❓ Question regarding alleged financial mismanagement by the previous Labor government concerning the Forest Products Commission, particularly related to plantation investments and borrowings. The Minister defends current government's restructuring efforts.
AnsweredQoN 444Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
FOREST PRODUCTS COMMISSION — LABOR GOVERNMENT FUNDING
During this federal election campaign, the waste of taxpayer money by the federal government has been a prominent theme. Can the minister provide an example of how this state Labor Party, if it could get back into government, would be equally irresponsible with taxpayers’ money? Mr D.T. REDMAN
During this federal election campaign, the waste of taxpayer money by the federal government has been a prominent theme. Can the minister provide an example of how this state Labor Party, if it could get back into government, would be equally irresponsible with taxpayers’ money? Mr D.T. REDMAN
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for Darling Range. Certainly, I look forward to the opportunity to highlight some of the fiscal challenges that we in this government face to fix the irresponsibility of the last government in the area of the Forest Products Commission. Mr P.B. Watson interjected. Mr D.T. REDMAN : There is that noise from the back. I am sure that members in this place — Mr P.B. Watson interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Albany, you are entitled to ask questions in this place but not to continually interject. You know that probably better than most people in here. I formally call you for the second time. Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am sure that members in this place are quite aware of the restructure that we have to manage through the Forest Products Commission. We have had to deal with the challenges as a result of the position that the previous government put the Forest Products Commission in. In going through that process — Mr B.S. Wyatt : interjected. Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am sure the member is very keen to hear this. There was a report that Hayden Lowe did. That is an internal government report. It was a part of cabinet processes and therefore sits under cabinet confidentiality. The response — Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park, you may be interested in the answer; you may be interested in getting more of the answer. I would like to hear the minister answer the question. He may accept an interjection from you, but I will not at this moment. I am formally going to call you for the first time. Mr D.T. REDMAN : The restructure that we have had to go through with the Forest Products Commission is certainly regrettable, but it has been absolutely necessary as a result of the culmination of years of financial mismanagement by the previous Labor government. The response I got from the shadow Minister for Forestry was — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Minister, take a seat. I formally call the member for Victoria Park for the second time. Minister. Mr D.T. REDMAN : Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am just highlighting the response from the Labor Party on the financial challenge and circumstances facing the Forest Products Commission. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, minister. I will give the minister the opportunity to answer this question in a moment. I do not know what the member for Victoria Park is attempting to do. A range of processes for obtaining information are available to all members of this place. One way to obtain information is to listen to the answer a minister is giving. I make that suggestion to the member for Victoria Park at this point. I formally call the member for the third time. Minister. Mr D.T. REDMAN : Thank you, Mr Speaker. The new plantation segment within the Forest Products Commission is the biggest challenge that it faces. This area is a drain on the organisation. It is putting the financial circumstances of the Forest Products Commission in an extremely parlous state. The response of the opposition to my going through what is certainly a regrettable but essential process of restructuring the organisation has been to suggest that we give the FPC another five years of subsidies and see how it goes. The decision on this area was made in about 2005. I attended the launch by Hon Kim Chance of the strategic tree farming exercise in Mt Barker. This project came on the back of $32 million of federal funds and $32 million of state funds, which was made up of $10 million in cash and $22 million in borrowings. At a time when there were successive $2 billion surpluses, the former government put the FPC under financial strain with $22 million of borrowings. This was a classic case in which the government’s mouth was in front of its money. Our government now has to turn that situation around. We have had to make the challenging decision to restructure the FPC and exit from that component. To set up an industry in the new plantation segment takes $40 million a year for 20 years. The former government overlooked that circumstance and made the decision without thinking about the future. Yes, it had a vision, but it was not fiscally responsible enough to play out that decision. Our government has had to make the tough calls. During times of financial restraint, the call from the opposition has been to give the FPC a bit more money—subsidise it a bit more—and let us hope that in five years’ time it will be able to make some money and, down the track, be able to return some sort of benefit to the taxpayers of Western Australia. The former government was financially irresponsible. It allowed this to happen. We have had to make the tough decision. It is certainly regrettable, because some voluntary redundancies will be part of this process. We have also had to locate the FPC within the Department of Agriculture and Food, so that some savings can be made within the bureaucracy by managing the organisation within another organisation. We have had to refocus the core business of the Forest Products Commission to native forests, mature plantations and sandalwood. These are essential decisions. These are tough decisions that this government has had to make. Just like its federal counterparts, the Labor Party did not exercise fiscal responsibility in putting the FPC in this dire financial situation. Our government is making the tough decisions to get through that.
Mr D.T. REDMAN replied: I thank the member for Darling Range. Certainly, I look forward to the opportunity to highlight some of the fiscal challenges that we in this government face to fix the irresponsibility of the last government in the area of the Forest Products Commission. Mr P.B. Watson interjected. Mr D.T. REDMAN : There is that noise from the back. I am sure that members in this place — Mr P.B. Watson interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Albany, you are entitled to ask questions in this place but not to continually interject. You know that probably better than most people in here. I formally call you for the second time. Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am sure that members in this place are quite aware of the restructure that we have to manage through the Forest Products Commission. We have had to deal with the challenges as a result of the position that the previous government put the Forest Products Commission in. In going through that process — Mr B.S. Wyatt : interjected. Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am sure the member is very keen to hear this. There was a report that Hayden Lowe did. That is an internal government report. It was a part of cabinet processes and therefore sits under cabinet confidentiality. The response — Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park, you may be interested in the answer; you may be interested in getting more of the answer. I would like to hear the minister answer the question. He may accept an interjection from you, but I will not at this moment. I am formally going to call you for the first time. Mr D.T. REDMAN : The restructure that we have had to go through with the Forest Products Commission is certainly regrettable, but it has been absolutely necessary as a result of the culmination of years of financial mismanagement by the previous Labor government. The response I got from the shadow Minister for Forestry was — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Minister, take a seat. I formally call the member for Victoria Park for the second time. Minister. Mr D.T. REDMAN : Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am just highlighting the response from the Labor Party on the financial challenge and circumstances facing the Forest Products Commission. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, minister. I will give the minister the opportunity to answer this question in a moment. I do not know what the member for Victoria Park is attempting to do. A range of processes for obtaining information are available to all members of this place. One way to obtain information is to listen to the answer a minister is giving. I make that suggestion to the member for Victoria Park at this point. I formally call the member for the third time. Minister. Mr D.T. REDMAN : Thank you, Mr Speaker. The new plantation segment within the Forest Products Commission is the biggest challenge that it faces. This area is a drain on the organisation. It is putting the financial circumstances of the Forest Products Commission in an extremely parlous state. The response of the opposition to my going through what is certainly a regrettable but essential process of restructuring the organisation has been to suggest that we give the FPC another five years of subsidies and see how it goes. The decision on this area was made in about 2005. I attended the launch by Hon Kim Chance of the strategic tree farming exercise in Mt Barker. This project came on the back of $32 million of federal funds and $32 million of state funds, which was made up of $10 million in cash and $22 million in borrowings. At a time when there were successive $2 billion surpluses, the former government put the FPC under financial strain with $22 million of borrowings. This was a classic case in which the government’s mouth was in front of its money. Our government now has to turn that situation around. We have had to make the challenging decision to restructure the FPC and exit from that component. To set up an industry in the new plantation segment takes $40 million a year for 20 years. The former government overlooked that circumstance and made the decision without thinking about the future. Yes, it had a vision, but it was not fiscally responsible enough to play out that decision. Our government has had to make the tough calls. During times of financial restraint, the call from the opposition has been to give the FPC a bit more money—subsidise it a bit more—and let us hope that in five years’ time it will be able to make some money and, down the track, be able to return some sort of benefit to the taxpayers of Western Australia. The former government was financially irresponsible. It allowed this to happen. We have had to make the tough decision. It is certainly regrettable, because some voluntary redundancies will be part of this process. We have also had to locate the FPC within the Department of Agriculture and Food, so that some savings can be made within the bureaucracy by managing the organisation within another organisation. We have had to refocus the core business of the Forest Products Commission to native forests, mature plantations and sandalwood. These are essential decisions. These are tough decisions that this government has had to make. Just like its federal counterparts, the Labor Party did not exercise fiscal responsibility in putting the FPC in this dire financial situation. Our government is making the tough decisions to get through that.
