❓ A parliamentary question addresses a case where a farmer, compensated for not clearing land, was later fined for illegal clearing. The Minister clarifies the legal basis for not reclaiming the initial compensation and confirms no similar cases exist.
AnsweredQoN 775Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to a press release from the Department of Environment of 15 July 2004 entitled “Man prosecuted for land clearing in Country Area Water Supply”, which describes how a Manjimup farmer, who had previously received $7 500 in compensation for not being able to clear land, was fined $600 for clearing 44 trees from a property without the appropriate clearing licence. (1) Why did the Department of Environment not confiscate the initial payment of $7 500 from the Manjimup farmer when he was prosecuted for this offence? (2) How many other farmers who have previously received compensation for not clearing trees on their properties have been prosecuted for similar offences? (3) In light of the Western Australian Government’s recent introduction of land clearing laws, does the minister agree that a decision like this - that is, the decision not to take back the original compensation - is confusing, not only for farmers but also the wider public? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) In August 1987 the property owner made an application to clear the entirety of his site, and subsequently in February 1988 that application was refused. Under the provisions of part 11A of the Country Areas Water Supply Act 1947 a person is entitled to seek compensation for injurious affection when an application to clear land is refused. That application was made and, after the appropriate assessment, an amount of $7 500 was paid. There was no provision under the Country Areas Water Supply Act 1947 to reclaim that initial payment. When the owner was convicted the court imposed the following order: Mr Zygmunt Edward Sieczka shall undertake restoration of vegetation on Lot 7958 Junction Road, Manjimup by the planting of 44 trees comprising any of the species of Corymbia calophylla or Marri; Eucalyptus maginata or Jarrah, or Melaleuca preissiana or local paperbark within 28 days of the date of this order; that the restoration shall occur in a random manner over 0.5 hectares in a rectangular block at a location within Lot 7958 Junction Road, Manjimup to be determined by Mr Sieczka; and that the 44 trees shall be maintained with a 10 per cent survival rate for a period of 5 years from the date of planting. (2) None. (3) No. This prosecution was initiated under the provisions of the Country Areas Water Supply Act 1947, not under the recently introduced amendments to the Environmental Protection Act 1986 and the Environmental Protection (Clearing Native Vegetation) Regulations 2004 involving the clearing of native vegetation.
(1) Why did the Department of Environment not confiscate the initial payment of $7 500 from the Manjimup farmer when he was prosecuted for this offence? (2) How many other farmers who have previously received compensation for not clearing trees on their properties have been prosecuted for similar offences? (3) In light of the Western Australian Government’s recent introduction of land clearing laws, does the minister agree that a decision like this - that is, the decision not to take back the original compensation - is confusing, not only for farmers but also the wider public? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) In August 1987 the property owner made an application to clear the entirety of his site, and subsequently in February 1988 that application was refused. Under the provisions of part 11A of the Country Areas Water Supply Act 1947 a person is entitled to seek compensation for injurious affection when an application to clear land is refused. That application was made and, after the appropriate assessment, an amount of $7 500 was paid. There was no provision under the Country Areas Water Supply Act 1947 to reclaim that initial payment. When the owner was convicted the court imposed the following order: Mr Zygmunt Edward Sieczka shall undertake restoration of vegetation on Lot 7958 Junction Road, Manjimup by the planting of 44 trees comprising any of the species of Corymbia calophylla or Marri; Eucalyptus maginata or Jarrah, or Melaleuca preissiana or local paperbark within 28 days of the date of this order; that the restoration shall occur in a random manner over 0.5 hectares in a rectangular block at a location within Lot 7958 Junction Road, Manjimup to be determined by Mr Sieczka; and that the 44 trees shall be maintained with a 10 per cent survival rate for a period of 5 years from the date of planting. (2) None. (3) No. This prosecution was initiated under the provisions of the Country Areas Water Supply Act 1947, not under the recently introduced amendments to the Environmental Protection Act 1986 and the Environmental Protection (Clearing Native Vegetation) Regulations 2004 involving the clearing of native vegetation.
