of the proposed heritage listing of the Kimberley. What impact would this listing of the entire Kimberley have on the region and what does the state government propose? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: I thank the member for North West for the question. It is a credible question about an important issue for the state. It shows a bit of a contrast. On this side of the house we are interested in the Kimberley and its future; we are not particularly interested in who made what appointment on what day. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Kwinana, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the Leader of the Opposition—I formally call you to order for the first time today. Members, I will instruct you that in this place a question has been asked and I would like to hear the answer. Mr C.J. BARNETT : At this time of year many members of Parliament seem to travel north. I think all members would agree that the Kimberley is a truly unique and special place. As I and the Minister for Environment have said a number of times, probably the major environmental commitment of this government is the conservation and preservation of the Kimberley. With that in mind, we are in the process of creating four major marine parks and a major new national park, the Prince Regent River national park. We are also creating a corridor right across the Kimberley for migratory species, protecting endangered species by putting them onto island arks, and doing a lot of other scientific work. This is not ad hoc; this is based on the Kimberley science and conservation strategy, and it will go on. As a government we have committed $63 million to put all these programs in place. These are very major and probably the most significant conservation measures ever taken in the nation’s history. With respect to the heritage listing, I do not think that many members in this house would object to some of those iconic places in the Kimberley being included on the National Heritage List—Mitchell Plateau, the Mitchell Falls, some of the islands — Mr T.G. Stephens : Dimond Gorge? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Some of the gorges, yes. Mr T.G. Stephens : Before or after you dam it? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, they are not interested. There are beautiful places of natural environment and places of great cultural significance with ancient paintings and rock carvings and the like. There are places of historic significance. Having looked at some of these sites that have been proposed, from my perspective I do not have an objection to any of those being included on the listing. Most of those sites, particularly the spectacular natural areas of the Kimberley, are already included within the existing national parks and the proposed marine parks. Those areas are protected within the totally state-funded system of state national parks in the Kimberley. What I am afraid of and what I think is likely to happen is that the heritage listing will encompass a wide area of the Kimberley and, therefore, will include not only those iconic places and places of cultural importance and the like, but also everything else. It will include towns, camps, rubbish tips, petrol stations, bottle shops and whatever else; they will all be included. That will immediately create a whole new level of regulation. The federal government will say that it is a matter of the values of the Kimberley and that if something proposed does not affect the values of the Kimberley, it is not a problem. Just imagine the litigation that is going to take place. In any disagreement between any two parties, someone will take it and say, “This affects the values of the Kimberley.” It will cast in doubt the existing pastoral operations, any tourism developments and the pearling industry, which is very successful along that coast. It simply creates a new level of uncertainty, and it creates a new level of approval and bureaucracy. The question, however, is: will this enhance the Kimberley? Is this simply a matter of drawing a line around tens of thousands of square kilometres of the Kimberley and saying, “That is now heritage listed, and by the way, you’ll now need federal environmental approval for virtually anything you do in that”? It would immediately create a whole new layer of bureaucracy. Bear in mind that the Kimberley is twice the size of the state of Victoria. Do members think the federal government would ever draw a line around Victoria? I do not think so. It would not even do it in Queensland, except for some area like the Great Barrier Reef. It is a line around big parts of the Kimberley that will create uncertainty for existing and future projects. But the real test of the bona fides of the federal government when it announces this, probably tomorrow—I expect it will be far reaching—will be whether the federal government will commit extra funding to assist what the state is doing in the conservation and preservation of the Kimberley. If it does not, this is an announcement, and that is all it is. Real commitment is what this government is doing—$63 million into the Kimberley.
Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: I thank the member for North West for the question. It is a credible question about an important issue for the state. It shows a bit of a contrast. On this side of the house we are interested in the Kimberley and its future; we are not particularly interested in who made what appointment on what day. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Kwinana, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the Leader of the Opposition—I formally call you to order for the first time today. Members, I will instruct you that in this place a question has been asked and I would like to hear the answer. Mr C.J. BARNETT : At this time of year many members of Parliament seem to travel north. I think all members would agree that the Kimberley is a truly unique and special place. As I and the Minister for Environment have said a number of times, probably the major environmental commitment of this government is the conservation and preservation of the Kimberley. With that in mind, we are in the process of creating four major marine parks and a major new national park, the Prince Regent River national park. We are also creating a corridor right across the Kimberley for migratory species, protecting endangered species by putting them onto island arks, and doing a lot of other scientific work. This is not ad hoc; this is based on the Kimberley science and conservation strategy, and it will go on. As a government we have committed $63 million to put all these programs in place. These are very major and probably the most significant conservation measures ever taken in the nation’s history. With respect to the heritage listing, I do not think that many members in this house would object to some of those iconic places in the Kimberley being included on the National Heritage List—Mitchell Plateau, the Mitchell Falls, some of the islands — Mr T.G. Stephens : Dimond Gorge? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Some of the gorges, yes. Mr T.G. Stephens : Before or after you dam it? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, they are not interested. There are beautiful places of natural environment and places of great cultural significance with ancient paintings and rock carvings and the like. There are places of historic significance. Having looked at some of these sites that have been proposed, from my perspective I do not have an objection to any of those being included on the listing. Most of those sites, particularly the spectacular natural areas of the Kimberley, are already included within the existing national parks and the proposed marine parks. Those areas are protected within the totally state-funded system of state national parks in the Kimberley. What I am afraid of and what I think is likely to happen is that the heritage listing will encompass a wide area of the Kimberley and, therefore, will include not only those iconic places and places of cultural importance and the like, but also everything else. It will include towns, camps, rubbish tips, petrol stations, bottle shops and whatever else; they will all be included. That will immediately create a whole new level of regulation. The federal government will say that it is a matter of the values of the Kimberley and that if something proposed does not affect the values of the Kimberley, it is not a problem. Just imagine the litigation that is going to take place. In any disagreement between any two parties, someone will take it and say, “This affects the values of the Kimberley.” It will cast in doubt the existing pastoral operations, any tourism developments and the pearling industry, which is very successful along that coast. It simply creates a new level of uncertainty, and it creates a new level of approval and bureaucracy. The question, however, is: will this enhance the Kimberley? Is this simply a matter of drawing a line around tens of thousands of square kilometres of the Kimberley and saying, “That is now heritage listed, and by the way, you’ll now need federal environmental approval for virtually anything you do in that”? It would immediately create a whole new layer of bureaucracy. Bear in mind that the Kimberley is twice the size of the state of Victoria. Do members think the federal government would ever draw a line around Victoria? I do not think so. It would not even do it in Queensland, except for some area like the Great Barrier Reef. It is a line around big parts of the Kimberley that will create uncertainty for existing and future projects. But the real test of the bona fides of the federal government when it announces this, probably tomorrow—I expect it will be far reaching—will be whether the federal government will commit extra funding to assist what the state is doing in the conservation and preservation of the Kimberley. If it does not, this is an announcement, and that is all it is. Real commitment is what this government is doing—$63 million into the Kimberley.
I thank the member for North West for the question. It is a credible question about an important issue for the state. It shows a bit of a contrast. On this side of the house we are interested in the Kimberley and its future; we are not particularly interested in who made what appointment on what day. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Kwinana, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the Leader of the Opposition—I formally call you to order for the first time today. Members, I will instruct you that in this place a question has been asked and I would like to hear the answer. Mr C.J. BARNETT : At this time of year many members of Parliament seem to travel north. I think all members would agree that the Kimberley is a truly unique and special place. As I and the Minister for Environment have said a number of times, probably the major environmental commitment of this government is the conservation and preservation of the Kimberley. With that in mind, we are in the process of creating four major marine parks and a major new national park, the Prince Regent River national park. We are also creating a corridor right across the Kimberley for migratory species, protecting endangered species by putting them onto island arks, and doing a lot of other scientific work. This is not ad hoc; this is based on the Kimberley science and conservation strategy, and it will go on. As a government we have committed $63 million to put all these programs in place. These are very major and probably the most significant conservation measures ever taken in the nation’s history. With respect to the heritage listing, I do not think that many members in this house would object to some of those iconic places in the Kimberley being included on the National Heritage List—Mitchell Plateau, the Mitchell Falls, some of the islands — Mr T.G. Stephens : Dimond Gorge? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Some of the gorges, yes. Mr T.G. Stephens : Before or after you dam it? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, they are not interested. There are beautiful places of natural environment and places of great cultural significance with ancient paintings and rock carvings and the like. There are places of historic significance. Having looked at some of these sites that have been proposed, from my perspective I do not have an objection to any of those being included on the listing. Most of those sites, particularly the spectacular natural areas of the Kimberley, are already included within the existing national parks and the proposed marine parks. Those areas are protected within the totally state-funded system of state national parks in the Kimberley. What I am afraid of and what I think is likely to happen is that the heritage listing will encompass a wide area of the Kimberley and, therefore, will include not only those iconic places and places of cultural importance and the like, but also everything else. It will include towns, camps, rubbish tips, petrol stations, bottle shops and whatever else; they will all be included. That will immediately create a whole new level of regulation. The federal government will say that it is a matter of the values of the Kimberley and that if something proposed does not affect the values of the Kimberley, it is not a problem. Just imagine the litigation that is going to take place. In any disagreement between any two parties, someone will take it and say, “This affects the values of the Kimberley.” It will cast in doubt the existing pastoral operations, any tourism developments and the pearling industry, which is very successful along that coast. It simply creates a new level of uncertainty, and it creates a new level of approval and bureaucracy. The question, however, is: will this enhance the Kimberley? Is this simply a matter of drawing a line around tens of thousands of square kilometres of the Kimberley and saying, “That is now heritage listed, and by the way, you’ll now need federal environmental approval for virtually anything you do in that”? It would immediately create a whole new layer of bureaucracy. Bear in mind that the Kimberley is twice the size of the state of Victoria. Do members think the federal government would ever draw a line around Victoria? I do not think so. It would not even do it in Queensland, except for some area like the Great Barrier Reef. It is a line around big parts of the Kimberley that will create uncertainty for existing and future projects. But the real test of the bona fides of the federal government when it announces this, probably tomorrow—I expect it will be far reaching—will be whether the federal government will commit extra funding to assist what the state is doing in the conservation and preservation of the Kimberley. If it does not, this is an announcement, and that is all it is. Real commitment is what this government is doing—$63 million into the Kimberley.