I thank the member for Darling Range. Certainly, I look forward to the opportunity to highlight some of the fiscal challenges that we in this government face to fix the irresponsibility of the last government in the area of the Forest Products Commission. Mr P.B. Watson interjected. Mr D.T. REDMAN : There is that noise from the back. I am sure that members in this place — Mr P.B. Watson interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Albany, you are entitled to ask questions in this place but not to continually interject. You know that probably better than most people in here. I formally call you for the second time. Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am sure that members in this place are quite aware of the restructure that we have to manage through the Forest Products Commission. We have had to deal with the challenges as a result of the position that the previous government put the Forest Products Commission in. In going through that process — Mr B.S. Wyatt : interjected. Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am sure the member is very keen to hear this. There was a report that Hayden Lowe did. That is an internal government report. It was a part of cabinet processes and therefore sits under cabinet confidentiality. The response — Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park, you may be interested in the answer; you may be interested in getting more of the answer. I would like to hear the minister answer the question. He may accept an interjection from you, but I will not at this moment. I am formally going to call you for the first time. Mr D.T. REDMAN : The restructure that we have had to go through with the Forest Products Commission is certainly regrettable, but it has been absolutely necessary as a result of the culmination of years of financial mismanagement by the previous Labor government. The response I got from the shadow Minister for Forestry was — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Minister, take a seat. I formally call the member for Victoria Park for the second time. Minister. Mr D.T. REDMAN : Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am just highlighting the response from the Labor Party on the financial challenge and circumstances facing the Forest Products Commission. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, minister. I will give the minister the opportunity to answer this question in a moment. I do not know what the member for Victoria Park is attempting to do. A range of processes for obtaining information are available to all members of this place. One way to obtain information is to listen to the answer a minister is giving. I make that suggestion to the member for Victoria Park at this point. I formally call the member for the third time. Minister. Mr D.T. REDMAN : Thank you, Mr Speaker. The new plantation segment within the Forest Products Commission is the biggest challenge that it faces. This area is a drain on the organisation. It is putting the financial circumstances of the Forest Products Commission in an extremely parlous state. The response of the opposition to my going through what is certainly a regrettable but essential process of restructuring the organisation has been to suggest that we give the FPC another five years of subsidies and see how it goes. The decision on this area was made in about 2005. I attended the launch by Hon Kim Chance of the strategic tree farming exercise in Mt Barker. This project came on the back of $32 million of federal funds and $32 million of state funds, which was made up of $10 million in cash and $22 million in borrowings. At a time when there were successive $2 billion surpluses, the former government put the FPC under financial strain with $22 million of borrowings. This was a classic case in which the government’s mouth was in front of its money. Our government now has to turn that situation around. We have had to make the challenging decision to restructure the FPC and exit from that component. To set up an industry in the new plantation segment takes $40 million a year for 20 years. The former government overlooked that circumstance and made the decision without thinking about the future. Yes, it had a vision, but it was not fiscally responsible enough to play out that decision. Our government has had to make the tough calls. During times of financial restraint, the call from the opposition has been to give the FPC a bit more money—subsidise it a bit more—and let us hope that in five years’ time it will be able to make some money and, down the track, be able to return some sort of benefit to the taxpayers of Western Australia. The former government was financially irresponsible. It allowed this to happen. We have had to make the tough decision. It is certainly regrettable, because some voluntary redundancies will be part of this process. We have also had to locate the FPC within the Department of Agriculture and Food, so that some savings can be made within the bureaucracy by managing the organisation within another organisation. We have had to refocus the core business of the Forest Products Commission to native forests, mature plantations and sandalwood. These are essential decisions. These are tough decisions that this government has had to make. Just like its federal counterparts, the Labor Party did not exercise fiscal responsibility in putting the FPC in this dire financial situation. Our government is making the tough decisions to get through that.
Mr P.B. Watson interjected. Mr D.T. REDMAN : There is that noise from the back. I am sure that members in this place — Mr P.B. Watson interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Albany, you are entitled to ask questions in this place but not to continually interject. You know that probably better than most people in here. I formally call you for the second time. Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am sure that members in this place are quite aware of the restructure that we have to manage through the Forest Products Commission. We have had to deal with the challenges as a result of the position that the previous government put the Forest Products Commission in. In going through that process — Mr B.S. Wyatt : interjected. Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am sure the member is very keen to hear this. There was a report that Hayden Lowe did. That is an internal government report. It was a part of cabinet processes and therefore sits under cabinet confidentiality. The response — Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park, you may be interested in the answer; you may be interested in getting more of the answer. I would like to hear the minister answer the question. He may accept an interjection from you, but I will not at this moment. I am formally going to call you for the first time. Mr D.T. REDMAN : The restructure that we have had to go through with the Forest Products Commission is certainly regrettable, but it has been absolutely necessary as a result of the culmination of years of financial mismanagement by the previous Labor government. The response I got from the shadow Minister for Forestry was — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Minister, take a seat. I formally call the member for Victoria Park for the second time. Minister. Mr D.T. REDMAN : Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am just highlighting the response from the Labor Party on the financial challenge and circumstances facing the Forest Products Commission. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, minister. I will give the minister the opportunity to answer this question in a moment. I do not know what the member for Victoria Park is attempting to do. A range of processes for obtaining information are available to all members of this place. One way to obtain information is to listen to the answer a minister is giving. I make that suggestion to the member for Victoria Park at this point. I formally call the member for the third time. Minister. Mr D.T. REDMAN : Thank you, Mr Speaker. The new plantation segment within the Forest Products Commission is the biggest challenge that it faces. This area is a drain on the organisation. It is putting the financial circumstances of the Forest Products Commission in an extremely parlous state. The response of the opposition to my going through what is certainly a regrettable but essential process of restructuring the organisation has been to suggest that we give the FPC another five years of subsidies and see how it goes. The decision on this area was made in about 2005. I attended the launch by Hon Kim Chance of the strategic tree farming exercise in Mt Barker. This project came on the back of $32 million of federal funds and $32 million of state funds, which was made up of $10 million in cash and $22 million in borrowings. At a time when there were successive $2 billion surpluses, the former government put the FPC under financial strain with $22 million of borrowings. This was a classic case in which the government’s mouth was in front of its money. Our government now has to turn that situation around. We have had to make the challenging decision to restructure the FPC and exit from that component. To set up an industry in the new plantation segment takes $40 million a year for 20 years. The former government overlooked that circumstance and made the decision without thinking about the future. Yes, it had a vision, but it was not fiscally responsible enough to play out that decision. Our government has had to make the tough calls. During times of financial restraint, the call from the opposition has been to give the FPC a bit more money—subsidise it a bit more—and let us hope that in five years’ time it will be able to make some money and, down the track, be able to return some sort of benefit to the taxpayers of Western Australia. The former government was financially irresponsible. It allowed this to happen. We have had to make the tough decision. It is certainly regrettable, because some voluntary redundancies will be part of this process. We have also had to locate the FPC within the Department of Agriculture and Food, so that some savings can be made within the bureaucracy by managing the organisation within another organisation. We have had to refocus the core business of the Forest Products Commission to native forests, mature plantations and sandalwood. These are essential decisions. These are tough decisions that this government has had to make. Just like its federal counterparts, the Labor Party did not exercise fiscal responsibility in putting the FPC in this dire financial situation. Our government is making the tough decisions to get through that.