(2) How many other farmers who have previously received compensation for not clearing trees on their properties have been prosecuted for similar offences? (3) In light of the Western Australian Government’s recent introduction of land clearing laws, does the minister agree that a decision like this - that is, the decision not to take back the original compensation - is confusing, not only for farmers but also the wider public? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) In August 1987 the property owner made an application to clear the entirety of his site, and subsequently in February 1988 that application was refused. Under the provisions of part 11A of the Country Areas Water Supply Act 1947 a person is entitled to seek compensation for injurious affection when an application to clear land is refused. That application was made and, after the appropriate assessment, an amount of $7 500 was paid. There was no provision under the Country Areas Water Supply Act 1947 to reclaim that initial payment. When the owner was convicted the court imposed the following order: Mr Zygmunt Edward Sieczka shall undertake restoration of vegetation on Lot 7958 Junction Road, Manjimup by the planting of 44 trees comprising any of the species of Corymbia calophylla or Marri; Eucalyptus maginata or Jarrah, or Melaleuca preissiana or local paperbark within 28 days of the date of this order; that the restoration shall occur in a random manner over 0.5 hectares in a rectangular block at a location within Lot 7958 Junction Road, Manjimup to be determined by Mr Sieczka; and that the 44 trees shall be maintained with a 10 per cent survival rate for a period of 5 years from the date of planting. (2) None. (3) No. This prosecution was initiated under the provisions of the Country Areas Water Supply Act 1947, not under the recently introduced amendments to the Environmental Protection Act 1986 and the Environmental Protection (Clearing Native Vegetation) Regulations 2004 involving the clearing of native vegetation.
(3) In light of the Western Australian Government’s recent introduction of land clearing laws, does the minister agree that a decision like this - that is, the decision not to take back the original compensation - is confusing, not only for farmers but also the wider public? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) In August 1987 the property owner made an application to clear the entirety of his site, and subsequently in February 1988 that application was refused. Under the provisions of part 11A of the Country Areas Water Supply Act 1947 a person is entitled to seek compensation for injurious affection when an application to clear land is refused. That application was made and, after the appropriate assessment, an amount of $7 500 was paid. There was no provision under the Country Areas Water Supply Act 1947 to reclaim that initial payment. When the owner was convicted the court imposed the following order: Mr Zygmunt Edward Sieczka shall undertake restoration of vegetation on Lot 7958 Junction Road, Manjimup by the planting of 44 trees comprising any of the species of Corymbia calophylla or Marri; Eucalyptus maginata or Jarrah, or Melaleuca preissiana or local paperbark within 28 days of the date of this order; that the restoration shall occur in a random manner over 0.5 hectares in a rectangular block at a location within Lot 7958 Junction Road, Manjimup to be determined by Mr Sieczka; and that the 44 trees shall be maintained with a 10 per cent survival rate for a period of 5 years from the date of planting. (2) None. (3) No. This prosecution was initiated under the provisions of the Country Areas Water Supply Act 1947, not under the recently introduced amendments to the Environmental Protection Act 1986 and the Environmental Protection (Clearing Native Vegetation) Regulations 2004 involving the clearing of native vegetation.
Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) In August 1987 the property owner made an application to clear the entirety of his site, and subsequently in February 1988 that application was refused. Under the provisions of part 11A of the Country Areas Water Supply Act 1947 a person is entitled to seek compensation for injurious affection when an application to clear land is refused. That application was made and, after the appropriate assessment, an amount of $7 500 was paid. There was no provision under the Country Areas Water Supply Act 1947 to reclaim that initial payment. When the owner was convicted the court imposed the following order: Mr Zygmunt Edward Sieczka shall undertake restoration of vegetation on Lot 7958 Junction Road, Manjimup by the planting of 44 trees comprising any of the species of Corymbia calophylla or Marri; Eucalyptus maginata or Jarrah, or Melaleuca preissiana or local paperbark within 28 days of the date of this order; that the restoration shall occur in a random manner over 0.5 hectares in a rectangular block at a location within Lot 7958 Junction Road, Manjimup to be determined by Mr Sieczka; and that the 44 trees shall be maintained with a 10 per cent survival rate for a period of 5 years from the date of planting. (2) None. (3) No. This prosecution was initiated under the provisions of the Country Areas Water Supply Act 1947, not under the recently introduced amendments to the Environmental Protection Act 1986 and the Environmental Protection (Clearing Native Vegetation) Regulations 2004 involving the clearing of native vegetation.