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Kwinana, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the Leader of the Opposition—I formally call you to order for the first time today. Members, I will instruct you that in this place a question has been asked and I would like to hear the answer. Mr C.J. BARNETT : At this time of year many members of Parliament seem to travel north. I think all members would agree that the Kimberley is a truly unique and special place. As I and the Minister for Environment have said a number of times, probably the major environmental commitment of this government is the conservation and preservation of the Kimberley. With that in mind, we are in the process of creating four major marine parks and a major new national park, the Prince Regent River national park. We are also creating a corridor right across the Kimberley for migratory species, protecting endangered species by putting them onto island arks, and doing a lot of other scientific work. This is not ad hoc; this is based on the Kimberley science and conservation strategy, and it will go on. As a government we have committed $63 million to put all these programs in place. These are very major and probably the most significant conservation measures ever taken in the nation’s history. With respect to the heritage listing, I do not think that many members in this house would object to some of those iconic places in the Kimberley being included on the National Heritage List—Mitchell Plateau, the Mitchell Falls, some of the islands — Mr T.G. Stephens : Dimond Gorge? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Some of the gorges, yes. Mr T.G. Stephens : Before or after you dam it? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, they are not interested. There are beautiful places of natural environment and places of great cultural significance with ancient paintings and rock carvings and the like. There are places of historic significance. Having looked at some of these sites that have been proposed, from my perspective I do not have an objection to any of those being included on the listing. Most of those sites, particularly the spectacular natural areas of the Kimberley, are already included within the existing national parks and the proposed marine parks. Those areas are protected within the totally state-funded system of state national parks in the Kimberley. What I am afraid of and what I think is likely to happen is that the heritage listing will encompass a wide area of the Kimberley and, therefore, will include not only those iconic places and places of cultural importance and the like, but also everything else. It will include towns, camps, rubbish tips, petrol stations, bottle shops and whatever else; they will all be included. That will immediately create a whole new level of regulation. The federal government will say that it is a matter of the values of the Kimberley and that if something proposed does not affect the values of the Kimberley, it is not a problem. Just imagine the litigation that is going to take place. In any disagreement between any two parties, someone will take it and say, “This affects the values of the Kimberley.” It will cast in doubt the existing pastoral operations, any tourism developments and the pearling industry, which is very successful along that coast. It simply creates a new level of uncertainty, and it creates a new level of approval and bureaucracy. The question, however, is: will this enhance the Kimberley? Is this simply a matter of drawing a line around tens of thousands of square kilometres of the Kimberley and saying, “That is now heritage listed, and by the way, you’ll now need federal environmental approval for virtually anything you do in that”? It would immediately create a whole new layer of bureaucracy. Bear in mind that the Kimberley is twice the size of the state of Victoria. Do members think the federal government would ever draw a line around Victoria? I do not think so. It would not even do it in Queensland, except for some area like the Great Barrier Reef. It is a line around big parts of the Kimberley that will create uncertainty for existing and future projects. But the real test of the bona fides of the federal government when it announces this, probably tomorrow—I expect it will be far reaching—will be whether the federal government will commit extra funding to assist what the state is doing in the conservation and preservation of the Kimberley. If it does not, this is an announcement, and that is all it is. Real commitment is what this government is doing—$63 million into the Kimberley.
The SPEAKER : Member for Kwinana, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the Leader of the Opposition—I formally call you to order for the first time today. Members, I will instruct you that in this place a question has been asked and I would like to hear the answer. Mr C.J. BARNETT : At this time of year many members of Parliament seem to travel north. I think all members would agree that the Kimberley is a truly unique and special place. As I and the Minister for Environment have said a number of times, probably the major environmental commitment of this government is the conservation and preservation of the Kimberley. With that in mind, we are in the process of creating four major marine parks and a major new national park, the Prince Regent River national park. We are also creating a corridor right across the Kimberley for migratory species, protecting endangered species by putting them onto island arks, and doing a lot of other scientific work. This is not ad hoc; this is based on the Kimberley science and conservation strategy, and it will go on. As a government we have committed $63 million to put all these programs in place. These are very major and probably the most significant conservation measures ever taken in the nation’s history. With respect to the heritage listing, I do not think that many members in this house would object to some of those iconic places in the Kimberley being included on the National Heritage List—Mitchell Plateau, the Mitchell Falls, some of the islands — Mr T.G. Stephens : Dimond Gorge? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Some of the gorges, yes. Mr T.G. Stephens : Before or after you dam it? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, they are not interested. There are beautiful places of natural environment and places of great cultural significance with ancient paintings and rock carvings and the like. There are places of historic significance. Having looked at some of these sites that have been proposed, from my perspective I do not have an objection to any of those being included on the listing. Most of those sites, particularly the spectacular natural areas of the Kimberley, are already included within the existing national parks and the proposed marine parks. Those areas are protected within the totally state-funded system of state national parks in the Kimberley. What I am afraid of and what I think is likely to happen is that the heritage listing will encompass a wide area of the Kimberley and, therefore, will include not only those iconic places and places of cultural importance and the like, but also everything else. It will include towns, camps, rubbish tips, petrol stations, bottle shops and whatever else; they will all be included. That will immediately create a whole new level of regulation. The federal government will say that it is a matter of the values of the Kimberley and that if something proposed does not affect the values of the Kimberley, it is not a problem. Just imagine the litigation that is going to take place. In any disagreement between any two parties, someone will take it and say, “This affects the values of the Kimberley.” It will cast in doubt the existing pastoral operations, any tourism developments and the pearling industry, which is very successful along that coast. It simply creates a new level of uncertainty, and it creates a new level of approval and bureaucracy. The question, however, is: will this enhance the Kimberley? Is this simply a matter of drawing a line around tens of thousands of square kilometres of the Kimberley and saying, “That is now heritage listed, and by the way, you’ll now need federal environmental approval for virtually anything you do in that”? It would immediately create a whole new layer of bureaucracy. Bear in mind that the Kimberley is twice the size of the state of Victoria. Do members think the federal government would ever draw a line around Victoria? I do not think so. It would not even do it in Queensland, except for some area like the Great Barrier Reef. It is a line around big parts of the Kimberley that will create uncertainty for existing and future projects. But the real test of the bona fides of the federal government when it announces this, probably tomorrow—I expect it will be far reaching—will be whether the federal government will commit extra funding to assist what the state is doing in the conservation and preservation of the Kimberley. If it does not, this is an announcement, and that is all it is. Real commitment is what this government is doing—$63 million into the Kimberley.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : At this time of year many members of Parliament seem to travel north. I think all members would agree that the Kimberley is a truly unique and special place. As I and the Minister for Environment have said a number of times, probably the major environmental commitment of this government is the conservation and preservation of the Kimberley. With that in mind, we are in the process of creating four major marine parks and a major new national park, the Prince Regent River national park. We are also creating a corridor right across the Kimberley for migratory species, protecting endangered species by putting them onto island arks, and doing a lot of other scientific work. This is not ad hoc; this is based on the Kimberley science and conservation strategy, and it will go on. As a government we have committed $63 million to put all these programs in place. These are very major and probably the most significant conservation measures ever taken in the nation’s history. With respect to the heritage listing, I do not think that many members in this house would object to some of those iconic places in the Kimberley being included on the National Heritage List—Mitchell Plateau, the Mitchell Falls, some of the islands — Mr T.G. Stephens : Dimond Gorge? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Some of the gorges, yes. Mr T.G. Stephens : Before or after you dam it? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, they are not interested. There are beautiful places of natural environment and places of great cultural significance with ancient paintings and rock carvings and the like. There are places of historic significance. Having looked at some of these sites that have been proposed, from my perspective I do not have an objection to any of those being included on the listing. Most of those sites, particularly the spectacular natural areas of the Kimberley, are already included within the existing national parks and the proposed marine parks. Those areas are protected within the totally state-funded system of state national parks in the Kimberley. What I am afraid of and what I think is likely to happen is that the heritage listing will encompass a wide area of the Kimberley and, therefore, will include not only those iconic places and places of cultural importance and the like, but also everything else. It will include towns, camps, rubbish tips, petrol stations, bottle shops and whatever else; they will all be included. That will immediately create a whole new level of regulation. The federal government will say that it is a matter of the values of the Kimberley and that if something proposed does not affect the values of the Kimberley, it is not a problem. Just imagine the litigation that is going to take place. In any disagreement between any two parties, someone will take it and say, “This affects the values of the Kimberley.” It will cast in doubt the existing pastoral operations, any tourism developments and the pearling industry, which is very successful along that coast. It simply creates a new level of uncertainty, and it creates a new level of approval and bureaucracy. The question, however, is: will this enhance the Kimberley? Is this simply a matter of drawing a line around tens of thousands of square kilometres of the Kimberley and saying, “That is now heritage listed, and by the way, you’ll now need federal environmental approval for virtually anything you do in that”? It would immediately create a whole new layer of bureaucracy. Bear in mind that the Kimberley is twice the size of the state of Victoria. Do members think the federal government would ever draw a line around Victoria? I do not think so. It would not even do it in Queensland, except for some area like the Great Barrier Reef. It is a line around big parts of the Kimberley that will create uncertainty for existing and future projects. But the real test of the bona fides of the federal government when it announces this, probably tomorrow—I expect it will be far reaching—will be whether the federal government will commit extra funding to assist what the state is doing in the conservation and preservation of the Kimberley. If it does not, this is an announcement, and that is all it is. Real commitment is what this government is doing—$63 million into the Kimberley.