Mr D.T. REDMAN : There is that noise from the back. I am sure that members in this place — Mr P.B. Watson interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Albany, you are entitled to ask questions in this place but not to continually interject. You know that probably better than most people in here. I formally call you for the second time. Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am sure that members in this place are quite aware of the restructure that we have to manage through the Forest Products Commission. We have had to deal with the challenges as a result of the position that the previous government put the Forest Products Commission in. In going through that process — Mr B.S. Wyatt : interjected. Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am sure the member is very keen to hear this. There was a report that Hayden Lowe did. That is an internal government report. It was a part of cabinet processes and therefore sits under cabinet confidentiality. The response — Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park, you may be interested in the answer; you may be interested in getting more of the answer. I would like to hear the minister answer the question. He may accept an interjection from you, but I will not at this moment. I am formally going to call you for the first time. Mr D.T. REDMAN : The restructure that we have had to go through with the Forest Products Commission is certainly regrettable, but it has been absolutely necessary as a result of the culmination of years of financial mismanagement by the previous Labor government. The response I got from the shadow Minister for Forestry was — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Minister, take a seat. I formally call the member for Victoria Park for the second time. Minister. Mr D.T. REDMAN : Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am just highlighting the response from the Labor Party on the financial challenge and circumstances facing the Forest Products Commission. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, minister. I will give the minister the opportunity to answer this question in a moment. I do not know what the member for Victoria Park is attempting to do. A range of processes for obtaining information are available to all members of this place. One way to obtain information is to listen to the answer a minister is giving. I make that suggestion to the member for Victoria Park at this point. I formally call the member for the third time. Minister. Mr D.T. REDMAN : Thank you, Mr Speaker. The new plantation segment within the Forest Products Commission is the biggest challenge that it faces. This area is a drain on the organisation. It is putting the financial circumstances of the Forest Products Commission in an extremely parlous state. The response of the opposition to my going through what is certainly a regrettable but essential process of restructuring the organisation has been to suggest that we give the FPC another five years of subsidies and see how it goes. The decision on this area was made in about 2005. I attended the launch by Hon Kim Chance of the strategic tree farming exercise in Mt Barker. This project came on the back of $32 million of federal funds and $32 million of state funds, which was made up of $10 million in cash and $22 million in borrowings. At a time when there were successive $2 billion surpluses, the former government put the FPC under financial strain with $22 million of borrowings. This was a classic case in which the government’s mouth was in front of its money. Our government now has to turn that situation around. We have had to make the challenging decision to restructure the FPC and exit from that component. To set up an industry in the new plantation segment takes $40 million a year for 20 years. The former government overlooked that circumstance and made the decision without thinking about the future. Yes, it had a vision, but it was not fiscally responsible enough to play out that decision. Our government has had to make the tough calls. During times of financial restraint, the call from the opposition has been to give the FPC a bit more money—subsidise it a bit more—and let us hope that in five years’ time it will be able to make some money and, down the track, be able to return some sort of benefit to the taxpayers of Western Australia. The former government was financially irresponsible. It allowed this to happen. We have had to make the tough decision. It is certainly regrettable, because some voluntary redundancies will be part of this process. We have also had to locate the FPC within the Department of Agriculture and Food, so that some savings can be made within the bureaucracy by managing the organisation within another organisation. We have had to refocus the core business of the Forest Products Commission to native forests, mature plantations and sandalwood. These are essential decisions. These are tough decisions that this government has had to make. Just like its federal counterparts, the Labor Party did not exercise fiscal responsibility in putting the FPC in this dire financial situation. Our government is making the tough decisions to get through that.
Mr P.B. Watson interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Albany, you are entitled to ask questions in this place but not to continually interject. You know that probably better than most people in here. I formally call you for the second time. Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am sure that members in this place are quite aware of the restructure that we have to manage through the Forest Products Commission. We have had to deal with the challenges as a result of the position that the previous government put the Forest Products Commission in. In going through that process — Mr B.S. Wyatt : interjected. Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am sure the member is very keen to hear this. There was a report that Hayden Lowe did. That is an internal government report. It was a part of cabinet processes and therefore sits under cabinet confidentiality. The response — Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park, you may be interested in the answer; you may be interested in getting more of the answer. I would like to hear the minister answer the question. He may accept an interjection from you, but I will not at this moment. I am formally going to call you for the first time. Mr D.T. REDMAN : The restructure that we have had to go through with the Forest Products Commission is certainly regrettable, but it has been absolutely necessary as a result of the culmination of years of financial mismanagement by the previous Labor government. The response I got from the shadow Minister for Forestry was — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Minister, take a seat. I formally call the member for Victoria Park for the second time. Minister. Mr D.T. REDMAN : Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am just highlighting the response from the Labor Party on the financial challenge and circumstances facing the Forest Products Commission. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, minister. I will give the minister the opportunity to answer this question in a moment. I do not know what the member for Victoria Park is attempting to do. A range of processes for obtaining information are available to all members of this place. One way to obtain information is to listen to the answer a minister is giving. I make that suggestion to the member for Victoria Park at this point. I formally call the member for the third time. Minister. Mr D.T. REDMAN : Thank you, Mr Speaker. The new plantation segment within the Forest Products Commission is the biggest challenge that it faces. This area is a drain on the organisation. It is putting the financial circumstances of the Forest Products Commission in an extremely parlous state. The response of the opposition to my going through what is certainly a regrettable but essential process of restructuring the organisation has been to suggest that we give the FPC another five years of subsidies and see how it goes. The decision on this area was made in about 2005. I attended the launch by Hon Kim Chance of the strategic tree farming exercise in Mt Barker. This project came on the back of $32 million of federal funds and $32 million of state funds, which was made up of $10 million in cash and $22 million in borrowings. At a time when there were successive $2 billion surpluses, the former government put the FPC under financial strain with $22 million of borrowings. This was a classic case in which the government’s mouth was in front of its money. Our government now has to turn that situation around. We have had to make the challenging decision to restructure the FPC and exit from that component. To set up an industry in the new plantation segment takes $40 million a year for 20 years. The former government overlooked that circumstance and made the decision without thinking about the future. Yes, it had a vision, but it was not fiscally responsible enough to play out that decision. Our government has had to make the tough calls. During times of financial restraint, the call from the opposition has been to give the FPC a bit more money—subsidise it a bit more—and let us hope that in five years’ time it will be able to make some money and, down the track, be able to return some sort of benefit to the taxpayers of Western Australia. The former government was financially irresponsible. It allowed this to happen. We have had to make the tough decision. It is certainly regrettable, because some voluntary redundancies will be part of this process. We have also had to locate the FPC within the Department of Agriculture and Food, so that some savings can be made within the bureaucracy by managing the organisation within another organisation. We have had to refocus the core business of the Forest Products Commission to native forests, mature plantations and sandalwood. These are essential decisions. These are tough decisions that this government has had to make. Just like its federal counterparts, the Labor Party did not exercise fiscal responsibility in putting the FPC in this dire financial situation. Our government is making the tough decisions to get through that.
