❓ Dr. Woollard questions Premier Gallop about old-growth forest protection, alleging a broken election promise due to remapping. Premier Gallop defends the government's actions, stating they fulfilled their promise based on their defined criteria for old-growth forests.
AnsweredQoN 1075Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
(1) Does the Premier agree that his election policy commits the Government to the full protection of all our remaining old-growth forest, and that it states that there are 346 000 hectares of old-growth forest remaining in south west Western Australia? (2) Is the Premier aware that since the election the Department of Conservation and Land Management has engaged in a remapping process resulting in the deletion of 16 500 hectares of old-growth forest that will now be available for logging? (3) If so, will the Premier now admit that he misled Parliament on 21 August when he told the House that 100 per cent of old-growth forest in Western Australia, as defined when we entered the election campaign, had been saved? (4) Will the Premier admit that one of Labor’s most basic core promises has not been kept; will he direct the Minister for the Environment to rectify the problem by reinstating those areas that have been remapped as non-old-growth forest by the Department of Conservation and Land Management; and will he guarantee that full legal protection will be provided for all old-growth forest, as promised, by including it in national parks? Dr G.I. GALLOP
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(4) I commence my answer by saying to the member that it would be a little hard to re-include the areas that have already been logged, which was one of the reasons for the mapping process to occur. The Labor Party went to the last election with a straightforward definition of “old-growth forest”. We applied that definition and delivered on our promises. The fact is that there has been a logging process in some elements of the forest, as I referred to at the beginning of my answer. There has been severe dieback in some areas; as such, they are not classified as old-growth forest. We stand by our statement that we have delivered our promise to stop logging all old-growth forests. We have delivered on that promise exactly as we said we would. It is interesting to note our promise during the election campaign. To remind the House once more, we said we would stop logging 99 per cent of the old-growth forests and see if the other one per cent could be put in according to the needs of our timber industry. That other one per cent was included, so in fact we have stopped logging 100 per cent of our old-growth forests according to the definition we put to the election. The sort of approach the member for Alfred Cove is adopting to this question does not reflect well on her. Dr J.M. Woollard interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The member knows how important the issue of stopping old-growth logging is. She knows what definition we took to the election and she knows we delivered on it. This sort of nitpicking that the member is engaging in gets us nowhere.
(2) Is the Premier aware that since the election the Department of Conservation and Land Management has engaged in a remapping process resulting in the deletion of 16 500 hectares of old-growth forest that will now be available for logging? (3) If so, will the Premier now admit that he misled Parliament on 21 August when he told the House that 100 per cent of old-growth forest in Western Australia, as defined when we entered the election campaign, had been saved? (4) Will the Premier admit that one of Labor’s most basic core promises has not been kept; will he direct the Minister for the Environment to rectify the problem by reinstating those areas that have been remapped as non-old-growth forest by the Department of Conservation and Land Management; and will he guarantee that full legal protection will be provided for all old-growth forest, as promised, by including it in national parks? Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: (1)-(4) I commence my answer by saying to the member that it would be a little hard to re-include the areas that have already been logged, which was one of the reasons for the mapping process to occur. The Labor Party went to the last election with a straightforward definition of “old-growth forest”. We applied that definition and delivered on our promises. The fact is that there has been a logging process in some elements of the forest, as I referred to at the beginning of my answer. There has been severe dieback in some areas; as such, they are not classified as old-growth forest. We stand by our statement that we have delivered our promise to stop logging all old-growth forests. We have delivered on that promise exactly as we said we would. It is interesting to note our promise during the election campaign. To remind the House once more, we said we would stop logging 99 per cent of the old-growth forests and see if the other one per cent could be put in according to the needs of our timber industry. That other one per cent was included, so in fact we have stopped logging 100 per cent of our old-growth forests according to the definition we put to the election. The sort of approach the member for Alfred Cove is adopting to this question does not reflect well on her. Dr J.M. Woollard interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The member knows how important the issue of stopping old-growth logging is. She knows what definition we took to the election and she knows we delivered on it. This sort of nitpicking that the member is engaging in gets us nowhere.
