❓ Donaldson questions grain export approvals, concerned about impact on CBH-Grain Pool's premium markets. Chance assures approvals align with the Act but will review guidelines post-season.
AnsweredQoN 1667Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
Given the growing concerns of grain growers about the Grain Licensing Authority recently issuing approvals to third party exporters for large tonnages of grain, I ask - (1) Are these approvals in line with the guidelines set by the Act? (2) Is the minister satisfied that no detrimental effect will occur to existing traditional premium markets gained by the Co-operative Bulk Handling Ltd-Grain Pool of WA exporter group? (3) If not, will the minister ensure that any future Grain Licensing Authority approvals for grain exports remain within the guidelines? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
(1) Yes. I have consulted with the Chairman of the Grain Licensing Authority and, through that process, have been able to gain some information that is not readily available; certainly it is not available publicly as it is of a commercial nature. That indicates to me that the decisions that have been made by the Grain Licensing Authority are broadly within the scope of the guidelines and, more importantly, of the Act. However, what I said publicly at the Australian Association of Agricultural Consultants (WA) conference at the Duxton Hotel last week was that I am not sufficiently arrogant to believe that we got the formula for the GLA’s construct and, in particular, the regulations and guidelines, right the first time. This is a highly complex issue involving international trade and a differential judgment that the GLA must make, in both temporal and spatial terms, of the premium available from the single desk’s application of power in each market at any time. Some countries have more than one market. For example, southern China and northern China are treated somewhat differently. It is complex. I have told the industry that I want to wait until the end of the selling season to conduct a retrospective examination of what has happened, to ensure that the guidelines as supplied, and possibly even the regulations as gazetted, do in fact deliver the spirit of the Act in practice, with the Act obviously being paramount. (2) In terms of the effect on the holder of the main export licence and its premium in premium markets, few, if any, third party or special export licences have been issued in markets in which a premium can be established. That is my view. Obviously, this is not an empirical statement. In making that statement I am excluding Saudi Arabia as a premium market, as I am the Indian subcontinent for canola. I do not believe, although this is an arguable statement, that there has been any effect on the Grain Pool Pty Ltd’s premiums. (3) On the question of what I will do to ensure that in the future the GLA will remain within the parameters established by the regulations and guidelines, I have already said that I believe that it is. However, I am prepared to reassess whether the regulations and guidelines are adequately delivering on the intent of the Act.
(1) Are these approvals in line with the guidelines set by the Act? (2) Is the minister satisfied that no detrimental effect will occur to existing traditional premium markets gained by the Co-operative Bulk Handling Ltd-Grain Pool of WA exporter group? (3) If not, will the minister ensure that any future Grain Licensing Authority approvals for grain exports remain within the guidelines? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : (1) Yes. I have consulted with the Chairman of the Grain Licensing Authority and, through that process, have been able to gain some information that is not readily available; certainly it is not available publicly as it is of a commercial nature. That indicates to me that the decisions that have been made by the Grain Licensing Authority are broadly within the scope of the guidelines and, more importantly, of the Act. However, what I said publicly at the Australian Association of Agricultural Consultants (WA) conference at the Duxton Hotel last week was that I am not sufficiently arrogant to believe that we got the formula for the GLA’s construct and, in particular, the regulations and guidelines, right the first time. This is a highly complex issue involving international trade and a differential judgment that the GLA must make, in both temporal and spatial terms, of the premium available from the single desk’s application of power in each market at any time. Some countries have more than one market. For example, southern China and northern China are treated somewhat differently. It is complex. I have told the industry that I want to wait until the end of the selling season to conduct a retrospective examination of what has happened, to ensure that the guidelines as supplied, and possibly even the regulations as gazetted, do in fact deliver the spirit of the Act in practice, with the Act obviously being paramount. (2) In terms of the effect on the holder of the main export licence and its premium in premium markets, few, if any, third party or special export licences have been issued in markets in which a premium can be established. That is my view. Obviously, this is not an empirical statement. In making that statement I am excluding Saudi Arabia as a premium market, as I am the Indian subcontinent for canola. I do not believe, although this is an arguable statement, that there has been any effect on the Grain Pool Pty Ltd’s premiums. (3) On the question of what I will do to ensure that in the future the GLA will remain within the parameters established by the regulations and guidelines, I have already said that I believe that it is. However, I am prepared to reassess whether the regulations and guidelines are adequately delivering on the intent of the Act.