The SPEAKER : Member for Albany, you are entitled to ask questions in this place but not to continually interject. You know that probably better than most people in here. I formally call you for the second time. Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am sure that members in this place are quite aware of the restructure that we have to manage through the Forest Products Commission. We have had to deal with the challenges as a result of the position that the previous government put the Forest Products Commission in. In going through that process — Mr B.S. Wyatt : interjected. Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am sure the member is very keen to hear this. There was a report that Hayden Lowe did. That is an internal government report. It was a part of cabinet processes and therefore sits under cabinet confidentiality. The response — Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park, you may be interested in the answer; you may be interested in getting more of the answer. I would like to hear the minister answer the question. He may accept an interjection from you, but I will not at this moment. I am formally going to call you for the first time. Mr D.T. REDMAN : The restructure that we have had to go through with the Forest Products Commission is certainly regrettable, but it has been absolutely necessary as a result of the culmination of years of financial mismanagement by the previous Labor government. The response I got from the shadow Minister for Forestry was — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Minister, take a seat. I formally call the member for Victoria Park for the second time. Minister. Mr D.T. REDMAN : Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am just highlighting the response from the Labor Party on the financial challenge and circumstances facing the Forest Products Commission. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, minister. I will give the minister the opportunity to answer this question in a moment. I do not know what the member for Victoria Park is attempting to do. A range of processes for obtaining information are available to all members of this place. One way to obtain information is to listen to the answer a minister is giving. I make that suggestion to the member for Victoria Park at this point. I formally call the member for the third time. Minister. Mr D.T. REDMAN : Thank you, Mr Speaker. The new plantation segment within the Forest Products Commission is the biggest challenge that it faces. This area is a drain on the organisation. It is putting the financial circumstances of the Forest Products Commission in an extremely parlous state. The response of the opposition to my going through what is certainly a regrettable but essential process of restructuring the organisation has been to suggest that we give the FPC another five years of subsidies and see how it goes. The decision on this area was made in about 2005. I attended the launch by Hon Kim Chance of the strategic tree farming exercise in Mt Barker. This project came on the back of $32 million of federal funds and $32 million of state funds, which was made up of $10 million in cash and $22 million in borrowings. At a time when there were successive $2 billion surpluses, the former government put the FPC under financial strain with $22 million of borrowings. This was a classic case in which the government’s mouth was in front of its money. Our government now has to turn that situation around. We have had to make the challenging decision to restructure the FPC and exit from that component. To set up an industry in the new plantation segment takes $40 million a year for 20 years. The former government overlooked that circumstance and made the decision without thinking about the future. Yes, it had a vision, but it was not fiscally responsible enough to play out that decision. Our government has had to make the tough calls. During times of financial restraint, the call from the opposition has been to give the FPC a bit more money—subsidise it a bit more—and let us hope that in five years’ time it will be able to make some money and, down the track, be able to return some sort of benefit to the taxpayers of Western Australia. The former government was financially irresponsible. It allowed this to happen. We have had to make the tough decision. It is certainly regrettable, because some voluntary redundancies will be part of this process. We have also had to locate the FPC within the Department of Agriculture and Food, so that some savings can be made within the bureaucracy by managing the organisation within another organisation. We have had to refocus the core business of the Forest Products Commission to native forests, mature plantations and sandalwood. These are essential decisions. These are tough decisions that this government has had to make. Just like its federal counterparts, the Labor Party did not exercise fiscal responsibility in putting the FPC in this dire financial situation. Our government is making the tough decisions to get through that.
Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am sure that members in this place are quite aware of the restructure that we have to manage through the Forest Products Commission. We have had to deal with the challenges as a result of the position that the previous government put the Forest Products Commission in. In going through that process — Mr B.S. Wyatt : interjected. Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am sure the member is very keen to hear this. There was a report that Hayden Lowe did. That is an internal government report. It was a part of cabinet processes and therefore sits under cabinet confidentiality. The response — Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park, you may be interested in the answer; you may be interested in getting more of the answer. I would like to hear the minister answer the question. He may accept an interjection from you, but I will not at this moment. I am formally going to call you for the first time. Mr D.T. REDMAN : The restructure that we have had to go through with the Forest Products Commission is certainly regrettable, but it has been absolutely necessary as a result of the culmination of years of financial mismanagement by the previous Labor government. The response I got from the shadow Minister for Forestry was — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Minister, take a seat. I formally call the member for Victoria Park for the second time. Minister. Mr D.T. REDMAN : Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am just highlighting the response from the Labor Party on the financial challenge and circumstances facing the Forest Products Commission. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, minister. I will give the minister the opportunity to answer this question in a moment. I do not know what the member for Victoria Park is attempting to do. A range of processes for obtaining information are available to all members of this place. One way to obtain information is to listen to the answer a minister is giving. I make that suggestion to the member for Victoria Park at this point. I formally call the member for the third time. Minister. Mr D.T. REDMAN : Thank you, Mr Speaker. The new plantation segment within the Forest Products Commission is the biggest challenge that it faces. This area is a drain on the organisation. It is putting the financial circumstances of the Forest Products Commission in an extremely parlous state. The response of the opposition to my going through what is certainly a regrettable but essential process of restructuring the organisation has been to suggest that we give the FPC another five years of subsidies and see how it goes. The decision on this area was made in about 2005. I attended the launch by Hon Kim Chance of the strategic tree farming exercise in Mt Barker. This project came on the back of $32 million of federal funds and $32 million of state funds, which was made up of $10 million in cash and $22 million in borrowings. At a time when there were successive $2 billion surpluses, the former government put the FPC under financial strain with $22 million of borrowings. This was a classic case in which the government’s mouth was in front of its money. Our government now has to turn that situation around. We have had to make the challenging decision to restructure the FPC and exit from that component. To set up an industry in the new plantation segment takes $40 million a year for 20 years. The former government overlooked that circumstance and made the decision without thinking about the future. Yes, it had a vision, but it was not fiscally responsible enough to play out that decision. Our government has had to make the tough calls. During times of financial restraint, the call from the opposition has been to give the FPC a bit more money—subsidise it a bit more—and let us hope that in five years’ time it will be able to make some money and, down the track, be able to return some sort of benefit to the taxpayers of Western Australia. The former government was financially irresponsible. It allowed this to happen. We have had to make the tough decision. It is certainly regrettable, because some voluntary redundancies will be part of this process. We have also had to locate the FPC within the Department of Agriculture and Food, so that some savings can be made within the bureaucracy by managing the organisation within another organisation. We have had to refocus the core business of the Forest Products Commission to native forests, mature plantations and sandalwood. These are essential decisions. These are tough decisions that this government has had to make. Just like its federal counterparts, the Labor Party did not exercise fiscal responsibility in putting the FPC in this dire financial situation. Our government is making the tough decisions to get through that.
Mr B.S. Wyatt : interjected. Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am sure the member is very keen to hear this. There was a report that Hayden Lowe did. That is an internal government report. It was a part of cabinet processes and therefore sits under cabinet confidentiality. The response — Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park, you may be interested in the answer; you may be interested in getting more of the answer. I would like to hear the minister answer the question. He may accept an interjection from you, but I will not at this moment. I am formally going to call you for the first time. Mr D.T. REDMAN : The restructure that we have had to go through with the Forest Products Commission is certainly regrettable, but it has been absolutely necessary as a result of the culmination of years of financial mismanagement by the previous Labor government. The response I got from the shadow Minister for Forestry was — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Minister, take a seat. I formally call the member for Victoria Park for the second time. Minister. Mr D.T. REDMAN : Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am just highlighting the response from the Labor Party on the financial challenge and circumstances facing the Forest Products Commission. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, minister. I will give the minister the opportunity to answer this question in a moment. I do not know what the member for Victoria Park is attempting to do. A range of processes for obtaining information are available to all members of this place. One way to obtain information is to listen to the answer a minister is giving. I make that suggestion to the member for Victoria Park at this point. I formally call the member for the third time. Minister. Mr D.T. REDMAN : Thank you, Mr Speaker. The new plantation segment within the Forest Products Commission is the biggest challenge that it faces. This area is a drain on the organisation. It is putting the financial circumstances of the Forest Products Commission in an extremely parlous state. The response of the opposition to my going through what is certainly a regrettable but essential process of restructuring the organisation has been to suggest that we give the FPC another five years of subsidies and see how it goes. The decision on this area was made in about 2005. I attended the launch by Hon Kim Chance of the strategic tree farming exercise in Mt Barker. This project came on the back of $32 million of federal funds and $32 million of state funds, which was made up of $10 million in cash and $22 million in borrowings. At a time when there were successive $2 billion surpluses, the former government put the FPC under financial strain with $22 million of borrowings. This was a classic case in which the government’s mouth was in front of its money. Our government now has to turn that situation around. We have had to make the challenging decision to restructure the FPC and exit from that component. To set up an industry in the new plantation segment takes $40 million a year for 20 years. The former government overlooked that circumstance and made the decision without thinking about the future. Yes, it had a vision, but it was not fiscally responsible enough to play out that decision. Our government has had to make the tough calls. During times of financial restraint, the call from the opposition has been to give the FPC a bit more money—subsidise it a bit more—and let us hope that in five years’ time it will be able to make some money and, down the track, be able to return some sort of benefit to the taxpayers of Western Australia. The former government was financially irresponsible. It allowed this to happen. We have had to make the tough decision. It is certainly regrettable, because some voluntary redundancies will be part of this process. We have also had to locate the FPC within the Department of Agriculture and Food, so that some savings can be made within the bureaucracy by managing the organisation within another organisation. We have had to refocus the core business of the Forest Products Commission to native forests, mature plantations and sandalwood. These are essential decisions. These are tough decisions that this government has had to make. Just like its federal counterparts, the Labor Party did not exercise fiscal responsibility in putting the FPC in this dire financial situation. Our government is making the tough decisions to get through that.
Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am sure the member is very keen to hear this. There was a report that Hayden Lowe did. That is an internal government report. It was a part of cabinet processes and therefore sits under cabinet confidentiality. The response — Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park, you may be interested in the answer; you may be interested in getting more of the answer. I would like to hear the minister answer the question. He may accept an interjection from you, but I will not at this moment. I am formally going to call you for the first time. Mr D.T. REDMAN : The restructure that we have had to go through with the Forest Products Commission is certainly regrettable, but it has been absolutely necessary as a result of the culmination of years of financial mismanagement by the previous Labor government. The response I got from the shadow Minister for Forestry was — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Minister, take a seat. I formally call the member for Victoria Park for the second time. Minister. Mr D.T. REDMAN : Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am just highlighting the response from the Labor Party on the financial challenge and circumstances facing the Forest Products Commission. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, minister. I will give the minister the opportunity to answer this question in a moment. I do not know what the member for Victoria Park is attempting to do. A range of processes for obtaining information are available to all members of this place. One way to obtain information is to listen to the answer a minister is giving. I make that suggestion to the member for Victoria Park at this point. I formally call the member for the third time. Minister. Mr D.T. REDMAN : Thank you, Mr Speaker. The new plantation segment within the Forest Products Commission is the biggest challenge that it faces. This area is a drain on the organisation. It is putting the financial circumstances of the Forest Products Commission in an extremely parlous state. The response of the opposition to my going through what is certainly a regrettable but essential process of restructuring the organisation has been to suggest that we give the FPC another five years of subsidies and see how it goes. The decision on this area was made in about 2005. I attended the launch by Hon Kim Chance of the strategic tree farming exercise in Mt Barker. This project came on the back of $32 million of federal funds and $32 million of state funds, which was made up of $10 million in cash and $22 million in borrowings. At a time when there were successive $2 billion surpluses, the former government put the FPC under financial strain with $22 million of borrowings. This was a classic case in which the government’s mouth was in front of its money. Our government now has to turn that situation around. We have had to make the challenging decision to restructure the FPC and exit from that component. To set up an industry in the new plantation segment takes $40 million a year for 20 years. The former government overlooked that circumstance and made the decision without thinking about the future. Yes, it had a vision, but it was not fiscally responsible enough to play out that decision. Our government has had to make the tough calls. During times of financial restraint, the call from the opposition has been to give the FPC a bit more money—subsidise it a bit more—and let us hope that in five years’ time it will be able to make some money and, down the track, be able to return some sort of benefit to the taxpayers of Western Australia. The former government was financially irresponsible. It allowed this to happen. We have had to make the tough decision. It is certainly regrettable, because some voluntary redundancies will be part of this process. We have also had to locate the FPC within the Department of Agriculture and Food, so that some savings can be made within the bureaucracy by managing the organisation within another organisation. We have had to refocus the core business of the Forest Products Commission to native forests, mature plantations and sandalwood. These are essential decisions. These are tough decisions that this government has had to make. Just like its federal counterparts, the Labor Party did not exercise fiscal responsibility in putting the FPC in this dire financial situation. Our government is making the tough decisions to get through that.
Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park, you may be interested in the answer; you may be interested in getting more of the answer. I would like to hear the minister answer the question. He may accept an interjection from you, but I will not at this moment. I am formally going to call you for the first time. Mr D.T. REDMAN : The restructure that we have had to go through with the Forest Products Commission is certainly regrettable, but it has been absolutely necessary as a result of the culmination of years of financial mismanagement by the previous Labor government. The response I got from the shadow Minister for Forestry was — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Minister, take a seat. I formally call the member for Victoria Park for the second time. Minister. Mr D.T. REDMAN : Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am just highlighting the response from the Labor Party on the financial challenge and circumstances facing the Forest Products Commission. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, minister. I will give the minister the opportunity to answer this question in a moment. I do not know what the member for Victoria Park is attempting to do. A range of processes for obtaining information are available to all members of this place. One way to obtain information is to listen to the answer a minister is giving. I make that suggestion to the member for Victoria Park at this point. I formally call the member for the third time. Minister. Mr D.T. REDMAN : Thank you, Mr Speaker. The new plantation segment within the Forest Products Commission is the biggest challenge that it faces. This area is a drain on the organisation. It is putting the financial circumstances of the Forest Products Commission in an extremely parlous state. The response of the opposition to my going through what is certainly a regrettable but essential process of restructuring the organisation has been to suggest that we give the FPC another five years of subsidies and see how it goes. The decision on this area was made in about 2005. I attended the launch by Hon Kim Chance of the strategic tree farming exercise in Mt Barker. This project came on the back of $32 million of federal funds and $32 million of state funds, which was made up of $10 million in cash and $22 million in borrowings. At a time when there were successive $2 billion surpluses, the former government put the FPC under financial strain with $22 million of borrowings. This was a classic case in which the government’s mouth was in front of its money. Our government now has to turn that situation around. We have had to make the challenging decision to restructure the FPC and exit from that component. To set up an industry in the new plantation segment takes $40 million a year for 20 years. The former government overlooked that circumstance and made the decision without thinking about the future. Yes, it had a vision, but it was not fiscally responsible enough to play out that decision. Our government has had to make the tough calls. During times of financial restraint, the call from the opposition has been to give the FPC a bit more money—subsidise it a bit more—and let us hope that in five years’ time it will be able to make some money and, down the track, be able to return some sort of benefit to the taxpayers of Western Australia. The former government was financially irresponsible. It allowed this to happen. We have had to make the tough decision. It is certainly regrettable, because some voluntary redundancies will be part of this process. We have also had to locate the FPC within the Department of Agriculture and Food, so that some savings can be made within the bureaucracy by managing the organisation within another organisation. We have had to refocus the core business of the Forest Products Commission to native forests, mature plantations and sandalwood. These are essential decisions. These are tough decisions that this government has had to make. Just like its federal counterparts, the Labor Party did not exercise fiscal responsibility in putting the FPC in this dire financial situation. Our government is making the tough decisions to get through that.
The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park, you may be interested in the answer; you may be interested in getting more of the answer. I would like to hear the minister answer the question. He may accept an interjection from you, but I will not at this moment. I am formally going to call you for the first time. Mr D.T. REDMAN : The restructure that we have had to go through with the Forest Products Commission is certainly regrettable, but it has been absolutely necessary as a result of the culmination of years of financial mismanagement by the previous Labor government. The response I got from the shadow Minister for Forestry was — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Minister, take a seat. I formally call the member for Victoria Park for the second time. Minister. Mr D.T. REDMAN : Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am just highlighting the response from the Labor Party on the financial challenge and circumstances facing the Forest Products Commission. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, minister. I will give the minister the opportunity to answer this question in a moment. I do not know what the member for Victoria Park is attempting to do. A range of processes for obtaining information are available to all members of this place. One way to obtain information is to listen to the answer a minister is giving. I make that suggestion to the member for Victoria Park at this point. I formally call the member for the third time. Minister. Mr D.T. REDMAN : Thank you, Mr Speaker. The new plantation segment within the Forest Products Commission is the biggest challenge that it faces. This area is a drain on the organisation. It is putting the financial circumstances of the Forest Products Commission in an extremely parlous state. The response of the opposition to my going through what is certainly a regrettable but essential process of restructuring the organisation has been to suggest that we give the FPC another five years of subsidies and see how it goes. The decision on this area was made in about 2005. I attended the launch by Hon Kim Chance of the strategic tree farming exercise in Mt Barker. This project came on the back of $32 million of federal funds and $32 million of state funds, which was made up of $10 million in cash and $22 million in borrowings. At a time when there were successive $2 billion surpluses, the former government put the FPC under financial strain with $22 million of borrowings. This was a classic case in which the government’s mouth was in front of its money. Our government now has to turn that situation around. We have had to make the challenging decision to restructure the FPC and exit from that component. To set up an industry in the new plantation segment takes $40 million a year for 20 years. The former government overlooked that circumstance and made the decision without thinking about the future. Yes, it had a vision, but it was not fiscally responsible enough to play out that decision. Our government has had to make the tough calls. During times of financial restraint, the call from the opposition has been to give the FPC a bit more money—subsidise it a bit more—and let us hope that in five years’ time it will be able to make some money and, down the track, be able to return some sort of benefit to the taxpayers of Western Australia. The former government was financially irresponsible. It allowed this to happen. We have had to make the tough decision. It is certainly regrettable, because some voluntary redundancies will be part of this process. We have also had to locate the FPC within the Department of Agriculture and Food, so that some savings can be made within the bureaucracy by managing the organisation within another organisation. We have had to refocus the core business of the Forest Products Commission to native forests, mature plantations and sandalwood. These are essential decisions. These are tough decisions that this government has had to make. Just like its federal counterparts, the Labor Party did not exercise fiscal responsibility in putting the FPC in this dire financial situation. Our government is making the tough decisions to get through that.