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) In August 1987 the property owner made an application to clear the entirety of his site, and subsequently in February 1988 that application was refused. Under the provisions of part 11A of the Country Areas Water Supply Act 1947 a person is entitled to seek compensation for injurious affection when an application to clear land is refused. That application was made and, after the appropriate assessment, an amount of $7 500 was paid. There was no provision under the Country Areas Water Supply Act 1947 to reclaim that initial payment. When the owner was convicted the court imposed the following order: Mr Zygmunt Edward Sieczka shall undertake restoration of vegetation on Lot 7958 Junction Road, Manjimup by the planting of 44 trees comprising any of the species of Corymbia calophylla or Marri; Eucalyptus maginata or Jarrah, or Melaleuca preissiana or local paperbark within 28 days of the date of this order; that the restoration shall occur in a random manner over 0.5 hectares in a rectangular block at a location within Lot 7958 Junction Road, Manjimup to be determined by Mr Sieczka; and that the 44 trees shall be maintained with a 10 per cent survival rate for a period of 5 years from the date of planting. (2) None. (3) No. This prosecution was initiated under the provisions of the Country Areas Water Supply Act 1947, not under the recently introduced amendments to the Environmental Protection Act 1986 and the Environmental Protection (Clearing Native Vegetation) Regulations 2004 involving the clearing of native vegetation.
(1) In August 1987 the property owner made an application to clear the entirety of his site, and subsequently in February 1988 that application was refused. Under the provisions of part 11A of the Country Areas Water Supply Act 1947 a person is entitled to seek compensation for injurious affection when an application to clear land is refused. That application was made and, after the appropriate assessment, an amount of $7 500 was paid. There was no provision under the Country Areas Water Supply Act 1947 to reclaim that initial payment. When the owner was convicted the court imposed the following order: Mr Zygmunt Edward Sieczka shall undertake restoration of vegetation on Lot 7958 Junction Road, Manjimup by the planting of 44 trees comprising any of the species of Corymbia calophylla or Marri; Eucalyptus maginata or Jarrah, or Melaleuca preissiana or local paperbark within 28 days of the date of this order; that the restoration shall occur in a random manner over 0.5 hectares in a rectangular block at a location within Lot 7958 Junction Road, Manjimup to be determined by Mr Sieczka; and that the 44 trees shall be maintained with a 10 per cent survival rate for a period of 5 years from the date of planting. (2) None. (3) No. This prosecution was initiated under the provisions of the Country Areas Water Supply Act 1947, not under the recently introduced amendments to the Environmental Protection Act 1986 and the Environmental Protection (Clearing Native Vegetation) Regulations 2004 involving the clearing of native vegetation.
(2) None. (3) No. This prosecution was initiated under the provisions of the Country Areas Water Supply Act 1947, not under the recently introduced amendments to the Environmental Protection Act 1986 and the Environmental Protection (Clearing Native Vegetation) Regulations 2004 involving the clearing of native vegetation.
(3) No. This prosecution was initiated under the provisions of the Country Areas Water Supply Act 1947, not under the recently introduced amendments to the Environmental Protection Act 1986 and the Environmental Protection (Clearing Native Vegetation) Regulations 2004 involving the clearing of native vegetation.
(1) Why did the Department of Environment not confiscate the initial payment of $7 500 from the Manjimup farmer when he was prosecuted for this offence? (2) How many other farmers who have previously received compensation for not clearing trees on their properties have been prosecuted for similar offences? (3) In light of the Western Australian Government’s recent introduction of land clearing laws, does the minister agree that a decision like this - that is, the decision not to take back the original compensation - is confusing, not only for farmers but also the wider public? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) In August 1987 the property owner made an application to clear the entirety of his site, and subsequently in February 1988 that application was refused. Under the provisions of part 11A of the Country Areas Water Supply Act 1947 a person is entitled to seek compensation for injurious affection when an application to clear land is refused. That application was made and, after the appropriate assessment, an amount of $7 500 was paid. There was no provision under the Country Areas Water Supply Act 1947 to reclaim that initial payment. When the owner was convicted the court imposed the following order: Mr Zygmunt Edward Sieczka shall undertake restoration of vegetation on Lot 7958 Junction Road, Manjimup by the planting of 44 trees comprising any of the species of Corymbia calophylla or Marri; Eucalyptus maginata or Jarrah, or Melaleuca preissiana or local paperbark within 28 days of the date of this order; that the restoration shall occur in a random manner over 0.5 hectares in a rectangular block at a location within Lot 7958 Junction Road, Manjimup to be determined by Mr Sieczka; and that the 44 trees shall be maintained with a 10 per cent survival rate for a period of 5 years from the date of planting. (2) None. (3) No. This prosecution was initiated under the provisions of the Country Areas Water Supply Act 1947, not under the recently introduced amendments to the Environmental Protection Act 1986 and the Environmental Protection (Clearing Native Vegetation) Regulations 2004 involving the clearing of native vegetation.