(2) Is the minister satisfied that no detrimental effect will occur to existing traditional premium markets gained by the Co-operative Bulk Handling Ltd-Grain Pool of WA exporter group? (3) If not, will the minister ensure that any future Grain Licensing Authority approvals for grain exports remain within the guidelines? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : (1) Yes. I have consulted with the Chairman of the Grain Licensing Authority and, through that process, have been able to gain some information that is not readily available; certainly it is not available publicly as it is of a commercial nature. That indicates to me that the decisions that have been made by the Grain Licensing Authority are broadly within the scope of the guidelines and, more importantly, of the Act. However, what I said publicly at the Australian Association of Agricultural Consultants (WA) conference at the Duxton Hotel last week was that I am not sufficiently arrogant to believe that we got the formula for the GLA’s construct and, in particular, the regulations and guidelines, right the first time. This is a highly complex issue involving international trade and a differential judgment that the GLA must make, in both temporal and spatial terms, of the premium available from the single desk’s application of power in each market at any time. Some countries have more than one market. For example, southern China and northern China are treated somewhat differently. It is complex. I have told the industry that I want to wait until the end of the selling season to conduct a retrospective examination of what has happened, to ensure that the guidelines as supplied, and possibly even the regulations as gazetted, do in fact deliver the spirit of the Act in practice, with the Act obviously being paramount. (2) In terms of the effect on the holder of the main export licence and its premium in premium markets, few, if any, third party or special export licences have been issued in markets in which a premium can be established. That is my view. Obviously, this is not an empirical statement. In making that statement I am excluding Saudi Arabia as a premium market, as I am the Indian subcontinent for canola. I do not believe, although this is an arguable statement, that there has been any effect on the Grain Pool Pty Ltd’s premiums. (3) On the question of what I will do to ensure that in the future the GLA will remain within the parameters established by the regulations and guidelines, I have already said that I believe that it is. However, I am prepared to reassess whether the regulations and guidelines are adequately delivering on the intent of the Act.
(3) If not, will the minister ensure that any future Grain Licensing Authority approvals for grain exports remain within the guidelines? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : (1) Yes. I have consulted with the Chairman of the Grain Licensing Authority and, through that process, have been able to gain some information that is not readily available; certainly it is not available publicly as it is of a commercial nature. That indicates to me that the decisions that have been made by the Grain Licensing Authority are broadly within the scope of the guidelines and, more importantly, of the Act. However, what I said publicly at the Australian Association of Agricultural Consultants (WA) conference at the Duxton Hotel last week was that I am not sufficiently arrogant to believe that we got the formula for the GLA’s construct and, in particular, the regulations and guidelines, right the first time. This is a highly complex issue involving international trade and a differential judgment that the GLA must make, in both temporal and spatial terms, of the premium available from the single desk’s application of power in each market at any time. Some countries have more than one market. For example, southern China and northern China are treated somewhat differently. It is complex. I have told the industry that I want to wait until the end of the selling season to conduct a retrospective examination of what has happened, to ensure that the guidelines as supplied, and possibly even the regulations as gazetted, do in fact deliver the spirit of the Act in practice, with the Act obviously being paramount. (2) In terms of the effect on the holder of the main export licence and its premium in premium markets, few, if any, third party or special export licences have been issued in markets in which a premium can be established. That is my view. Obviously, this is not an empirical statement. In making that statement I am excluding Saudi Arabia as a premium market, as I am the Indian subcontinent for canola. I do not believe, although this is an arguable statement, that there has been any effect on the Grain Pool Pty Ltd’s premiums. (3) On the question of what I will do to ensure that in the future the GLA will remain within the parameters established by the regulations and guidelines, I have already said that I believe that it is. However, I am prepared to reassess whether the regulations and guidelines are adequately delivering on the intent of the Act.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied : (1) Yes. I have consulted with the Chairman of the Grain Licensing Authority and, through that process, have been able to gain some information that is not readily available; certainly it is not available publicly as it is of a commercial nature. That indicates to me that the decisions that have been made by the Grain Licensing Authority are broadly within the scope of the guidelines and, more importantly, of the Act. However, what I said publicly at the Australian Association of Agricultural Consultants (WA) conference at the Duxton Hotel last week was that I am not sufficiently arrogant to believe that we got the formula for the GLA’s construct and, in particular, the regulations and guidelines, right the first time. This is a highly complex issue involving international trade and a differential judgment that the GLA must make, in both temporal and spatial terms, of the premium available from the single desk’s application of power in each market at any time. Some countries have more than one market. For example, southern China and northern China are treated somewhat differently. It is complex. I have told the industry that I want to wait until the end of the selling season to conduct a retrospective examination of what has happened, to ensure that the guidelines as supplied, and possibly even the regulations as gazetted, do in fact deliver the spirit of the Act in practice, with the Act obviously being paramount. (2) In terms of the effect on the holder of the main export licence and its premium in premium markets, few, if any, third party or special export licences have been issued in markets in which a premium can be established. That is my view. Obviously, this is not an empirical statement. In making that statement I am excluding Saudi Arabia as a premium market, as I am the Indian subcontinent for canola. I do not believe, although this is an arguable statement, that there has been any effect on the Grain Pool Pty Ltd’s premiums. (3) On the question of what I will do to ensure that in the future the GLA will remain within the parameters established by the regulations and guidelines, I have already said that I believe that it is. However, I am prepared to reassess whether the regulations and guidelines are adequately delivering on the intent of the Act.