With respect to the heritage listing, I do not think that many members in this house would object to some of those iconic places in the Kimberley being included on the National Heritage List—Mitchell Plateau, the Mitchell Falls, some of the islands — Mr T.G. Stephens : Dimond Gorge? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Some of the gorges, yes. Mr T.G. Stephens : Before or after you dam it? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, they are not interested. There are beautiful places of natural environment and places of great cultural significance with ancient paintings and rock carvings and the like. There are places of historic significance. Having looked at some of these sites that have been proposed, from my perspective I do not have an objection to any of those being included on the listing. Most of those sites, particularly the spectacular natural areas of the Kimberley, are already included within the existing national parks and the proposed marine parks. Those areas are protected within the totally state-funded system of state national parks in the Kimberley. What I am afraid of and what I think is likely to happen is that the heritage listing will encompass a wide area of the Kimberley and, therefore, will include not only those iconic places and places of cultural importance and the like, but also everything else. It will include towns, camps, rubbish tips, petrol stations, bottle shops and whatever else; they will all be included. That will immediately create a whole new level of regulation. The federal government will say that it is a matter of the values of the Kimberley and that if something proposed does not affect the values of the Kimberley, it is not a problem. Just imagine the litigation that is going to take place. In any disagreement between any two parties, someone will take it and say, “This affects the values of the Kimberley.” It will cast in doubt the existing pastoral operations, any tourism developments and the pearling industry, which is very successful along that coast. It simply creates a new level of uncertainty, and it creates a new level of approval and bureaucracy. The question, however, is: will this enhance the Kimberley? Is this simply a matter of drawing a line around tens of thousands of square kilometres of the Kimberley and saying, “That is now heritage listed, and by the way, you’ll now need federal environmental approval for virtually anything you do in that”? It would immediately create a whole new layer of bureaucracy. Bear in mind that the Kimberley is twice the size of the state of Victoria. Do members think the federal government would ever draw a line around Victoria? I do not think so. It would not even do it in Queensland, except for some area like the Great Barrier Reef. It is a line around big parts of the Kimberley that will create uncertainty for existing and future projects. But the real test of the bona fides of the federal government when it announces this, probably tomorrow—I expect it will be far reaching—will be whether the federal government will commit extra funding to assist what the state is doing in the conservation and preservation of the Kimberley. If it does not, this is an announcement, and that is all it is. Real commitment is what this government is doing—$63 million into the Kimberley.
Mr T.G. Stephens : Dimond Gorge? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Some of the gorges, yes. Mr T.G. Stephens : Before or after you dam it? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, they are not interested. There are beautiful places of natural environment and places of great cultural significance with ancient paintings and rock carvings and the like. There are places of historic significance. Having looked at some of these sites that have been proposed, from my perspective I do not have an objection to any of those being included on the listing. Most of those sites, particularly the spectacular natural areas of the Kimberley, are already included within the existing national parks and the proposed marine parks. Those areas are protected within the totally state-funded system of state national parks in the Kimberley. What I am afraid of and what I think is likely to happen is that the heritage listing will encompass a wide area of the Kimberley and, therefore, will include not only those iconic places and places of cultural importance and the like, but also everything else. It will include towns, camps, rubbish tips, petrol stations, bottle shops and whatever else; they will all be included. That will immediately create a whole new level of regulation. The federal government will say that it is a matter of the values of the Kimberley and that if something proposed does not affect the values of the Kimberley, it is not a problem. Just imagine the litigation that is going to take place. In any disagreement between any two parties, someone will take it and say, “This affects the values of the Kimberley.” It will cast in doubt the existing pastoral operations, any tourism developments and the pearling industry, which is very successful along that coast. It simply creates a new level of uncertainty, and it creates a new level of approval and bureaucracy. The question, however, is: will this enhance the Kimberley? Is this simply a matter of drawing a line around tens of thousands of square kilometres of the Kimberley and saying, “That is now heritage listed, and by the way, you’ll now need federal environmental approval for virtually anything you do in that”? It would immediately create a whole new layer of bureaucracy. Bear in mind that the Kimberley is twice the size of the state of Victoria. Do members think the federal government would ever draw a line around Victoria? I do not think so. It would not even do it in Queensland, except for some area like the Great Barrier Reef. It is a line around big parts of the Kimberley that will create uncertainty for existing and future projects. But the real test of the bona fides of the federal government when it announces this, probably tomorrow—I expect it will be far reaching—will be whether the federal government will commit extra funding to assist what the state is doing in the conservation and preservation of the Kimberley. If it does not, this is an announcement, and that is all it is. Real commitment is what this government is doing—$63 million into the Kimberley.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Some of the gorges, yes. Mr T.G. Stephens : Before or after you dam it? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, they are not interested. There are beautiful places of natural environment and places of great cultural significance with ancient paintings and rock carvings and the like. There are places of historic significance. Having looked at some of these sites that have been proposed, from my perspective I do not have an objection to any of those being included on the listing. Most of those sites, particularly the spectacular natural areas of the Kimberley, are already included within the existing national parks and the proposed marine parks. Those areas are protected within the totally state-funded system of state national parks in the Kimberley. What I am afraid of and what I think is likely to happen is that the heritage listing will encompass a wide area of the Kimberley and, therefore, will include not only those iconic places and places of cultural importance and the like, but also everything else. It will include towns, camps, rubbish tips, petrol stations, bottle shops and whatever else; they will all be included. That will immediately create a whole new level of regulation. The federal government will say that it is a matter of the values of the Kimberley and that if something proposed does not affect the values of the Kimberley, it is not a problem. Just imagine the litigation that is going to take place. In any disagreement between any two parties, someone will take it and say, “This affects the values of the Kimberley.” It will cast in doubt the existing pastoral operations, any tourism developments and the pearling industry, which is very successful along that coast. It simply creates a new level of uncertainty, and it creates a new level of approval and bureaucracy. The question, however, is: will this enhance the Kimberley? Is this simply a matter of drawing a line around tens of thousands of square kilometres of the Kimberley and saying, “That is now heritage listed, and by the way, you’ll now need federal environmental approval for virtually anything you do in that”? It would immediately create a whole new layer of bureaucracy. Bear in mind that the Kimberley is twice the size of the state of Victoria. Do members think the federal government would ever draw a line around Victoria? I do not think so. It would not even do it in Queensland, except for some area like the Great Barrier Reef. It is a line around big parts of the Kimberley that will create uncertainty for existing and future projects. But the real test of the bona fides of the federal government when it announces this, probably tomorrow—I expect it will be far reaching—will be whether the federal government will commit extra funding to assist what the state is doing in the conservation and preservation of the Kimberley. If it does not, this is an announcement, and that is all it is. Real commitment is what this government is doing—$63 million into the Kimberley.
Mr T.G. Stephens : Before or after you dam it? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, they are not interested. There are beautiful places of natural environment and places of great cultural significance with ancient paintings and rock carvings and the like. There are places of historic significance. Having looked at some of these sites that have been proposed, from my perspective I do not have an objection to any of those being included on the listing. Most of those sites, particularly the spectacular natural areas of the Kimberley, are already included within the existing national parks and the proposed marine parks. Those areas are protected within the totally state-funded system of state national parks in the Kimberley. What I am afraid of and what I think is likely to happen is that the heritage listing will encompass a wide area of the Kimberley and, therefore, will include not only those iconic places and places of cultural importance and the like, but also everything else. It will include towns, camps, rubbish tips, petrol stations, bottle shops and whatever else; they will all be included. That will immediately create a whole new level of regulation. The federal government will say that it is a matter of the values of the Kimberley and that if something proposed does not affect the values of the Kimberley, it is not a problem. Just imagine the litigation that is going to take place. In any disagreement between any two parties, someone will take it and say, “This affects the values of the Kimberley.” It will cast in doubt the existing pastoral operations, any tourism developments and the pearling industry, which is very successful along that coast. It simply creates a new level of uncertainty, and it creates a new level of approval and bureaucracy. The question, however, is: will this enhance the Kimberley? Is this simply a matter of drawing a line around tens of thousands of square kilometres of the Kimberley and saying, “That is now heritage listed, and by the way, you’ll now need federal environmental approval for virtually anything you do in that”? It would immediately create a whole new layer of bureaucracy. Bear in mind that the Kimberley is twice the size of the state of Victoria. Do members think the federal government would ever draw a line around Victoria? I do not think so. It would not even do it in Queensland, except for some area like the Great Barrier Reef. It is a line around big parts of the Kimberley that will create uncertainty for existing and future projects. But the real test of the bona fides of the federal government when it announces this, probably tomorrow—I expect it will be far reaching—will be whether the federal government will commit extra funding to assist what the state is doing in the conservation and preservation of the Kimberley. If it does not, this is an announcement, and that is all it is. Real commitment is what this government is doing—$63 million into the Kimberley.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, they are not interested. There are beautiful places of natural environment and places of great cultural significance with ancient paintings and rock carvings and the like. There are places of historic significance. Having looked at some of these sites that have been proposed, from my perspective I do not have an objection to any of those being included on the listing. Most of those sites, particularly the spectacular natural areas of the Kimberley, are already included within the existing national parks and the proposed marine parks. Those areas are protected within the totally state-funded system of state national parks in the Kimberley. What I am afraid of and what I think is likely to happen is that the heritage listing will encompass a wide area of the Kimberley and, therefore, will include not only those iconic places and places of cultural importance and the like, but also everything else. It will include towns, camps, rubbish tips, petrol stations, bottle shops and whatever else; they will all be included. That will immediately create a whole new level of regulation. The federal government will say that it is a matter of the values of the Kimberley and that if something proposed does not affect the values of the Kimberley, it is not a problem. Just imagine the litigation that is going to take place. In any disagreement between any two parties, someone will take it and say, “This affects the values of the Kimberley.” It will cast in doubt the existing pastoral operations, any tourism developments and the pearling industry, which is very successful along that coast. It simply creates a new level of uncertainty, and it creates a new level of approval and bureaucracy. The question, however, is: will this enhance the Kimberley? Is this simply a matter of drawing a line around tens of thousands of square kilometres of the Kimberley and saying, “That is now heritage listed, and by the way, you’ll now need federal environmental approval for virtually anything you do in that”? It would immediately create a whole new layer of bureaucracy. Bear in mind that the Kimberley is twice the size of the state of Victoria. Do members think the federal government would ever draw a line around Victoria? I do not think so. It would not even do it in Queensland, except for some area like the Great Barrier Reef. It is a line around big parts of the Kimberley that will create uncertainty for existing and future projects. But the real test of the bona fides of the federal government when it announces this, probably tomorrow—I expect it will be far reaching—will be whether the federal government will commit extra funding to assist what the state is doing in the conservation and preservation of the Kimberley. If it does not, this is an announcement, and that is all it is. Real commitment is what this government is doing—$63 million into the Kimberley.