(3) If so, will the Premier now admit that he misled Parliament on 21 August when he told the House that 100 per cent of old-growth forest in Western Australia, as defined when we entered the election campaign, had been saved? (4) Will the Premier admit that one of Labor’s most basic core promises has not been kept; will he direct the Minister for the Environment to rectify the problem by reinstating those areas that have been remapped as non-old-growth forest by the Department of Conservation and Land Management; and will he guarantee that full legal protection will be provided for all old-growth forest, as promised, by including it in national parks? Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: (1)-(4) I commence my answer by saying to the member that it would be a little hard to re-include the areas that have already been logged, which was one of the reasons for the mapping process to occur. The Labor Party went to the last election with a straightforward definition of “old-growth forest”. We applied that definition and delivered on our promises. The fact is that there has been a logging process in some elements of the forest, as I referred to at the beginning of my answer. There has been severe dieback in some areas; as such, they are not classified as old-growth forest. We stand by our statement that we have delivered our promise to stop logging all old-growth forests. We have delivered on that promise exactly as we said we would. It is interesting to note our promise during the election campaign. To remind the House once more, we said we would stop logging 99 per cent of the old-growth forests and see if the other one per cent could be put in according to the needs of our timber industry. That other one per cent was included, so in fact we have stopped logging 100 per cent of our old-growth forests according to the definition we put to the election. The sort of approach the member for Alfred Cove is adopting to this question does not reflect well on her. Dr J.M. Woollard interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The member knows how important the issue of stopping old-growth logging is. She knows what definition we took to the election and she knows we delivered on it. This sort of nitpicking that the member is engaging in gets us nowhere.
(4) Will the Premier admit that one of Labor’s most basic core promises has not been kept; will he direct the Minister for the Environment to rectify the problem by reinstating those areas that have been remapped as non-old-growth forest by the Department of Conservation and Land Management; and will he guarantee that full legal protection will be provided for all old-growth forest, as promised, by including it in national parks? Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: (1)-(4) I commence my answer by saying to the member that it would be a little hard to re-include the areas that have already been logged, which was one of the reasons for the mapping process to occur. The Labor Party went to the last election with a straightforward definition of “old-growth forest”. We applied that definition and delivered on our promises. The fact is that there has been a logging process in some elements of the forest, as I referred to at the beginning of my answer. There has been severe dieback in some areas; as such, they are not classified as old-growth forest. We stand by our statement that we have delivered our promise to stop logging all old-growth forests. We have delivered on that promise exactly as we said we would. It is interesting to note our promise during the election campaign. To remind the House once more, we said we would stop logging 99 per cent of the old-growth forests and see if the other one per cent could be put in according to the needs of our timber industry. That other one per cent was included, so in fact we have stopped logging 100 per cent of our old-growth forests according to the definition we put to the election. The sort of approach the member for Alfred Cove is adopting to this question does not reflect well on her. Dr J.M. Woollard interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The member knows how important the issue of stopping old-growth logging is. She knows what definition we took to the election and she knows we delivered on it. This sort of nitpicking that the member is engaging in gets us nowhere.
Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: (1)-(4) I commence my answer by saying to the member that it would be a little hard to re-include the areas that have already been logged, which was one of the reasons for the mapping process to occur. The Labor Party went to the last election with a straightforward definition of “old-growth forest”. We applied that definition and delivered on our promises. The fact is that there has been a logging process in some elements of the forest, as I referred to at the beginning of my answer. There has been severe dieback in some areas; as such, they are not classified as old-growth forest. We stand by our statement that we have delivered our promise to stop logging all old-growth forests. We have delivered on that promise exactly as we said we would. It is interesting to note our promise during the election campaign. To remind the House once more, we said we would stop logging 99 per cent of the old-growth forests and see if the other one per cent could be put in according to the needs of our timber industry. That other one per cent was included, so in fact we have stopped logging 100 per cent of our old-growth forests according to the definition we put to the election. The sort of approach the member for Alfred Cove is adopting to this question does not reflect well on her. Dr J.M. Woollard interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The member knows how important the issue of stopping old-growth logging is. She knows what definition we took to the election and she knows we delivered on it. This sort of nitpicking that the member is engaging in gets us nowhere.