(1) Yes. I have consulted with the Chairman of the Grain Licensing Authority and, through that process, have been able to gain some information that is not readily available; certainly it is not available publicly as it is of a commercial nature. That indicates to me that the decisions that have been made by the Grain Licensing Authority are broadly within the scope of the guidelines and, more importantly, of the Act. However, what I said publicly at the Australian Association of Agricultural Consultants (WA) conference at the Duxton Hotel last week was that I am not sufficiently arrogant to believe that we got the formula for the GLA’s construct and, in particular, the regulations and guidelines, right the first time. This is a highly complex issue involving international trade and a differential judgment that the GLA must make, in both temporal and spatial terms, of the premium available from the single desk’s application of power in each market at any time. Some countries have more than one market. For example, southern China and northern China are treated somewhat differently. It is complex. I have told the industry that I want to wait until the end of the selling season to conduct a retrospective examination of what has happened, to ensure that the guidelines as supplied, and possibly even the regulations as gazetted, do in fact deliver the spirit of the Act in practice, with the Act obviously being paramount. (2) In terms of the effect on the holder of the main export licence and its premium in premium markets, few, if any, third party or special export licences have been issued in markets in which a premium can be established. That is my view. Obviously, this is not an empirical statement. In making that statement I am excluding Saudi Arabia as a premium market, as I am the Indian subcontinent for canola. I do not believe, although this is an arguable statement, that there has been any effect on the Grain Pool Pty Ltd’s premiums. (3) On the question of what I will do to ensure that in the future the GLA will remain within the parameters established by the regulations and guidelines, I have already said that I believe that it is. However, I am prepared to reassess whether the regulations and guidelines are adequately delivering on the intent of the Act.
(2) In terms of the effect on the holder of the main export licence and its premium in premium markets, few, if any, third party or special export licences have been issued in markets in which a premium can be established. That is my view. Obviously, this is not an empirical statement. In making that statement I am excluding Saudi Arabia as a premium market, as I am the Indian subcontinent for canola. I do not believe, although this is an arguable statement, that there has been any effect on the Grain Pool Pty Ltd’s premiums. (3) On the question of what I will do to ensure that in the future the GLA will remain within the parameters established by the regulations and guidelines, I have already said that I believe that it is. However, I am prepared to reassess whether the regulations and guidelines are adequately delivering on the intent of the Act.
(3) On the question of what I will do to ensure that in the future the GLA will remain within the parameters established by the regulations and guidelines, I have already said that I believe that it is. However, I am prepared to reassess whether the regulations and guidelines are adequately delivering on the intent of the Act.
(1) Are these approvals in line with the guidelines set by the Act? (2) Is the minister satisfied that no detrimental effect will occur to existing traditional premium markets gained by the Co-operative Bulk Handling Ltd-Grain Pool of WA exporter group? (3) If not, will the minister ensure that any future Grain Licensing Authority approvals for grain exports remain within the guidelines? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : (1) Yes. I have consulted with the Chairman of the Grain Licensing Authority and, through that process, have been able to gain some information that is not readily available; certainly it is not available publicly as it is of a commercial nature. That indicates to me that the decisions that have been made by the Grain Licensing Authority are broadly within the scope of the guidelines and, more importantly, of the Act. However, what I said publicly at the Australian Association of Agricultural Consultants (WA) conference at the Duxton Hotel last week was that I am not sufficiently arrogant to believe that we got the formula for the GLA’s construct and, in particular, the regulations and guidelines, right the first time. This is a highly complex issue involving international trade and a differential judgment that the GLA must make, in both temporal and spatial terms, of the premium available from the single desk’s application of power in each market at any time. Some countries have more than one market. For example, southern China and northern China are treated somewhat differently. It is complex. I have told the industry that I want to wait until the end of the selling season to conduct a retrospective examination of what has happened, to ensure that the guidelines as supplied, and possibly even the regulations as gazetted, do in fact deliver the spirit of the Act in practice, with the Act obviously being paramount. (2) In terms of the effect on the holder of the main export licence and its premium in premium markets, few, if any, third party or special export licences have been issued in markets in which a premium can be established. That is my view. Obviously, this is not an empirical statement. In making that statement I am excluding Saudi Arabia as a premium market, as I am the Indian subcontinent for canola. I do not believe, although this is an arguable statement, that there has been any effect on the Grain Pool Pty Ltd’s premiums. (3) On the question of what I will do to ensure that in the future the GLA will remain within the parameters established by the regulations and guidelines, I have already said that I believe that it is. However, I am prepared to reassess whether the regulations and guidelines are adequately delivering on the intent of the Act.