(2) How many other farmers who have previously received compensation for not clearing trees on their properties have been prosecuted for similar offences? (3) In light of the Western Australian Government’s recent introduction of land clearing laws, does the minister agree that a decision like this - that is, the decision not to take back the original compensation - is confusing, not only for farmers but also the wider public? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) In August 1987 the property owner made an application to clear the entirety of his site, and subsequently in February 1988 that application was refused. Under the provisions of part 11A of the Country Areas Water Supply Act 1947 a person is entitled to seek compensation for injurious affection when an application to clear land is refused. That application was made and, after the appropriate assessment, an amount of $7 500 was paid. There was no provision under the Country Areas Water Supply Act 1947 to reclaim that initial payment. When the owner was convicted the court imposed the following order: Mr Zygmunt Edward Sieczka shall undertake restoration of vegetation on Lot 7958 Junction Road, Manjimup by the planting of 44 trees comprising any of the species of Corymbia calophylla or Marri; Eucalyptus maginata or Jarrah, or Melaleuca preissiana or local paperbark within 28 days of the date of this order; that the restoration shall occur in a random manner over 0.5 hectares in a rectangular block at a location within Lot 7958 Junction Road, Manjimup to be determined by Mr Sieczka; and that the 44 trees shall be maintained with a 10 per cent survival rate for a period of 5 years from the date of planting. (2) None. (3) No. This prosecution was initiated under the provisions of the Country Areas Water Supply Act 1947, not under the recently introduced amendments to the Environmental Protection Act 1986 and the Environmental Protection (Clearing Native Vegetation) Regulations 2004 involving the clearing of native vegetation.
(3) In light of the Western Australian Government’s recent introduction of land clearing laws, does the minister agree that a decision like this - that is, the decision not to take back the original compensation - is confusing, not only for farmers but also the wider public? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) In August 1987 the property owner made an application to clear the entirety of his site, and subsequently in February 1988 that application was refused. Under the provisions of part 11A of the Country Areas Water Supply Act 1947 a person is entitled to seek compensation for injurious affection when an application to clear land is refused. That application was made and, after the appropriate assessment, an amount of $7 500 was paid. There was no provision under the Country Areas Water Supply Act 1947 to reclaim that initial payment. When the owner was convicted the court imposed the following order: Mr Zygmunt Edward Sieczka shall undertake restoration of vegetation on Lot 7958 Junction Road, Manjimup by the planting of 44 trees comprising any of the species of Corymbia calophylla or Marri; Eucalyptus maginata or Jarrah, or Melaleuca preissiana or local paperbark within 28 days of the date of this order; that the restoration shall occur in a random manner over 0.5 hectares in a rectangular block at a location within Lot 7958 Junction Road, Manjimup to be determined by Mr Sieczka; and that the 44 trees shall be maintained with a 10 per cent survival rate for a period of 5 years from the date of planting. (2) None. (3) No. This prosecution was initiated under the provisions of the Country Areas Water Supply Act 1947, not under the recently introduced amendments to the Environmental Protection Act 1986 and the Environmental Protection (Clearing Native Vegetation) Regulations 2004 involving the clearing of native vegetation.
Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) In August 1987 the property owner made an application to clear the entirety of his site, and subsequently in February 1988 that application was refused. Under the provisions of part 11A of the Country Areas Water Supply Act 1947 a person is entitled to seek compensation for injurious affection when an application to clear land is refused. That application was made and, after the appropriate assessment, an amount of $7 500 was paid. There was no provision under the Country Areas Water Supply Act 1947 to reclaim that initial payment. When the owner was convicted the court imposed the following order: Mr Zygmunt Edward Sieczka shall undertake restoration of vegetation on Lot 7958 Junction Road, Manjimup by the planting of 44 trees comprising any of the species of Corymbia calophylla or Marri; Eucalyptus maginata or Jarrah, or Melaleuca preissiana or local paperbark within 28 days of the date of this order; that the restoration shall occur in a random manner over 0.5 hectares in a rectangular block at a location within Lot 7958 Junction Road, Manjimup to be determined by Mr Sieczka; and that the 44 trees shall be maintained with a 10 per cent survival rate for a period of 5 years from the date of planting. (2) None. (3) No. This prosecution was initiated under the provisions of the Country Areas Water Supply Act 1947, not under the recently introduced amendments to the Environmental Protection Act 1986 and the Environmental Protection (Clearing Native Vegetation) Regulations 2004 involving the clearing of native vegetation.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) In August 1987 the property owner made an application to clear the entirety of his site, and subsequently in February 1988 that application was refused. Under the provisions of part 11A of the Country Areas Water Supply Act 1947 a person is entitled to seek compensation for injurious affection when an application to clear land is refused. That application was made and, after the appropriate assessment, an amount of $7 500 was paid. There was no provision under the Country Areas Water Supply Act 1947 to reclaim that initial payment. When the owner was convicted the court imposed the following order: Mr Zygmunt Edward Sieczka shall undertake restoration of vegetation on Lot 7958 Junction Road, Manjimup by the planting of 44 trees comprising any of the species of Corymbia calophylla or Marri; Eucalyptus maginata or Jarrah, or Melaleuca preissiana or local paperbark within 28 days of the date of this order; that the restoration shall occur in a random manner over 0.5 hectares in a rectangular block at a location within Lot 7958 Junction Road, Manjimup to be determined by Mr Sieczka; and that the 44 trees shall be maintained with a 10 per cent survival rate for a period of 5 years from the date of planting. (2) None. (3) No. This prosecution was initiated under the provisions of the Country Areas Water Supply Act 1947, not under the recently introduced amendments to the Environmental Protection Act 1986 and the Environmental Protection (Clearing Native Vegetation) Regulations 2004 involving the clearing of native vegetation.
(1) In August 1987 the property owner made an application to clear the entirety of his site, and subsequently in February 1988 that application was refused. Under the provisions of part 11A of the Country Areas Water Supply Act 1947 a person is entitled to seek compensation for injurious affection when an application to clear land is refused. That application was made and, after the appropriate assessment, an amount of $7 500 was paid. There was no provision under the Country Areas Water Supply Act 1947 to reclaim that initial payment. When the owner was convicted the court imposed the following order: Mr Zygmunt Edward Sieczka shall undertake restoration of vegetation on Lot 7958 Junction Road, Manjimup by the planting of 44 trees comprising any of the species of Corymbia calophylla or Marri; Eucalyptus maginata or Jarrah, or Melaleuca preissiana or local paperbark within 28 days of the date of this order; that the restoration shall occur in a random manner over 0.5 hectares in a rectangular block at a location within Lot 7958 Junction Road, Manjimup to be determined by Mr Sieczka; and that the 44 trees shall be maintained with a 10 per cent survival rate for a period of 5 years from the date of planting. (2) None. (3) No. This prosecution was initiated under the provisions of the Country Areas Water Supply Act 1947, not under the recently introduced amendments to the Environmental Protection Act 1986 and the Environmental Protection (Clearing Native Vegetation) Regulations 2004 involving the clearing of native vegetation.
(2) None. (3) No. This prosecution was initiated under the provisions of the Country Areas Water Supply Act 1947, not under the recently introduced amendments to the Environmental Protection Act 1986 and the Environmental Protection (Clearing Native Vegetation) Regulations 2004 involving the clearing of native vegetation.
(3) No. This prosecution was initiated under the provisions of the Country Areas Water Supply Act 1947, not under the recently introduced amendments to the Environmental Protection Act 1986 and the Environmental Protection (Clearing Native Vegetation) Regulations 2004 involving the clearing of native vegetation.
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.