There are beautiful places of natural environment and places of great cultural significance with ancient paintings and rock carvings and the like. There are places of historic significance. Having looked at some of these sites that have been proposed, from my perspective I do not have an objection to any of those being included on the listing. Most of those sites, particularly the spectacular natural areas of the Kimberley, are already included within the existing national parks and the proposed marine parks. Those areas are protected within the totally state-funded system of state national parks in the Kimberley. What I am afraid of and what I think is likely to happen is that the heritage listing will encompass a wide area of the Kimberley and, therefore, will include not only those iconic places and places of cultural importance and the like, but also everything else. It will include towns, camps, rubbish tips, petrol stations, bottle shops and whatever else; they will all be included. That will immediately create a whole new level of regulation. The federal government will say that it is a matter of the values of the Kimberley and that if something proposed does not affect the values of the Kimberley, it is not a problem. Just imagine the litigation that is going to take place. In any disagreement between any two parties, someone will take it and say, “This affects the values of the Kimberley.” It will cast in doubt the existing pastoral operations, any tourism developments and the pearling industry, which is very successful along that coast. It simply creates a new level of uncertainty, and it creates a new level of approval and bureaucracy. The question, however, is: will this enhance the Kimberley? Is this simply a matter of drawing a line around tens of thousands of square kilometres of the Kimberley and saying, “That is now heritage listed, and by the way, you’ll now need federal environmental approval for virtually anything you do in that”? It would immediately create a whole new layer of bureaucracy. Bear in mind that the Kimberley is twice the size of the state of Victoria. Do members think the federal government would ever draw a line around Victoria? I do not think so. It would not even do it in Queensland, except for some area like the Great Barrier Reef. It is a line around big parts of the Kimberley that will create uncertainty for existing and future projects. But the real test of the bona fides of the federal government when it announces this, probably tomorrow—I expect it will be far reaching—will be whether the federal government will commit extra funding to assist what the state is doing in the conservation and preservation of the Kimberley. If it does not, this is an announcement, and that is all it is. Real commitment is what this government is doing—$63 million into the Kimberley.
What I am afraid of and what I think is likely to happen is that the heritage listing will encompass a wide area of the Kimberley and, therefore, will include not only those iconic places and places of cultural importance and the like, but also everything else. It will include towns, camps, rubbish tips, petrol stations, bottle shops and whatever else; they will all be included. That will immediately create a whole new level of regulation. The federal government will say that it is a matter of the values of the Kimberley and that if something proposed does not affect the values of the Kimberley, it is not a problem. Just imagine the litigation that is going to take place. In any disagreement between any two parties, someone will take it and say, “This affects the values of the Kimberley.” It will cast in doubt the existing pastoral operations, any tourism developments and the pearling industry, which is very successful along that coast. It simply creates a new level of uncertainty, and it creates a new level of approval and bureaucracy. The question, however, is: will this enhance the Kimberley? Is this simply a matter of drawing a line around tens of thousands of square kilometres of the Kimberley and saying, “That is now heritage listed, and by the way, you’ll now need federal environmental approval for virtually anything you do in that”? It would immediately create a whole new layer of bureaucracy. Bear in mind that the Kimberley is twice the size of the state of Victoria. Do members think the federal government would ever draw a line around Victoria? I do not think so. It would not even do it in Queensland, except for some area like the Great Barrier Reef. It is a line around big parts of the Kimberley that will create uncertainty for existing and future projects. But the real test of the bona fides of the federal government when it announces this, probably tomorrow—I expect it will be far reaching—will be whether the federal government will commit extra funding to assist what the state is doing in the conservation and preservation of the Kimberley. If it does not, this is an announcement, and that is all it is. Real commitment is what this government is doing—$63 million into the Kimberley.
In any disagreement between any two parties, someone will take it and say, “This affects the values of the Kimberley.” It will cast in doubt the existing pastoral operations, any tourism developments and the pearling industry, which is very successful along that coast. It simply creates a new level of uncertainty, and it creates a new level of approval and bureaucracy. The question, however, is: will this enhance the Kimberley? Is this simply a matter of drawing a line around tens of thousands of square kilometres of the Kimberley and saying, “That is now heritage listed, and by the way, you’ll now need federal environmental approval for virtually anything you do in that”? It would immediately create a whole new layer of bureaucracy. Bear in mind that the Kimberley is twice the size of the state of Victoria. Do members think the federal government would ever draw a line around Victoria? I do not think so. It would not even do it in Queensland, except for some area like the Great Barrier Reef. It is a line around big parts of the Kimberley that will create uncertainty for existing and future projects. But the real test of the bona fides of the federal government when it announces this, probably tomorrow—I expect it will be far reaching—will be whether the federal government will commit extra funding to assist what the state is doing in the conservation and preservation of the Kimberley. If it does not, this is an announcement, and that is all it is. Real commitment is what this government is doing—$63 million into the Kimberley.
The question, however, is: will this enhance the Kimberley? Is this simply a matter of drawing a line around tens of thousands of square kilometres of the Kimberley and saying, “That is now heritage listed, and by the way, you’ll now need federal environmental approval for virtually anything you do in that”? It would immediately create a whole new layer of bureaucracy. Bear in mind that the Kimberley is twice the size of the state of Victoria. Do members think the federal government would ever draw a line around Victoria? I do not think so. It would not even do it in Queensland, except for some area like the Great Barrier Reef. It is a line around big parts of the Kimberley that will create uncertainty for existing and future projects. But the real test of the bona fides of the federal government when it announces this, probably tomorrow—I expect it will be far reaching—will be whether the federal government will commit extra funding to assist what the state is doing in the conservation and preservation of the Kimberley. If it does not, this is an announcement, and that is all it is. Real commitment is what this government is doing—$63 million into the Kimberley.
It is a line around big parts of the Kimberley that will create uncertainty for existing and future projects. But the real test of the bona fides of the federal government when it announces this, probably tomorrow—I expect it will be far reaching—will be whether the federal government will commit extra funding to assist what the state is doing in the conservation and preservation of the Kimberley. If it does not, this is an announcement, and that is all it is. Real commitment is what this government is doing—$63 million into the Kimberley.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time today. As you know, if you wish to ask a question, I will give you the call. It is not your call at the moment though. I formally call you to order for the first time today. Mr V.A. CATANIA : I refer to the impending announcement by the federal government of the proposed heritage listing of the Kimberley. What impact would this listing of the entire Kimberley have on the region and what does the state government propose? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: I thank the member for North West for the question. It is a credible question about an important issue for the state. It shows a bit of a contrast. On this side of the house we are interested in the Kimberley and its future; we are not particularly interested in who made what appointment on what day. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Kwinana, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the Leader of the Opposition—I formally call you to order for the first time today. Members, I will instruct you that in this place a question has been asked and I would like to hear the answer. Mr C.J. BARNETT : At this time of year many members of Parliament seem to travel north. I think all members would agree that the Kimberley is a truly unique and special place. As I and the Minister for Environment have said a number of times, probably the major environmental commitment of this government is the conservation and preservation of the Kimberley. With that in mind, we are in the process of creating four major marine parks and a major new national park, the Prince Regent River national park. We are also creating a corridor right across the Kimberley for migratory species, protecting endangered species by putting them onto island arks, and doing a lot of other scientific work. This is not ad hoc; this is based on the Kimberley science and conservation strategy, and it will go on. As a government we have committed $63 million to put all these programs in place. These are very major and probably the most significant conservation measures ever taken in the nation’s history. With respect to the heritage listing, I do not think that many members in this house would object to some of those iconic places in the Kimberley being included on the National Heritage List—Mitchell Plateau, the Mitchell Falls, some of the islands — Mr T.G. Stephens : Dimond Gorge? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Some of the gorges, yes. Mr T.G. Stephens : Before or after you dam it? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, they are not interested. There are beautiful places of natural environment and places of great cultural significance with ancient paintings and rock carvings and the like. There are places of historic significance. Having looked at some of these sites that have been proposed, from my perspective I do not have an objection to any of those being included on the listing. Most of those sites, particularly the spectacular natural areas of the Kimberley, are already included within the existing national parks and the proposed marine parks. Those areas are protected within the totally state-funded system of state national parks in the Kimberley. What I am afraid of and what I think is likely to happen is that the heritage listing will encompass a wide area of the Kimberley and, therefore, will include not only those iconic places and places of cultural importance and the like, but also everything else. It will include towns, camps, rubbish tips, petrol stations, bottle shops and whatever else; they will all be included. That will immediately create a whole new level of regulation. The federal government will say that it is a matter of the values of the Kimberley and that if something proposed does not affect the values of the Kimberley, it is not a problem. Just imagine the litigation that is going to take place. In any disagreement between any two parties, someone will take it and say, “This affects the values of the Kimberley.” It will cast in doubt the existing pastoral operations, any tourism developments and the pearling industry, which is very successful along that coast. It simply creates a new level of uncertainty, and it creates a new level of approval and bureaucracy. The question, however, is: will this enhance the Kimberley? Is this simply a matter of drawing a line around tens of thousands of square kilometres of the Kimberley and saying, “That is now heritage listed, and by the way, you’ll now need federal environmental approval for virtually anything you do in that”? It would immediately create a whole new layer of bureaucracy. Bear in mind that the Kimberley is twice the size of the state of Victoria. Do members think the federal government would ever draw a line around Victoria? I do not think so. It would not even do it in Queensland, except for some area like the Great Barrier Reef. It is a line around big parts of the Kimberley that will create uncertainty for existing and future projects. But the real test of the bona fides of the federal government when it announces this, probably tomorrow—I expect it will be far reaching—will be whether the federal government will commit extra funding to assist what the state is doing in the conservation and preservation of the Kimberley. If it does not, this is an announcement, and that is all it is. Real commitment is what this government is doing—$63 million into the Kimberley.