(2) Is the minister satisfied that no detrimental effect will occur to existing traditional premium markets gained by the Co-operative Bulk Handling Ltd-Grain Pool of WA exporter group? (3) If not, will the minister ensure that any future Grain Licensing Authority approvals for grain exports remain within the guidelines? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : (1) Yes. I have consulted with the Chairman of the Grain Licensing Authority and, through that process, have been able to gain some information that is not readily available; certainly it is not available publicly as it is of a commercial nature. That indicates to me that the decisions that have been made by the Grain Licensing Authority are broadly within the scope of the guidelines and, more importantly, of the Act. However, what I said publicly at the Australian Association of Agricultural Consultants (WA) conference at the Duxton Hotel last week was that I am not sufficiently arrogant to believe that we got the formula for the GLA’s construct and, in particular, the regulations and guidelines, right the first time. This is a highly complex issue involving international trade and a differential judgment that the GLA must make, in both temporal and spatial terms, of the premium available from the single desk’s application of power in each market at any time. Some countries have more than one market. For example, southern China and northern China are treated somewhat differently. It is complex. I have told the industry that I want to wait until the end of the selling season to conduct a retrospective examination of what has happened, to ensure that the guidelines as supplied, and possibly even the regulations as gazetted, do in fact deliver the spirit of the Act in practice, with the Act obviously being paramount. (2) In terms of the effect on the holder of the main export licence and its premium in premium markets, few, if any, third party or special export licences have been issued in markets in which a premium can be established. That is my view. Obviously, this is not an empirical statement. In making that statement I am excluding Saudi Arabia as a premium market, as I am the Indian subcontinent for canola. I do not believe, although this is an arguable statement, that there has been any effect on the Grain Pool Pty Ltd’s premiums. (3) On the question of what I will do to ensure that in the future the GLA will remain within the parameters established by the regulations and guidelines, I have already said that I believe that it is. However, I am prepared to reassess whether the regulations and guidelines are adequately delivering on the intent of the Act.
(3) If not, will the minister ensure that any future Grain Licensing Authority approvals for grain exports remain within the guidelines? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : (1) Yes. I have consulted with the Chairman of the Grain Licensing Authority and, through that process, have been able to gain some information that is not readily available; certainly it is not available publicly as it is of a commercial nature. That indicates to me that the decisions that have been made by the Grain Licensing Authority are broadly within the scope of the guidelines and, more importantly, of the Act. However, what I said publicly at the Australian Association of Agricultural Consultants (WA) conference at the Duxton Hotel last week was that I am not sufficiently arrogant to believe that we got the formula for the GLA’s construct and, in particular, the regulations and guidelines, right the first time. This is a highly complex issue involving international trade and a differential judgment that the GLA must make, in both temporal and spatial terms, of the premium available from the single desk’s application of power in each market at any time. Some countries have more than one market. For example, southern China and northern China are treated somewhat differently. It is complex. I have told the industry that I want to wait until the end of the selling season to conduct a retrospective examination of what has happened, to ensure that the guidelines as supplied, and possibly even the regulations as gazetted, do in fact deliver the spirit of the Act in practice, with the Act obviously being paramount. (2) In terms of the effect on the holder of the main export licence and its premium in premium markets, few, if any, third party or special export licences have been issued in markets in which a premium can be established. That is my view. Obviously, this is not an empirical statement. In making that statement I am excluding Saudi Arabia as a premium market, as I am the Indian subcontinent for canola. I do not believe, although this is an arguable statement, that there has been any effect on the Grain Pool Pty Ltd’s premiums. (3) On the question of what I will do to ensure that in the future the GLA will remain within the parameters established by the regulations and guidelines, I have already said that I believe that it is. However, I am prepared to reassess whether the regulations and guidelines are adequately delivering on the intent of the Act.