(1)-(4) I commence my answer by saying to the member that it would be a little hard to re-include the areas that have already been logged, which was one of the reasons for the mapping process to occur. The Labor Party went to the last election with a straightforward definition of “old-growth forest”. We applied that definition and delivered on our promises. The fact is that there has been a logging process in some elements of the forest, as I referred to at the beginning of my answer. There has been severe dieback in some areas; as such, they are not classified as old-growth forest. We stand by our statement that we have delivered our promise to stop logging all old-growth forests. We have delivered on that promise exactly as we said we would. It is interesting to note our promise during the election campaign. To remind the House once more, we said we would stop logging 99 per cent of the old-growth forests and see if the other one per cent could be put in according to the needs of our timber industry. That other one per cent was included, so in fact we have stopped logging 100 per cent of our old-growth forests according to the definition we put to the election. The sort of approach the member for Alfred Cove is adopting to this question does not reflect well on her. Dr J.M. Woollard interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The member knows how important the issue of stopping old-growth logging is. She knows what definition we took to the election and she knows we delivered on it. This sort of nitpicking that the member is engaging in gets us nowhere.
Dr J.M. Woollard interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The member knows how important the issue of stopping old-growth logging is. She knows what definition we took to the election and she knows we delivered on it. This sort of nitpicking that the member is engaging in gets us nowhere.
Dr G.I. GALLOP: The member knows how important the issue of stopping old-growth logging is. She knows what definition we took to the election and she knows we delivered on it. This sort of nitpicking that the member is engaging in gets us nowhere.
(2) Is the Premier aware that since the election the Department of Conservation and Land Management has engaged in a remapping process resulting in the deletion of 16 500 hectares of old-growth forest that will now be available for logging? (3) If so, will the Premier now admit that he misled Parliament on 21 August when he told the House that 100 per cent of old-growth forest in Western Australia, as defined when we entered the election campaign, had been saved? (4) Will the Premier admit that one of Labor’s most basic core promises has not been kept; will he direct the Minister for the Environment to rectify the problem by reinstating those areas that have been remapped as non-old-growth forest by the Department of Conservation and Land Management; and will he guarantee that full legal protection will be provided for all old-growth forest, as promised, by including it in national parks? Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: (1)-(4) I commence my answer by saying to the member that it would be a little hard to re-include the areas that have already been logged, which was one of the reasons for the mapping process to occur. The Labor Party went to the last election with a straightforward definition of “old-growth forest”. We applied that definition and delivered on our promises. The fact is that there has been a logging process in some elements of the forest, as I referred to at the beginning of my answer. There has been severe dieback in some areas; as such, they are not classified as old-growth forest. We stand by our statement that we have delivered our promise to stop logging all old-growth forests. We have delivered on that promise exactly as we said we would. It is interesting to note our promise during the election campaign. To remind the House once more, we said we would stop logging 99 per cent of the old-growth forests and see if the other one per cent could be put in according to the needs of our timber industry. That other one per cent was included, so in fact we have stopped logging 100 per cent of our old-growth forests according to the definition we put to the election. The sort of approach the member for Alfred Cove is adopting to this question does not reflect well on her. Dr J.M. Woollard interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The member knows how important the issue of stopping old-growth logging is. She knows what definition we took to the election and she knows we delivered on it. This sort of nitpicking that the member is engaging in gets us nowhere.
(3) If so, will the Premier now admit that he misled Parliament on 21 August when he told the House that 100 per cent of old-growth forest in Western Australia, as defined when we entered the election campaign, had been saved? (4) Will the Premier admit that one of Labor’s most basic core promises has not been kept; will he direct the Minister for the Environment to rectify the problem by reinstating those areas that have been remapped as non-old-growth forest by the Department of Conservation and Land Management; and will he guarantee that full legal protection will be provided for all old-growth forest, as promised, by including it in national parks? Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: (1)-(4) I commence my answer by saying to the member that it would be a little hard to re-include the areas that have already been logged, which was one of the reasons for the mapping process to occur. The Labor Party went to the last election with a straightforward definition of “old-growth forest”. We applied that definition and delivered on our promises. The fact is that there has been a logging process in some elements of the forest, as I referred to at the beginning of my answer. There has been severe dieback in some areas; as such, they are not classified as old-growth forest. We stand by our statement that we have delivered our promise to stop logging all old-growth forests. We have delivered on that promise exactly as we said we would. It is interesting to note our promise during the election campaign. To remind the House once more, we said we would stop logging 99 per cent of the old-growth forests and see if the other one per cent could be put in according to the needs of our timber industry. That other one per cent was included, so in fact we have stopped logging 100 per cent of our old-growth forests according to the definition we put to the election. The sort of approach the member for Alfred Cove is adopting to this question does not reflect well on her. Dr J.M. Woollard interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The member knows how important the issue of stopping old-growth logging is. She knows what definition we took to the election and she knows we delivered on it. This sort of nitpicking that the member is engaging in gets us nowhere.