Mr D.T. REDMAN : The restructure that we have had to go through with the Forest Products Commission is certainly regrettable, but it has been absolutely necessary as a result of the culmination of years of financial mismanagement by the previous Labor government. The response I got from the shadow Minister for Forestry was — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Minister, take a seat. I formally call the member for Victoria Park for the second time. Minister. Mr D.T. REDMAN : Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am just highlighting the response from the Labor Party on the financial challenge and circumstances facing the Forest Products Commission. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, minister. I will give the minister the opportunity to answer this question in a moment. I do not know what the member for Victoria Park is attempting to do. A range of processes for obtaining information are available to all members of this place. One way to obtain information is to listen to the answer a minister is giving. I make that suggestion to the member for Victoria Park at this point. I formally call the member for the third time. Minister. Mr D.T. REDMAN : Thank you, Mr Speaker. The new plantation segment within the Forest Products Commission is the biggest challenge that it faces. This area is a drain on the organisation. It is putting the financial circumstances of the Forest Products Commission in an extremely parlous state. The response of the opposition to my going through what is certainly a regrettable but essential process of restructuring the organisation has been to suggest that we give the FPC another five years of subsidies and see how it goes. The decision on this area was made in about 2005. I attended the launch by Hon Kim Chance of the strategic tree farming exercise in Mt Barker. This project came on the back of $32 million of federal funds and $32 million of state funds, which was made up of $10 million in cash and $22 million in borrowings. At a time when there were successive $2 billion surpluses, the former government put the FPC under financial strain with $22 million of borrowings. This was a classic case in which the government’s mouth was in front of its money. Our government now has to turn that situation around. We have had to make the challenging decision to restructure the FPC and exit from that component. To set up an industry in the new plantation segment takes $40 million a year for 20 years. The former government overlooked that circumstance and made the decision without thinking about the future. Yes, it had a vision, but it was not fiscally responsible enough to play out that decision. Our government has had to make the tough calls. During times of financial restraint, the call from the opposition has been to give the FPC a bit more money—subsidise it a bit more—and let us hope that in five years’ time it will be able to make some money and, down the track, be able to return some sort of benefit to the taxpayers of Western Australia. The former government was financially irresponsible. It allowed this to happen. We have had to make the tough decision. It is certainly regrettable, because some voluntary redundancies will be part of this process. We have also had to locate the FPC within the Department of Agriculture and Food, so that some savings can be made within the bureaucracy by managing the organisation within another organisation. We have had to refocus the core business of the Forest Products Commission to native forests, mature plantations and sandalwood. These are essential decisions. These are tough decisions that this government has had to make. Just like its federal counterparts, the Labor Party did not exercise fiscal responsibility in putting the FPC in this dire financial situation. Our government is making the tough decisions to get through that.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Minister, take a seat. I formally call the member for Victoria Park for the second time. Minister. Mr D.T. REDMAN : Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am just highlighting the response from the Labor Party on the financial challenge and circumstances facing the Forest Products Commission. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, minister. I will give the minister the opportunity to answer this question in a moment. I do not know what the member for Victoria Park is attempting to do. A range of processes for obtaining information are available to all members of this place. One way to obtain information is to listen to the answer a minister is giving. I make that suggestion to the member for Victoria Park at this point. I formally call the member for the third time. Minister. Mr D.T. REDMAN : Thank you, Mr Speaker. The new plantation segment within the Forest Products Commission is the biggest challenge that it faces. This area is a drain on the organisation. It is putting the financial circumstances of the Forest Products Commission in an extremely parlous state. The response of the opposition to my going through what is certainly a regrettable but essential process of restructuring the organisation has been to suggest that we give the FPC another five years of subsidies and see how it goes. The decision on this area was made in about 2005. I attended the launch by Hon Kim Chance of the strategic tree farming exercise in Mt Barker. This project came on the back of $32 million of federal funds and $32 million of state funds, which was made up of $10 million in cash and $22 million in borrowings. At a time when there were successive $2 billion surpluses, the former government put the FPC under financial strain with $22 million of borrowings. This was a classic case in which the government’s mouth was in front of its money. Our government now has to turn that situation around. We have had to make the challenging decision to restructure the FPC and exit from that component. To set up an industry in the new plantation segment takes $40 million a year for 20 years. The former government overlooked that circumstance and made the decision without thinking about the future. Yes, it had a vision, but it was not fiscally responsible enough to play out that decision. Our government has had to make the tough calls. During times of financial restraint, the call from the opposition has been to give the FPC a bit more money—subsidise it a bit more—and let us hope that in five years’ time it will be able to make some money and, down the track, be able to return some sort of benefit to the taxpayers of Western Australia. The former government was financially irresponsible. It allowed this to happen. We have had to make the tough decision. It is certainly regrettable, because some voluntary redundancies will be part of this process. We have also had to locate the FPC within the Department of Agriculture and Food, so that some savings can be made within the bureaucracy by managing the organisation within another organisation. We have had to refocus the core business of the Forest Products Commission to native forests, mature plantations and sandalwood. These are essential decisions. These are tough decisions that this government has had to make. Just like its federal counterparts, the Labor Party did not exercise fiscal responsibility in putting the FPC in this dire financial situation. Our government is making the tough decisions to get through that.
The SPEAKER : Minister, take a seat. I formally call the member for Victoria Park for the second time. Minister. Mr D.T. REDMAN : Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am just highlighting the response from the Labor Party on the financial challenge and circumstances facing the Forest Products Commission. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, minister. I will give the minister the opportunity to answer this question in a moment. I do not know what the member for Victoria Park is attempting to do. A range of processes for obtaining information are available to all members of this place. One way to obtain information is to listen to the answer a minister is giving. I make that suggestion to the member for Victoria Park at this point. I formally call the member for the third time. Minister. Mr D.T. REDMAN : Thank you, Mr Speaker. The new plantation segment within the Forest Products Commission is the biggest challenge that it faces. This area is a drain on the organisation. It is putting the financial circumstances of the Forest Products Commission in an extremely parlous state. The response of the opposition to my going through what is certainly a regrettable but essential process of restructuring the organisation has been to suggest that we give the FPC another five years of subsidies and see how it goes. The decision on this area was made in about 2005. I attended the launch by Hon Kim Chance of the strategic tree farming exercise in Mt Barker. This project came on the back of $32 million of federal funds and $32 million of state funds, which was made up of $10 million in cash and $22 million in borrowings. At a time when there were successive $2 billion surpluses, the former government put the FPC under financial strain with $22 million of borrowings. This was a classic case in which the government’s mouth was in front of its money. Our government now has to turn that situation around. We have had to make the challenging decision to restructure the FPC and exit from that component. To set up an industry in the new plantation segment takes $40 million a year for 20 years. The former government overlooked that circumstance and made the decision without thinking about the future. Yes, it had a vision, but it was not fiscally responsible enough to play out that decision. Our government has had to make the tough calls. During times of financial restraint, the call from the opposition has been to give the FPC a bit more money—subsidise it a bit more—and let us hope that in five years’ time it will be able to make some money and, down the track, be able to return some sort of benefit to the taxpayers of Western Australia. The former government was financially irresponsible. It allowed this to happen. We have had to make the tough decision. It is certainly regrettable, because some voluntary redundancies will be part of this process. We have also had to locate the FPC within the Department of Agriculture and Food, so that some savings can be made within the bureaucracy by managing the organisation within another organisation. We have had to refocus the core business of the Forest Products Commission to native forests, mature plantations and sandalwood. These are essential decisions. These are tough decisions that this government has had to make. Just like its federal counterparts, the Labor Party did not exercise fiscal responsibility in putting the FPC in this dire financial situation. Our government is making the tough decisions to get through that.