The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time today. As you know, if you wish to ask a question, I will give you the call. It is not your call at the moment though. I formally call you to order for the first time today. Mr V.A. CATANIA : I refer to the impending announcement by the federal government of the proposed heritage listing of the Kimberley. What impact would this listing of the entire Kimberley have on the region and what does the state government propose? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: I thank the member for North West for the question. It is a credible question about an important issue for the state. It shows a bit of a contrast. On this side of the house we are interested in the Kimberley and its future; we are not particularly interested in who made what appointment on what day. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Kwinana, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the Leader of the Opposition—I formally call you to order for the first time today. Members, I will instruct you that in this place a question has been asked and I would like to hear the answer. Mr C.J. BARNETT : At this time of year many members of Parliament seem to travel north. I think all members would agree that the Kimberley is a truly unique and special place. As I and the Minister for Environment have said a number of times, probably the major environmental commitment of this government is the conservation and preservation of the Kimberley. With that in mind, we are in the process of creating four major marine parks and a major new national park, the Prince Regent River national park. We are also creating a corridor right across the Kimberley for migratory species, protecting endangered species by putting them onto island arks, and doing a lot of other scientific work. This is not ad hoc; this is based on the Kimberley science and conservation strategy, and it will go on. As a government we have committed $63 million to put all these programs in place. These are very major and probably the most significant conservation measures ever taken in the nation’s history. With respect to the heritage listing, I do not think that many members in this house would object to some of those iconic places in the Kimberley being included on the National Heritage List—Mitchell Plateau, the Mitchell Falls, some of the islands — Mr T.G. Stephens : Dimond Gorge? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Some of the gorges, yes. Mr T.G. Stephens : Before or after you dam it? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, they are not interested. There are beautiful places of natural environment and places of great cultural significance with ancient paintings and rock carvings and the like. There are places of historic significance. Having looked at some of these sites that have been proposed, from my perspective I do not have an objection to any of those being included on the listing. Most of those sites, particularly the spectacular natural areas of the Kimberley, are already included within the existing national parks and the proposed marine parks. Those areas are protected within the totally state-funded system of state national parks in the Kimberley. What I am afraid of and what I think is likely to happen is that the heritage listing will encompass a wide area of the Kimberley and, therefore, will include not only those iconic places and places of cultural importance and the like, but also everything else. It will include towns, camps, rubbish tips, petrol stations, bottle shops and whatever else; they will all be included. That will immediately create a whole new level of regulation. The federal government will say that it is a matter of the values of the Kimberley and that if something proposed does not affect the values of the Kimberley, it is not a problem. Just imagine the litigation that is going to take place. In any disagreement between any two parties, someone will take it and say, “This affects the values of the Kimberley.” It will cast in doubt the existing pastoral operations, any tourism developments and the pearling industry, which is very successful along that coast. It simply creates a new level of uncertainty, and it creates a new level of approval and bureaucracy. The question, however, is: will this enhance the Kimberley? Is this simply a matter of drawing a line around tens of thousands of square kilometres of the Kimberley and saying, “That is now heritage listed, and by the way, you’ll now need federal environmental approval for virtually anything you do in that”? It would immediately create a whole new layer of bureaucracy. Bear in mind that the Kimberley is twice the size of the state of Victoria. Do members think the federal government would ever draw a line around Victoria? I do not think so. It would not even do it in Queensland, except for some area like the Great Barrier Reef. It is a line around big parts of the Kimberley that will create uncertainty for existing and future projects. But the real test of the bona fides of the federal government when it announces this, probably tomorrow—I expect it will be far reaching—will be whether the federal government will commit extra funding to assist what the state is doing in the conservation and preservation of the Kimberley. If it does not, this is an announcement, and that is all it is. Real commitment is what this government is doing—$63 million into the Kimberley.
Mr V.A. CATANIA : I refer to the impending announcement by the federal government of the proposed heritage listing of the Kimberley. What impact would this listing of the entire Kimberley have on the region and what does the state government propose? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: I thank the member for North West for the question. It is a credible question about an important issue for the state. It shows a bit of a contrast. On this side of the house we are interested in the Kimberley and its future; we are not particularly interested in who made what appointment on what day. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Kwinana, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the Leader of the Opposition—I formally call you to order for the first time today. Members, I will instruct you that in this place a question has been asked and I would like to hear the answer. Mr C.J. BARNETT : At this time of year many members of Parliament seem to travel north. I think all members would agree that the Kimberley is a truly unique and special place. As I and the Minister for Environment have said a number of times, probably the major environmental commitment of this government is the conservation and preservation of the Kimberley. With that in mind, we are in the process of creating four major marine parks and a major new national park, the Prince Regent River national park. We are also creating a corridor right across the Kimberley for migratory species, protecting endangered species by putting them onto island arks, and doing a lot of other scientific work. This is not ad hoc; this is based on the Kimberley science and conservation strategy, and it will go on. As a government we have committed $63 million to put all these programs in place. These are very major and probably the most significant conservation measures ever taken in the nation’s history. With respect to the heritage listing, I do not think that many members in this house would object to some of those iconic places in the Kimberley being included on the National Heritage List—Mitchell Plateau, the Mitchell Falls, some of the islands — Mr T.G. Stephens : Dimond Gorge? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Some of the gorges, yes. Mr T.G. Stephens : Before or after you dam it? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, they are not interested. There are beautiful places of natural environment and places of great cultural significance with ancient paintings and rock carvings and the like. There are places of historic significance. Having looked at some of these sites that have been proposed, from my perspective I do not have an objection to any of those being included on the listing. Most of those sites, particularly the spectacular natural areas of the Kimberley, are already included within the existing national parks and the proposed marine parks. Those areas are protected within the totally state-funded system of state national parks in the Kimberley. What I am afraid of and what I think is likely to happen is that the heritage listing will encompass a wide area of the Kimberley and, therefore, will include not only those iconic places and places of cultural importance and the like, but also everything else. It will include towns, camps, rubbish tips, petrol stations, bottle shops and whatever else; they will all be included. That will immediately create a whole new level of regulation. The federal government will say that it is a matter of the values of the Kimberley and that if something proposed does not affect the values of the Kimberley, it is not a problem. Just imagine the litigation that is going to take place. In any disagreement between any two parties, someone will take it and say, “This affects the values of the Kimberley.” It will cast in doubt the existing pastoral operations, any tourism developments and the pearling industry, which is very successful along that coast. It simply creates a new level of uncertainty, and it creates a new level of approval and bureaucracy. The question, however, is: will this enhance the Kimberley? Is this simply a matter of drawing a line around tens of thousands of square kilometres of the Kimberley and saying, “That is now heritage listed, and by the way, you’ll now need federal environmental approval for virtually anything you do in that”? It would immediately create a whole new layer of bureaucracy. Bear in mind that the Kimberley is twice the size of the state of Victoria. Do members think the federal government would ever draw a line around Victoria? I do not think so. It would not even do it in Queensland, except for some area like the Great Barrier Reef. It is a line around big parts of the Kimberley that will create uncertainty for existing and future projects. But the real test of the bona fides of the federal government when it announces this, probably tomorrow—I expect it will be far reaching—will be whether the federal government will commit extra funding to assist what the state is doing in the conservation and preservation of the Kimberley. If it does not, this is an announcement, and that is all it is. Real commitment is what this government is doing—$63 million into the Kimberley.
Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: I thank the member for North West for the question. It is a credible question about an important issue for the state. It shows a bit of a contrast. On this side of the house we are interested in the Kimberley and its future; we are not particularly interested in who made what appointment on what day. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Kwinana, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the Leader of the Opposition—I formally call you to order for the first time today. Members, I will instruct you that in this place a question has been asked and I would like to hear the answer. Mr C.J. BARNETT : At this time of year many members of Parliament seem to travel north. I think all members would agree that the Kimberley is a truly unique and special place. As I and the Minister for Environment have said a number of times, probably the major environmental commitment of this government is the conservation and preservation of the Kimberley. With that in mind, we are in the process of creating four major marine parks and a major new national park, the Prince Regent River national park. We are also creating a corridor right across the Kimberley for migratory species, protecting endangered species by putting them onto island arks, and doing a lot of other scientific work. This is not ad hoc; this is based on the Kimberley science and conservation strategy, and it will go on. As a government we have committed $63 million to put all these programs in place. These are very major and probably the most significant conservation measures ever taken in the nation’s history. With respect to the heritage listing, I do not think that many members in this house would object to some of those iconic places in the Kimberley being included on the National Heritage List—Mitchell Plateau, the Mitchell Falls, some of the islands — Mr T.G. Stephens : Dimond Gorge? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Some of the gorges, yes. Mr T.G. Stephens : Before or after you dam it? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, they are not interested. There are beautiful places of natural environment and places of great cultural significance with ancient paintings and rock carvings and the like. There are places of historic significance. Having looked at some of these sites that have been proposed, from my perspective I do not have an objection to any of those being included on the listing. Most of those sites, particularly the spectacular natural areas of the Kimberley, are already included within the existing national parks and the proposed marine parks. Those areas are protected within the totally state-funded system of state national parks in the Kimberley. What I am afraid of and what I think is likely to happen is that the heritage listing will encompass a wide area of the Kimberley and, therefore, will include not only those iconic places and places of cultural importance and the like, but also everything else. It will include towns, camps, rubbish tips, petrol stations, bottle shops and whatever else; they will all be included. That will immediately create a whole new level of regulation. The federal government will say that it is a matter of the values of the Kimberley and that if something proposed does not affect the values of the Kimberley, it is not a problem. Just imagine the litigation that is going to take place. In any disagreement between any two parties, someone will take it and say, “This affects the values of the Kimberley.” It will cast in doubt the existing pastoral operations, any tourism developments and the pearling industry, which is very successful along that coast. It simply creates a new level of uncertainty, and it creates a new level of approval and bureaucracy. The question, however, is: will this enhance the Kimberley? Is this simply a matter of drawing a line around tens of thousands of square kilometres of the Kimberley and saying, “That is now heritage listed, and by the way, you’ll now need federal environmental approval for virtually anything you do in that”? It would immediately create a whole new layer of bureaucracy. Bear in mind that the Kimberley is twice the size of the state of Victoria. Do members think the federal government would ever draw a line around Victoria? I do not think so. It would not even do it in Queensland, except for some area like the Great Barrier Reef. It is a line around big parts of the Kimberley that will create uncertainty for existing and future projects. But the real test of the bona fides of the federal government when it announces this, probably tomorrow—I expect it will be far reaching—will be whether the federal government will commit extra funding to assist what the state is doing in the conservation and preservation of the Kimberley. If it does not, this is an announcement, and that is all it is. Real commitment is what this government is doing—$63 million into the Kimberley.