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied : (1) Yes. I have consulted with the Chairman of the Grain Licensing Authority and, through that process, have been able to gain some information that is not readily available; certainly it is not available publicly as it is of a commercial nature. That indicates to me that the decisions that have been made by the Grain Licensing Authority are broadly within the scope of the guidelines and, more importantly, of the Act. However, what I said publicly at the Australian Association of Agricultural Consultants (WA) conference at the Duxton Hotel last week was that I am not sufficiently arrogant to believe that we got the formula for the GLA’s construct and, in particular, the regulations and guidelines, right the first time. This is a highly complex issue involving international trade and a differential judgment that the GLA must make, in both temporal and spatial terms, of the premium available from the single desk’s application of power in each market at any time. Some countries have more than one market. For example, southern China and northern China are treated somewhat differently. It is complex. I have told the industry that I want to wait until the end of the selling season to conduct a retrospective examination of what has happened, to ensure that the guidelines as supplied, and possibly even the regulations as gazetted, do in fact deliver the spirit of the Act in practice, with the Act obviously being paramount. (2) In terms of the effect on the holder of the main export licence and its premium in premium markets, few, if any, third party or special export licences have been issued in markets in which a premium can be established. That is my view. Obviously, this is not an empirical statement. In making that statement I am excluding Saudi Arabia as a premium market, as I am the Indian subcontinent for canola. I do not believe, although this is an arguable statement, that there has been any effect on the Grain Pool Pty Ltd’s premiums. (3) On the question of what I will do to ensure that in the future the GLA will remain within the parameters established by the regulations and guidelines, I have already said that I believe that it is. However, I am prepared to reassess whether the regulations and guidelines are adequately delivering on the intent of the Act.
(1) Yes. I have consulted with the Chairman of the Grain Licensing Authority and, through that process, have been able to gain some information that is not readily available; certainly it is not available publicly as it is of a commercial nature. That indicates to me that the decisions that have been made by the Grain Licensing Authority are broadly within the scope of the guidelines and, more importantly, of the Act. However, what I said publicly at the Australian Association of Agricultural Consultants (WA) conference at the Duxton Hotel last week was that I am not sufficiently arrogant to believe that we got the formula for the GLA’s construct and, in particular, the regulations and guidelines, right the first time. This is a highly complex issue involving international trade and a differential judgment that the GLA must make, in both temporal and spatial terms, of the premium available from the single desk’s application of power in each market at any time. Some countries have more than one market. For example, southern China and northern China are treated somewhat differently. It is complex. I have told the industry that I want to wait until the end of the selling season to conduct a retrospective examination of what has happened, to ensure that the guidelines as supplied, and possibly even the regulations as gazetted, do in fact deliver the spirit of the Act in practice, with the Act obviously being paramount. (2) In terms of the effect on the holder of the main export licence and its premium in premium markets, few, if any, third party or special export licences have been issued in markets in which a premium can be established. That is my view. Obviously, this is not an empirical statement. In making that statement I am excluding Saudi Arabia as a premium market, as I am the Indian subcontinent for canola. I do not believe, although this is an arguable statement, that there has been any effect on the Grain Pool Pty Ltd’s premiums. (3) On the question of what I will do to ensure that in the future the GLA will remain within the parameters established by the regulations and guidelines, I have already said that I believe that it is. However, I am prepared to reassess whether the regulations and guidelines are adequately delivering on the intent of the Act.
(2) In terms of the effect on the holder of the main export licence and its premium in premium markets, few, if any, third party or special export licences have been issued in markets in which a premium can be established. That is my view. Obviously, this is not an empirical statement. In making that statement I am excluding Saudi Arabia as a premium market, as I am the Indian subcontinent for canola. I do not believe, although this is an arguable statement, that there has been any effect on the Grain Pool Pty Ltd’s premiums. (3) On the question of what I will do to ensure that in the future the GLA will remain within the parameters established by the regulations and guidelines, I have already said that I believe that it is. However, I am prepared to reassess whether the regulations and guidelines are adequately delivering on the intent of the Act.
(3) On the question of what I will do to ensure that in the future the GLA will remain within the parameters established by the regulations and guidelines, I have already said that I believe that it is. However, I am prepared to reassess whether the regulations and guidelines are adequately delivering on the intent of the Act.
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.