Mr D.T. REDMAN : Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am just highlighting the response from the Labor Party on the financial challenge and circumstances facing the Forest Products Commission. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, minister. I will give the minister the opportunity to answer this question in a moment. I do not know what the member for Victoria Park is attempting to do. A range of processes for obtaining information are available to all members of this place. One way to obtain information is to listen to the answer a minister is giving. I make that suggestion to the member for Victoria Park at this point. I formally call the member for the third time. Minister. Mr D.T. REDMAN : Thank you, Mr Speaker. The new plantation segment within the Forest Products Commission is the biggest challenge that it faces. This area is a drain on the organisation. It is putting the financial circumstances of the Forest Products Commission in an extremely parlous state. The response of the opposition to my going through what is certainly a regrettable but essential process of restructuring the organisation has been to suggest that we give the FPC another five years of subsidies and see how it goes. The decision on this area was made in about 2005. I attended the launch by Hon Kim Chance of the strategic tree farming exercise in Mt Barker. This project came on the back of $32 million of federal funds and $32 million of state funds, which was made up of $10 million in cash and $22 million in borrowings. At a time when there were successive $2 billion surpluses, the former government put the FPC under financial strain with $22 million of borrowings. This was a classic case in which the government’s mouth was in front of its money. Our government now has to turn that situation around. We have had to make the challenging decision to restructure the FPC and exit from that component. To set up an industry in the new plantation segment takes $40 million a year for 20 years. The former government overlooked that circumstance and made the decision without thinking about the future. Yes, it had a vision, but it was not fiscally responsible enough to play out that decision. Our government has had to make the tough calls. During times of financial restraint, the call from the opposition has been to give the FPC a bit more money—subsidise it a bit more—and let us hope that in five years’ time it will be able to make some money and, down the track, be able to return some sort of benefit to the taxpayers of Western Australia. The former government was financially irresponsible. It allowed this to happen. We have had to make the tough decision. It is certainly regrettable, because some voluntary redundancies will be part of this process. We have also had to locate the FPC within the Department of Agriculture and Food, so that some savings can be made within the bureaucracy by managing the organisation within another organisation. We have had to refocus the core business of the Forest Products Commission to native forests, mature plantations and sandalwood. These are essential decisions. These are tough decisions that this government has had to make. Just like its federal counterparts, the Labor Party did not exercise fiscal responsibility in putting the FPC in this dire financial situation. Our government is making the tough decisions to get through that.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, minister. I will give the minister the opportunity to answer this question in a moment. I do not know what the member for Victoria Park is attempting to do. A range of processes for obtaining information are available to all members of this place. One way to obtain information is to listen to the answer a minister is giving. I make that suggestion to the member for Victoria Park at this point. I formally call the member for the third time. Minister. Mr D.T. REDMAN : Thank you, Mr Speaker. The new plantation segment within the Forest Products Commission is the biggest challenge that it faces. This area is a drain on the organisation. It is putting the financial circumstances of the Forest Products Commission in an extremely parlous state. The response of the opposition to my going through what is certainly a regrettable but essential process of restructuring the organisation has been to suggest that we give the FPC another five years of subsidies and see how it goes. The decision on this area was made in about 2005. I attended the launch by Hon Kim Chance of the strategic tree farming exercise in Mt Barker. This project came on the back of $32 million of federal funds and $32 million of state funds, which was made up of $10 million in cash and $22 million in borrowings. At a time when there were successive $2 billion surpluses, the former government put the FPC under financial strain with $22 million of borrowings. This was a classic case in which the government’s mouth was in front of its money. Our government now has to turn that situation around. We have had to make the challenging decision to restructure the FPC and exit from that component. To set up an industry in the new plantation segment takes $40 million a year for 20 years. The former government overlooked that circumstance and made the decision without thinking about the future. Yes, it had a vision, but it was not fiscally responsible enough to play out that decision. Our government has had to make the tough calls. During times of financial restraint, the call from the opposition has been to give the FPC a bit more money—subsidise it a bit more—and let us hope that in five years’ time it will be able to make some money and, down the track, be able to return some sort of benefit to the taxpayers of Western Australia. The former government was financially irresponsible. It allowed this to happen. We have had to make the tough decision. It is certainly regrettable, because some voluntary redundancies will be part of this process. We have also had to locate the FPC within the Department of Agriculture and Food, so that some savings can be made within the bureaucracy by managing the organisation within another organisation. We have had to refocus the core business of the Forest Products Commission to native forests, mature plantations and sandalwood. These are essential decisions. These are tough decisions that this government has had to make. Just like its federal counterparts, the Labor Party did not exercise fiscal responsibility in putting the FPC in this dire financial situation. Our government is making the tough decisions to get through that.
The SPEAKER : Take a seat, minister. I will give the minister the opportunity to answer this question in a moment. I do not know what the member for Victoria Park is attempting to do. A range of processes for obtaining information are available to all members of this place. One way to obtain information is to listen to the answer a minister is giving. I make that suggestion to the member for Victoria Park at this point. I formally call the member for the third time. Minister. Mr D.T. REDMAN : Thank you, Mr Speaker. The new plantation segment within the Forest Products Commission is the biggest challenge that it faces. This area is a drain on the organisation. It is putting the financial circumstances of the Forest Products Commission in an extremely parlous state. The response of the opposition to my going through what is certainly a regrettable but essential process of restructuring the organisation has been to suggest that we give the FPC another five years of subsidies and see how it goes. The decision on this area was made in about 2005. I attended the launch by Hon Kim Chance of the strategic tree farming exercise in Mt Barker. This project came on the back of $32 million of federal funds and $32 million of state funds, which was made up of $10 million in cash and $22 million in borrowings. At a time when there were successive $2 billion surpluses, the former government put the FPC under financial strain with $22 million of borrowings. This was a classic case in which the government’s mouth was in front of its money. Our government now has to turn that situation around. We have had to make the challenging decision to restructure the FPC and exit from that component. To set up an industry in the new plantation segment takes $40 million a year for 20 years. The former government overlooked that circumstance and made the decision without thinking about the future. Yes, it had a vision, but it was not fiscally responsible enough to play out that decision. Our government has had to make the tough calls. During times of financial restraint, the call from the opposition has been to give the FPC a bit more money—subsidise it a bit more—and let us hope that in five years’ time it will be able to make some money and, down the track, be able to return some sort of benefit to the taxpayers of Western Australia. The former government was financially irresponsible. It allowed this to happen. We have had to make the tough decision. It is certainly regrettable, because some voluntary redundancies will be part of this process. We have also had to locate the FPC within the Department of Agriculture and Food, so that some savings can be made within the bureaucracy by managing the organisation within another organisation. We have had to refocus the core business of the Forest Products Commission to native forests, mature plantations and sandalwood. These are essential decisions. These are tough decisions that this government has had to make. Just like its federal counterparts, the Labor Party did not exercise fiscal responsibility in putting the FPC in this dire financial situation. Our government is making the tough decisions to get through that.