I thank the member for North West for the question. It is a credible question about an important issue for the state. It shows a bit of a contrast. On this side of the house we are interested in the Kimberley and its future; we are not particularly interested in who made what appointment on what day. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Kwinana, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the Leader of the Opposition—I formally call you to order for the first time today. Members, I will instruct you that in this place a question has been asked and I would like to hear the answer. Mr C.J. BARNETT : At this time of year many members of Parliament seem to travel north. I think all members would agree that the Kimberley is a truly unique and special place. As I and the Minister for Environment have said a number of times, probably the major environmental commitment of this government is the conservation and preservation of the Kimberley. With that in mind, we are in the process of creating four major marine parks and a major new national park, the Prince Regent River national park. We are also creating a corridor right across the Kimberley for migratory species, protecting endangered species by putting them onto island arks, and doing a lot of other scientific work. This is not ad hoc; this is based on the Kimberley science and conservation strategy, and it will go on. As a government we have committed $63 million to put all these programs in place. These are very major and probably the most significant conservation measures ever taken in the nation’s history. With respect to the heritage listing, I do not think that many members in this house would object to some of those iconic places in the Kimberley being included on the National Heritage List—Mitchell Plateau, the Mitchell Falls, some of the islands — Mr T.G. Stephens : Dimond Gorge? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Some of the gorges, yes. Mr T.G. Stephens : Before or after you dam it? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, they are not interested. There are beautiful places of natural environment and places of great cultural significance with ancient paintings and rock carvings and the like. There are places of historic significance. Having looked at some of these sites that have been proposed, from my perspective I do not have an objection to any of those being included on the listing. Most of those sites, particularly the spectacular natural areas of the Kimberley, are already included within the existing national parks and the proposed marine parks. Those areas are protected within the totally state-funded system of state national parks in the Kimberley. What I am afraid of and what I think is likely to happen is that the heritage listing will encompass a wide area of the Kimberley and, therefore, will include not only those iconic places and places of cultural importance and the like, but also everything else. It will include towns, camps, rubbish tips, petrol stations, bottle shops and whatever else; they will all be included. That will immediately create a whole new level of regulation. The federal government will say that it is a matter of the values of the Kimberley and that if something proposed does not affect the values of the Kimberley, it is not a problem. Just imagine the litigation that is going to take place. In any disagreement between any two parties, someone will take it and say, “This affects the values of the Kimberley.” It will cast in doubt the existing pastoral operations, any tourism developments and the pearling industry, which is very successful along that coast. It simply creates a new level of uncertainty, and it creates a new level of approval and bureaucracy. The question, however, is: will this enhance the Kimberley? Is this simply a matter of drawing a line around tens of thousands of square kilometres of the Kimberley and saying, “That is now heritage listed, and by the way, you’ll now need federal environmental approval for virtually anything you do in that”? It would immediately create a whole new layer of bureaucracy. Bear in mind that the Kimberley is twice the size of the state of Victoria. Do members think the federal government would ever draw a line around Victoria? I do not think so. It would not even do it in Queensland, except for some area like the Great Barrier Reef. It is a line around big parts of the Kimberley that will create uncertainty for existing and future projects. But the real test of the bona fides of the federal government when it announces this, probably tomorrow—I expect it will be far reaching—will be whether the federal government will commit extra funding to assist what the state is doing in the conservation and preservation of the Kimberley. If it does not, this is an announcement, and that is all it is. Real commitment is what this government is doing—$63 million into the Kimberley.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Kwinana, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the Leader of the Opposition—I formally call you to order for the first time today. Members, I will instruct you that in this place a question has been asked and I would like to hear the answer. Mr C.J. BARNETT : At this time of year many members of Parliament seem to travel north. I think all members would agree that the Kimberley is a truly unique and special place. As I and the Minister for Environment have said a number of times, probably the major environmental commitment of this government is the conservation and preservation of the Kimberley. With that in mind, we are in the process of creating four major marine parks and a major new national park, the Prince Regent River national park. We are also creating a corridor right across the Kimberley for migratory species, protecting endangered species by putting them onto island arks, and doing a lot of other scientific work. This is not ad hoc; this is based on the Kimberley science and conservation strategy, and it will go on. As a government we have committed $63 million to put all these programs in place. These are very major and probably the most significant conservation measures ever taken in the nation’s history. With respect to the heritage listing, I do not think that many members in this house would object to some of those iconic places in the Kimberley being included on the National Heritage List—Mitchell Plateau, the Mitchell Falls, some of the islands — Mr T.G. Stephens : Dimond Gorge? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Some of the gorges, yes. Mr T.G. Stephens : Before or after you dam it? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, they are not interested. There are beautiful places of natural environment and places of great cultural significance with ancient paintings and rock carvings and the like. There are places of historic significance. Having looked at some of these sites that have been proposed, from my perspective I do not have an objection to any of those being included on the listing. Most of those sites, particularly the spectacular natural areas of the Kimberley, are already included within the existing national parks and the proposed marine parks. Those areas are protected within the totally state-funded system of state national parks in the Kimberley. What I am afraid of and what I think is likely to happen is that the heritage listing will encompass a wide area of the Kimberley and, therefore, will include not only those iconic places and places of cultural importance and the like, but also everything else. It will include towns, camps, rubbish tips, petrol stations, bottle shops and whatever else; they will all be included. That will immediately create a whole new level of regulation. The federal government will say that it is a matter of the values of the Kimberley and that if something proposed does not affect the values of the Kimberley, it is not a problem. Just imagine the litigation that is going to take place. In any disagreement between any two parties, someone will take it and say, “This affects the values of the Kimberley.” It will cast in doubt the existing pastoral operations, any tourism developments and the pearling industry, which is very successful along that coast. It simply creates a new level of uncertainty, and it creates a new level of approval and bureaucracy. The question, however, is: will this enhance the Kimberley? Is this simply a matter of drawing a line around tens of thousands of square kilometres of the Kimberley and saying, “That is now heritage listed, and by the way, you’ll now need federal environmental approval for virtually anything you do in that”? It would immediately create a whole new layer of bureaucracy. Bear in mind that the Kimberley is twice the size of the state of Victoria. Do members think the federal government would ever draw a line around Victoria? I do not think so. It would not even do it in Queensland, except for some area like the Great Barrier Reef. It is a line around big parts of the Kimberley that will create uncertainty for existing and future projects. But the real test of the bona fides of the federal government when it announces this, probably tomorrow—I expect it will be far reaching—will be whether the federal government will commit extra funding to assist what the state is doing in the conservation and preservation of the Kimberley. If it does not, this is an announcement, and that is all it is. Real commitment is what this government is doing—$63 million into the Kimberley.