(4) Will the Premier admit that one of Labor’s most basic core promises has not been kept; will he direct the Minister for the Environment to rectify the problem by reinstating those areas that have been remapped as non-old-growth forest by the Department of Conservation and Land Management; and will he guarantee that full legal protection will be provided for all old-growth forest, as promised, by including it in national parks? Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: (1)-(4) I commence my answer by saying to the member that it would be a little hard to re-include the areas that have already been logged, which was one of the reasons for the mapping process to occur. The Labor Party went to the last election with a straightforward definition of “old-growth forest”. We applied that definition and delivered on our promises. The fact is that there has been a logging process in some elements of the forest, as I referred to at the beginning of my answer. There has been severe dieback in some areas; as such, they are not classified as old-growth forest. We stand by our statement that we have delivered our promise to stop logging all old-growth forests. We have delivered on that promise exactly as we said we would. It is interesting to note our promise during the election campaign. To remind the House once more, we said we would stop logging 99 per cent of the old-growth forests and see if the other one per cent could be put in according to the needs of our timber industry. That other one per cent was included, so in fact we have stopped logging 100 per cent of our old-growth forests according to the definition we put to the election. The sort of approach the member for Alfred Cove is adopting to this question does not reflect well on her. Dr J.M. Woollard interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The member knows how important the issue of stopping old-growth logging is. She knows what definition we took to the election and she knows we delivered on it. This sort of nitpicking that the member is engaging in gets us nowhere.
Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: (1)-(4) I commence my answer by saying to the member that it would be a little hard to re-include the areas that have already been logged, which was one of the reasons for the mapping process to occur. The Labor Party went to the last election with a straightforward definition of “old-growth forest”. We applied that definition and delivered on our promises. The fact is that there has been a logging process in some elements of the forest, as I referred to at the beginning of my answer. There has been severe dieback in some areas; as such, they are not classified as old-growth forest. We stand by our statement that we have delivered our promise to stop logging all old-growth forests. We have delivered on that promise exactly as we said we would. It is interesting to note our promise during the election campaign. To remind the House once more, we said we would stop logging 99 per cent of the old-growth forests and see if the other one per cent could be put in according to the needs of our timber industry. That other one per cent was included, so in fact we have stopped logging 100 per cent of our old-growth forests according to the definition we put to the election. The sort of approach the member for Alfred Cove is adopting to this question does not reflect well on her. Dr J.M. Woollard interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The member knows how important the issue of stopping old-growth logging is. She knows what definition we took to the election and she knows we delivered on it. This sort of nitpicking that the member is engaging in gets us nowhere.
(1)-(4) I commence my answer by saying to the member that it would be a little hard to re-include the areas that have already been logged, which was one of the reasons for the mapping process to occur. The Labor Party went to the last election with a straightforward definition of “old-growth forest”. We applied that definition and delivered on our promises. The fact is that there has been a logging process in some elements of the forest, as I referred to at the beginning of my answer. There has been severe dieback in some areas; as such, they are not classified as old-growth forest. We stand by our statement that we have delivered our promise to stop logging all old-growth forests. We have delivered on that promise exactly as we said we would. It is interesting to note our promise during the election campaign. To remind the House once more, we said we would stop logging 99 per cent of the old-growth forests and see if the other one per cent could be put in according to the needs of our timber industry. That other one per cent was included, so in fact we have stopped logging 100 per cent of our old-growth forests according to the definition we put to the election. The sort of approach the member for Alfred Cove is adopting to this question does not reflect well on her. Dr J.M. Woollard interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The member knows how important the issue of stopping old-growth logging is. She knows what definition we took to the election and she knows we delivered on it. This sort of nitpicking that the member is engaging in gets us nowhere.
Dr J.M. Woollard interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The member knows how important the issue of stopping old-growth logging is. She knows what definition we took to the election and she knows we delivered on it. This sort of nitpicking that the member is engaging in gets us nowhere.
Dr G.I. GALLOP: The member knows how important the issue of stopping old-growth logging is. She knows what definition we took to the election and she knows we delivered on it. This sort of nitpicking that the member is engaging in gets us nowhere.
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.