The SPEAKER : Member for Kwinana, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the Leader of the Opposition—I formally call you to order for the first time today. Members, I will instruct you that in this place a question has been asked and I would like to hear the answer. Mr C.J. BARNETT : At this time of year many members of Parliament seem to travel north. I think all members would agree that the Kimberley is a truly unique and special place. As I and the Minister for Environment have said a number of times, probably the major environmental commitment of this government is the conservation and preservation of the Kimberley. With that in mind, we are in the process of creating four major marine parks and a major new national park, the Prince Regent River national park. We are also creating a corridor right across the Kimberley for migratory species, protecting endangered species by putting them onto island arks, and doing a lot of other scientific work. This is not ad hoc; this is based on the Kimberley science and conservation strategy, and it will go on. As a government we have committed $63 million to put all these programs in place. These are very major and probably the most significant conservation measures ever taken in the nation’s history. With respect to the heritage listing, I do not think that many members in this house would object to some of those iconic places in the Kimberley being included on the National Heritage List—Mitchell Plateau, the Mitchell Falls, some of the islands — Mr T.G. Stephens : Dimond Gorge? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Some of the gorges, yes. Mr T.G. Stephens : Before or after you dam it? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, they are not interested. There are beautiful places of natural environment and places of great cultural significance with ancient paintings and rock carvings and the like. There are places of historic significance. Having looked at some of these sites that have been proposed, from my perspective I do not have an objection to any of those being included on the listing. Most of those sites, particularly the spectacular natural areas of the Kimberley, are already included within the existing national parks and the proposed marine parks. Those areas are protected within the totally state-funded system of state national parks in the Kimberley. What I am afraid of and what I think is likely to happen is that the heritage listing will encompass a wide area of the Kimberley and, therefore, will include not only those iconic places and places of cultural importance and the like, but also everything else. It will include towns, camps, rubbish tips, petrol stations, bottle shops and whatever else; they will all be included. That will immediately create a whole new level of regulation. The federal government will say that it is a matter of the values of the Kimberley and that if something proposed does not affect the values of the Kimberley, it is not a problem. Just imagine the litigation that is going to take place. In any disagreement between any two parties, someone will take it and say, “This affects the values of the Kimberley.” It will cast in doubt the existing pastoral operations, any tourism developments and the pearling industry, which is very successful along that coast. It simply creates a new level of uncertainty, and it creates a new level of approval and bureaucracy. The question, however, is: will this enhance the Kimberley? Is this simply a matter of drawing a line around tens of thousands of square kilometres of the Kimberley and saying, “That is now heritage listed, and by the way, you’ll now need federal environmental approval for virtually anything you do in that”? It would immediately create a whole new layer of bureaucracy. Bear in mind that the Kimberley is twice the size of the state of Victoria. Do members think the federal government would ever draw a line around Victoria? I do not think so. It would not even do it in Queensland, except for some area like the Great Barrier Reef. It is a line around big parts of the Kimberley that will create uncertainty for existing and future projects. But the real test of the bona fides of the federal government when it announces this, probably tomorrow—I expect it will be far reaching—will be whether the federal government will commit extra funding to assist what the state is doing in the conservation and preservation of the Kimberley. If it does not, this is an announcement, and that is all it is. Real commitment is what this government is doing—$63 million into the Kimberley.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : At this time of year many members of Parliament seem to travel north. I think all members would agree that the Kimberley is a truly unique and special place. As I and the Minister for Environment have said a number of times, probably the major environmental commitment of this government is the conservation and preservation of the Kimberley. With that in mind, we are in the process of creating four major marine parks and a major new national park, the Prince Regent River national park. We are also creating a corridor right across the Kimberley for migratory species, protecting endangered species by putting them onto island arks, and doing a lot of other scientific work. This is not ad hoc; this is based on the Kimberley science and conservation strategy, and it will go on. As a government we have committed $63 million to put all these programs in place. These are very major and probably the most significant conservation measures ever taken in the nation’s history. With respect to the heritage listing, I do not think that many members in this house would object to some of those iconic places in the Kimberley being included on the National Heritage List—Mitchell Plateau, the Mitchell Falls, some of the islands — Mr T.G. Stephens : Dimond Gorge? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Some of the gorges, yes. Mr T.G. Stephens : Before or after you dam it? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, they are not interested. There are beautiful places of natural environment and places of great cultural significance with ancient paintings and rock carvings and the like. There are places of historic significance. Having looked at some of these sites that have been proposed, from my perspective I do not have an objection to any of those being included on the listing. Most of those sites, particularly the spectacular natural areas of the Kimberley, are already included within the existing national parks and the proposed marine parks. Those areas are protected within the totally state-funded system of state national parks in the Kimberley. What I am afraid of and what I think is likely to happen is that the heritage listing will encompass a wide area of the Kimberley and, therefore, will include not only those iconic places and places of cultural importance and the like, but also everything else. It will include towns, camps, rubbish tips, petrol stations, bottle shops and whatever else; they will all be included. That will immediately create a whole new level of regulation. The federal government will say that it is a matter of the values of the Kimberley and that if something proposed does not affect the values of the Kimberley, it is not a problem. Just imagine the litigation that is going to take place. In any disagreement between any two parties, someone will take it and say, “This affects the values of the Kimberley.” It will cast in doubt the existing pastoral operations, any tourism developments and the pearling industry, which is very successful along that coast. It simply creates a new level of uncertainty, and it creates a new level of approval and bureaucracy. The question, however, is: will this enhance the Kimberley? Is this simply a matter of drawing a line around tens of thousands of square kilometres of the Kimberley and saying, “That is now heritage listed, and by the way, you’ll now need federal environmental approval for virtually anything you do in that”? It would immediately create a whole new layer of bureaucracy. Bear in mind that the Kimberley is twice the size of the state of Victoria. Do members think the federal government would ever draw a line around Victoria? I do not think so. It would not even do it in Queensland, except for some area like the Great Barrier Reef. It is a line around big parts of the Kimberley that will create uncertainty for existing and future projects. But the real test of the bona fides of the federal government when it announces this, probably tomorrow—I expect it will be far reaching—will be whether the federal government will commit extra funding to assist what the state is doing in the conservation and preservation of the Kimberley. If it does not, this is an announcement, and that is all it is. Real commitment is what this government is doing—$63 million into the Kimberley.
With respect to the heritage listing, I do not think that many members in this house would object to some of those iconic places in the Kimberley being included on the National Heritage List—Mitchell Plateau, the Mitchell Falls, some of the islands — Mr T.G. Stephens : Dimond Gorge? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Some of the gorges, yes. Mr T.G. Stephens : Before or after you dam it? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, they are not interested. There are beautiful places of natural environment and places of great cultural significance with ancient paintings and rock carvings and the like. There are places of historic significance. Having looked at some of these sites that have been proposed, from my perspective I do not have an objection to any of those being included on the listing. Most of those sites, particularly the spectacular natural areas of the Kimberley, are already included within the existing national parks and the proposed marine parks. Those areas are protected within the totally state-funded system of state national parks in the Kimberley. What I am afraid of and what I think is likely to happen is that the heritage listing will encompass a wide area of the Kimberley and, therefore, will include not only those iconic places and places of cultural importance and the like, but also everything else. It will include towns, camps, rubbish tips, petrol stations, bottle shops and whatever else; they will all be included. That will immediately create a whole new level of regulation. The federal government will say that it is a matter of the values of the Kimberley and that if something proposed does not affect the values of the Kimberley, it is not a problem. Just imagine the litigation that is going to take place. In any disagreement between any two parties, someone will take it and say, “This affects the values of the Kimberley.” It will cast in doubt the existing pastoral operations, any tourism developments and the pearling industry, which is very successful along that coast. It simply creates a new level of uncertainty, and it creates a new level of approval and bureaucracy. The question, however, is: will this enhance the Kimberley? Is this simply a matter of drawing a line around tens of thousands of square kilometres of the Kimberley and saying, “That is now heritage listed, and by the way, you’ll now need federal environmental approval for virtually anything you do in that”? It would immediately create a whole new layer of bureaucracy. Bear in mind that the Kimberley is twice the size of the state of Victoria. Do members think the federal government would ever draw a line around Victoria? I do not think so. It would not even do it in Queensland, except for some area like the Great Barrier Reef. It is a line around big parts of the Kimberley that will create uncertainty for existing and future projects. But the real test of the bona fides of the federal government when it announces this, probably tomorrow—I expect it will be far reaching—will be whether the federal government will commit extra funding to assist what the state is doing in the conservation and preservation of the Kimberley. If it does not, this is an announcement, and that is all it is. Real commitment is what this government is doing—$63 million into the Kimberley.
Mr T.G. Stephens : Dimond Gorge? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Some of the gorges, yes. Mr T.G. Stephens : Before or after you dam it? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, they are not interested. There are beautiful places of natural environment and places of great cultural significance with ancient paintings and rock carvings and the like. There are places of historic significance. Having looked at some of these sites that have been proposed, from my perspective I do not have an objection to any of those being included on the listing. Most of those sites, particularly the spectacular natural areas of the Kimberley, are already included within the existing national parks and the proposed marine parks. Those areas are protected within the totally state-funded system of state national parks in the Kimberley. What I am afraid of and what I think is likely to happen is that the heritage listing will encompass a wide area of the Kimberley and, therefore, will include not only those iconic places and places of cultural importance and the like, but also everything else. It will include towns, camps, rubbish tips, petrol stations, bottle shops and whatever else; they will all be included. That will immediately create a whole new level of regulation. The federal government will say that it is a matter of the values of the Kimberley and that if something proposed does not affect the values of the Kimberley, it is not a problem. Just imagine the litigation that is going to take place. In any disagreement between any two parties, someone will take it and say, “This affects the values of the Kimberley.” It will cast in doubt the existing pastoral operations, any tourism developments and the pearling industry, which is very successful along that coast. It simply creates a new level of uncertainty, and it creates a new level of approval and bureaucracy. The question, however, is: will this enhance the Kimberley? Is this simply a matter of drawing a line around tens of thousands of square kilometres of the Kimberley and saying, “That is now heritage listed, and by the way, you’ll now need federal environmental approval for virtually anything you do in that”? It would immediately create a whole new layer of bureaucracy. Bear in mind that the Kimberley is twice the size of the state of Victoria. Do members think the federal government would ever draw a line around Victoria? I do not think so. It would not even do it in Queensland, except for some area like the Great Barrier Reef. It is a line around big parts of the Kimberley that will create uncertainty for existing and future projects. But the real test of the bona fides of the federal government when it announces this, probably tomorrow—I expect it will be far reaching—will be whether the federal government will commit extra funding to assist what the state is doing in the conservation and preservation of the Kimberley. If it does not, this is an announcement, and that is all it is. Real commitment is what this government is doing—$63 million into the Kimberley.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Some of the gorges, yes. Mr T.G. Stephens : Before or after you dam it? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, they are not interested. There are beautiful places of natural environment and places of great cultural significance with ancient paintings and rock carvings and the like. There are places of historic significance. Having looked at some of these sites that have been proposed, from my perspective I do not have an objection to any of those being included on the listing. Most of those sites, particularly the spectacular natural areas of the Kimberley, are already included within the existing national parks and the proposed marine parks. Those areas are protected within the totally state-funded system of state national parks in the Kimberley. What I am afraid of and what I think is likely to happen is that the heritage listing will encompass a wide area of the Kimberley and, therefore, will include not only those iconic places and places of cultural importance and the like, but also everything else. It will include towns, camps, rubbish tips, petrol stations, bottle shops and whatever else; they will all be included. That will immediately create a whole new level of regulation. The federal government will say that it is a matter of the values of the Kimberley and that if something proposed does not affect the values of the Kimberley, it is not a problem. Just imagine the litigation that is going to take place. In any disagreement between any two parties, someone will take it and say, “This affects the values of the Kimberley.” It will cast in doubt the existing pastoral operations, any tourism developments and the pearling industry, which is very successful along that coast. It simply creates a new level of uncertainty, and it creates a new level of approval and bureaucracy. The question, however, is: will this enhance the Kimberley? Is this simply a matter of drawing a line around tens of thousands of square kilometres of the Kimberley and saying, “That is now heritage listed, and by the way, you’ll now need federal environmental approval for virtually anything you do in that”? It would immediately create a whole new layer of bureaucracy. Bear in mind that the Kimberley is twice the size of the state of Victoria. Do members think the federal government would ever draw a line around Victoria? I do not think so. It would not even do it in Queensland, except for some area like the Great Barrier Reef. It is a line around big parts of the Kimberley that will create uncertainty for existing and future projects. But the real test of the bona fides of the federal government when it announces this, probably tomorrow—I expect it will be far reaching—will be whether the federal government will commit extra funding to assist what the state is doing in the conservation and preservation of the Kimberley. If it does not, this is an announcement, and that is all it is. Real commitment is what this government is doing—$63 million into the Kimberley.
Mr T.G. Stephens : Before or after you dam it? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, they are not interested. There are beautiful places of natural environment and places of great cultural significance with ancient paintings and rock carvings and the like. There are places of historic significance. Having looked at some of these sites that have been proposed, from my perspective I do not have an objection to any of those being included on the listing. Most of those sites, particularly the spectacular natural areas of the Kimberley, are already included within the existing national parks and the proposed marine parks. Those areas are protected within the totally state-funded system of state national parks in the Kimberley. What I am afraid of and what I think is likely to happen is that the heritage listing will encompass a wide area of the Kimberley and, therefore, will include not only those iconic places and places of cultural importance and the like, but also everything else. It will include towns, camps, rubbish tips, petrol stations, bottle shops and whatever else; they will all be included. That will immediately create a whole new level of regulation. The federal government will say that it is a matter of the values of the Kimberley and that if something proposed does not affect the values of the Kimberley, it is not a problem. Just imagine the litigation that is going to take place. In any disagreement between any two parties, someone will take it and say, “This affects the values of the Kimberley.” It will cast in doubt the existing pastoral operations, any tourism developments and the pearling industry, which is very successful along that coast. It simply creates a new level of uncertainty, and it creates a new level of approval and bureaucracy. The question, however, is: will this enhance the Kimberley? Is this simply a matter of drawing a line around tens of thousands of square kilometres of the Kimberley and saying, “That is now heritage listed, and by the way, you’ll now need federal environmental approval for virtually anything you do in that”? It would immediately create a whole new layer of bureaucracy. Bear in mind that the Kimberley is twice the size of the state of Victoria. Do members think the federal government would ever draw a line around Victoria? I do not think so. It would not even do it in Queensland, except for some area like the Great Barrier Reef. It is a line around big parts of the Kimberley that will create uncertainty for existing and future projects. But the real test of the bona fides of the federal government when it announces this, probably tomorrow—I expect it will be far reaching—will be whether the federal government will commit extra funding to assist what the state is doing in the conservation and preservation of the Kimberley. If it does not, this is an announcement, and that is all it is. Real commitment is what this government is doing—$63 million into the Kimberley.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, they are not interested. There are beautiful places of natural environment and places of great cultural significance with ancient paintings and rock carvings and the like. There are places of historic significance. Having looked at some of these sites that have been proposed, from my perspective I do not have an objection to any of those being included on the listing. Most of those sites, particularly the spectacular natural areas of the Kimberley, are already included within the existing national parks and the proposed marine parks. Those areas are protected within the totally state-funded system of state national parks in the Kimberley. What I am afraid of and what I think is likely to happen is that the heritage listing will encompass a wide area of the Kimberley and, therefore, will include not only those iconic places and places of cultural importance and the like, but also everything else. It will include towns, camps, rubbish tips, petrol stations, bottle shops and whatever else; they will all be included. That will immediately create a whole new level of regulation. The federal government will say that it is a matter of the values of the Kimberley and that if something proposed does not affect the values of the Kimberley, it is not a problem. Just imagine the litigation that is going to take place. In any disagreement between any two parties, someone will take it and say, “This affects the values of the Kimberley.” It will cast in doubt the existing pastoral operations, any tourism developments and the pearling industry, which is very successful along that coast. It simply creates a new level of uncertainty, and it creates a new level of approval and bureaucracy. The question, however, is: will this enhance the Kimberley? Is this simply a matter of drawing a line around tens of thousands of square kilometres of the Kimberley and saying, “That is now heritage listed, and by the way, you’ll now need federal environmental approval for virtually anything you do in that”? It would immediately create a whole new layer of bureaucracy. Bear in mind that the Kimberley is twice the size of the state of Victoria. Do members think the federal government would ever draw a line around Victoria? I do not think so. It would not even do it in Queensland, except for some area like the Great Barrier Reef. It is a line around big parts of the Kimberley that will create uncertainty for existing and future projects. But the real test of the bona fides of the federal government when it announces this, probably tomorrow—I expect it will be far reaching—will be whether the federal government will commit extra funding to assist what the state is doing in the conservation and preservation of the Kimberley. If it does not, this is an announcement, and that is all it is. Real commitment is what this government is doing—$63 million into the Kimberley.
There are beautiful places of natural environment and places of great cultural significance with ancient paintings and rock carvings and the like. There are places of historic significance. Having looked at some of these sites that have been proposed, from my perspective I do not have an objection to any of those being included on the listing. Most of those sites, particularly the spectacular natural areas of the Kimberley, are already included within the existing national parks and the proposed marine parks. Those areas are protected within the totally state-funded system of state national parks in the Kimberley. What I am afraid of and what I think is likely to happen is that the heritage listing will encompass a wide area of the Kimberley and, therefore, will include not only those iconic places and places of cultural importance and the like, but also everything else. It will include towns, camps, rubbish tips, petrol stations, bottle shops and whatever else; they will all be included. That will immediately create a whole new level of regulation. The federal government will say that it is a matter of the values of the Kimberley and that if something proposed does not affect the values of the Kimberley, it is not a problem. Just imagine the litigation that is going to take place. In any disagreement between any two parties, someone will take it and say, “This affects the values of the Kimberley.” It will cast in doubt the existing pastoral operations, any tourism developments and the pearling industry, which is very successful along that coast. It simply creates a new level of uncertainty, and it creates a new level of approval and bureaucracy. The question, however, is: will this enhance the Kimberley? Is this simply a matter of drawing a line around tens of thousands of square kilometres of the Kimberley and saying, “That is now heritage listed, and by the way, you’ll now need federal environmental approval for virtually anything you do in that”? It would immediately create a whole new layer of bureaucracy. Bear in mind that the Kimberley is twice the size of the state of Victoria. Do members think the federal government would ever draw a line around Victoria? I do not think so. It would not even do it in Queensland, except for some area like the Great Barrier Reef. It is a line around big parts of the Kimberley that will create uncertainty for existing and future projects. But the real test of the bona fides of the federal government when it announces this, probably tomorrow—I expect it will be far reaching—will be whether the federal government will commit extra funding to assist what the state is doing in the conservation and preservation of the Kimberley. If it does not, this is an announcement, and that is all it is. Real commitment is what this government is doing—$63 million into the Kimberley.
What I am afraid of and what I think is likely to happen is that the heritage listing will encompass a wide area of the Kimberley and, therefore, will include not only those iconic places and places of cultural importance and the like, but also everything else. It will include towns, camps, rubbish tips, petrol stations, bottle shops and whatever else; they will all be included. That will immediately create a whole new level of regulation. The federal government will say that it is a matter of the values of the Kimberley and that if something proposed does not affect the values of the Kimberley, it is not a problem. Just imagine the litigation that is going to take place. In any disagreement between any two parties, someone will take it and say, “This affects the values of the Kimberley.” It will cast in doubt the existing pastoral operations, any tourism developments and the pearling industry, which is very successful along that coast. It simply creates a new level of uncertainty, and it creates a new level of approval and bureaucracy. The question, however, is: will this enhance the Kimberley? Is this simply a matter of drawing a line around tens of thousands of square kilometres of the Kimberley and saying, “That is now heritage listed, and by the way, you’ll now need federal environmental approval for virtually anything you do in that”? It would immediately create a whole new layer of bureaucracy. Bear in mind that the Kimberley is twice the size of the state of Victoria. Do members think the federal government would ever draw a line around Victoria? I do not think so. It would not even do it in Queensland, except for some area like the Great Barrier Reef. It is a line around big parts of the Kimberley that will create uncertainty for existing and future projects. But the real test of the bona fides of the federal government when it announces this, probably tomorrow—I expect it will be far reaching—will be whether the federal government will commit extra funding to assist what the state is doing in the conservation and preservation of the Kimberley. If it does not, this is an announcement, and that is all it is. Real commitment is what this government is doing—$63 million into the Kimberley.
In any disagreement between any two parties, someone will take it and say, “This affects the values of the Kimberley.” It will cast in doubt the existing pastoral operations, any tourism developments and the pearling industry, which is very successful along that coast. It simply creates a new level of uncertainty, and it creates a new level of approval and bureaucracy. The question, however, is: will this enhance the Kimberley? Is this simply a matter of drawing a line around tens of thousands of square kilometres of the Kimberley and saying, “That is now heritage listed, and by the way, you’ll now need federal environmental approval for virtually anything you do in that”? It would immediately create a whole new layer of bureaucracy. Bear in mind that the Kimberley is twice the size of the state of Victoria. Do members think the federal government would ever draw a line around Victoria? I do not think so. It would not even do it in Queensland, except for some area like the Great Barrier Reef. It is a line around big parts of the Kimberley that will create uncertainty for existing and future projects. But the real test of the bona fides of the federal government when it announces this, probably tomorrow—I expect it will be far reaching—will be whether the federal government will commit extra funding to assist what the state is doing in the conservation and preservation of the Kimberley. If it does not, this is an announcement, and that is all it is. Real commitment is what this government is doing—$63 million into the Kimberley.
The question, however, is: will this enhance the Kimberley? Is this simply a matter of drawing a line around tens of thousands of square kilometres of the Kimberley and saying, “That is now heritage listed, and by the way, you’ll now need federal environmental approval for virtually anything you do in that”? It would immediately create a whole new layer of bureaucracy. Bear in mind that the Kimberley is twice the size of the state of Victoria. Do members think the federal government would ever draw a line around Victoria? I do not think so. It would not even do it in Queensland, except for some area like the Great Barrier Reef. It is a line around big parts of the Kimberley that will create uncertainty for existing and future projects. But the real test of the bona fides of the federal government when it announces this, probably tomorrow—I expect it will be far reaching—will be whether the federal government will commit extra funding to assist what the state is doing in the conservation and preservation of the Kimberley. If it does not, this is an announcement, and that is all it is. Real commitment is what this government is doing—$63 million into the Kimberley.
It is a line around big parts of the Kimberley that will create uncertainty for existing and future projects. But the real test of the bona fides of the federal government when it announces this, probably tomorrow—I expect it will be far reaching—will be whether the federal government will commit extra funding to assist what the state is doing in the conservation and preservation of the Kimberley. If it does not, this is an announcement, and that is all it is. Real commitment is what this government is doing—$63 million into the Kimberley.
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.