Mr D.T. REDMAN : Thank you, Mr Speaker. The new plantation segment within the Forest Products Commission is the biggest challenge that it faces. This area is a drain on the organisation. It is putting the financial circumstances of the Forest Products Commission in an extremely parlous state. The response of the opposition to my going through what is certainly a regrettable but essential process of restructuring the organisation has been to suggest that we give the FPC another five years of subsidies and see how it goes. The decision on this area was made in about 2005. I attended the launch by Hon Kim Chance of the strategic tree farming exercise in Mt Barker. This project came on the back of $32 million of federal funds and $32 million of state funds, which was made up of $10 million in cash and $22 million in borrowings. At a time when there were successive $2 billion surpluses, the former government put the FPC under financial strain with $22 million of borrowings. This was a classic case in which the government’s mouth was in front of its money. Our government now has to turn that situation around. We have had to make the challenging decision to restructure the FPC and exit from that component. To set up an industry in the new plantation segment takes $40 million a year for 20 years. The former government overlooked that circumstance and made the decision without thinking about the future. Yes, it had a vision, but it was not fiscally responsible enough to play out that decision. Our government has had to make the tough calls. During times of financial restraint, the call from the opposition has been to give the FPC a bit more money—subsidise it a bit more—and let us hope that in five years’ time it will be able to make some money and, down the track, be able to return some sort of benefit to the taxpayers of Western Australia. The former government was financially irresponsible. It allowed this to happen. We have had to make the tough decision. It is certainly regrettable, because some voluntary redundancies will be part of this process. We have also had to locate the FPC within the Department of Agriculture and Food, so that some savings can be made within the bureaucracy by managing the organisation within another organisation. We have had to refocus the core business of the Forest Products Commission to native forests, mature plantations and sandalwood. These are essential decisions. These are tough decisions that this government has had to make. Just like its federal counterparts, the Labor Party did not exercise fiscal responsibility in putting the FPC in this dire financial situation. Our government is making the tough decisions to get through that.
To set up an industry in the new plantation segment takes $40 million a year for 20 years. The former government overlooked that circumstance and made the decision without thinking about the future. Yes, it had a vision, but it was not fiscally responsible enough to play out that decision. Our government has had to make the tough calls. During times of financial restraint, the call from the opposition has been to give the FPC a bit more money—subsidise it a bit more—and let us hope that in five years’ time it will be able to make some money and, down the track, be able to return some sort of benefit to the taxpayers of Western Australia. The former government was financially irresponsible. It allowed this to happen. We have had to make the tough decision. It is certainly regrettable, because some voluntary redundancies will be part of this process. We have also had to locate the FPC within the Department of Agriculture and Food, so that some savings can be made within the bureaucracy by managing the organisation within another organisation. We have had to refocus the core business of the Forest Products Commission to native forests, mature plantations and sandalwood. These are essential decisions. These are tough decisions that this government has had to make. Just like its federal counterparts, the Labor Party did not exercise fiscal responsibility in putting the FPC in this dire financial situation. Our government is making the tough decisions to get through that.
Mr D.T. REDMAN replied: I thank the member for Darling Range. Certainly, I look forward to the opportunity to highlight some of the fiscal challenges that we in this government face to fix the irresponsibility of the last government in the area of the Forest Products Commission. Mr P.B. Watson interjected. Mr D.T. REDMAN : There is that noise from the back. I am sure that members in this place — Mr P.B. Watson interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Albany, you are entitled to ask questions in this place but not to continually interject. You know that probably better than most people in here. I formally call you for the second time. Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am sure that members in this place are quite aware of the restructure that we have to manage through the Forest Products Commission. We have had to deal with the challenges as a result of the position that the previous government put the Forest Products Commission in. In going through that process — Mr B.S. Wyatt : interjected. Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am sure the member is very keen to hear this. There was a report that Hayden Lowe did. That is an internal government report. It was a part of cabinet processes and therefore sits under cabinet confidentiality. The response — Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park, you may be interested in the answer; you may be interested in getting more of the answer. I would like to hear the minister answer the question. He may accept an interjection from you, but I will not at this moment. I am formally going to call you for the first time. Mr D.T. REDMAN : The restructure that we have had to go through with the Forest Products Commission is certainly regrettable, but it has been absolutely necessary as a result of the culmination of years of financial mismanagement by the previous Labor government. The response I got from the shadow Minister for Forestry was — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Minister, take a seat. I formally call the member for Victoria Park for the second time. Minister. Mr D.T. REDMAN : Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am just highlighting the response from the Labor Party on the financial challenge and circumstances facing the Forest Products Commission. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, minister. I will give the minister the opportunity to answer this question in a moment. I do not know what the member for Victoria Park is attempting to do. A range of processes for obtaining information are available to all members of this place. One way to obtain information is to listen to the answer a minister is giving. I make that suggestion to the member for Victoria Park at this point. I formally call the member for the third time. Minister. Mr D.T. REDMAN : Thank you, Mr Speaker. The new plantation segment within the Forest Products Commission is the biggest challenge that it faces. This area is a drain on the organisation. It is putting the financial circumstances of the Forest Products Commission in an extremely parlous state. The response of the opposition to my going through what is certainly a regrettable but essential process of restructuring the organisation has been to suggest that we give the FPC another five years of subsidies and see how it goes. The decision on this area was made in about 2005. I attended the launch by Hon Kim Chance of the strategic tree farming exercise in Mt Barker. This project came on the back of $32 million of federal funds and $32 million of state funds, which was made up of $10 million in cash and $22 million in borrowings. At a time when there were successive $2 billion surpluses, the former government put the FPC under financial strain with $22 million of borrowings. This was a classic case in which the government’s mouth was in front of its money. Our government now has to turn that situation around. We have had to make the challenging decision to restructure the FPC and exit from that component. To set up an industry in the new plantation segment takes $40 million a year for 20 years. The former government overlooked that circumstance and made the decision without thinking about the future. Yes, it had a vision, but it was not fiscally responsible enough to play out that decision. Our government has had to make the tough calls. During times of financial restraint, the call from the opposition has been to give the FPC a bit more money—subsidise it a bit more—and let us hope that in five years’ time it will be able to make some money and, down the track, be able to return some sort of benefit to the taxpayers of Western Australia. The former government was financially irresponsible. It allowed this to happen. We have had to make the tough decision. It is certainly regrettable, because some voluntary redundancies will be part of this process. We have also had to locate the FPC within the Department of Agriculture and Food, so that some savings can be made within the bureaucracy by managing the organisation within another organisation. We have had to refocus the core business of the Forest Products Commission to native forests, mature plantations and sandalwood. These are essential decisions. These are tough decisions that this government has had to make. Just like its federal counterparts, the Labor Party did not exercise fiscal responsibility in putting the FPC in this dire financial situation. Our government is making the tough decisions to get through that.
I thank the member for Darling Range. Certainly, I look forward to the opportunity to highlight some of the fiscal challenges that we in this government face to fix the irresponsibility of the last government in the area of the Forest Products Commission. Mr P.B. Watson interjected. Mr D.T. REDMAN : There is that noise from the back. I am sure that members in this place — Mr P.B. Watson interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Albany, you are entitled to ask questions in this place but not to continually interject. You know that probably better than most people in here. I formally call you for the second time. Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am sure that members in this place are quite aware of the restructure that we have to manage through the Forest Products Commission. We have had to deal with the challenges as a result of the position that the previous government put the Forest Products Commission in. In going through that process — Mr B.S. Wyatt : interjected. Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am sure the member is very keen to hear this. There was a report that Hayden Lowe did. That is an internal government report. It was a part of cabinet processes and therefore sits under cabinet confidentiality. The response — Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park, you may be interested in the answer; you may be interested in getting more of the answer. I would like to hear the minister answer the question. He may accept an interjection from you, but I will not at this moment. I am formally going to call you for the first time. Mr D.T. REDMAN : The restructure that we have had to go through with the Forest Products Commission is certainly regrettable, but it has been absolutely necessary as a result of the culmination of years of financial mismanagement by the previous Labor government. The response I got from the shadow Minister for Forestry was — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Minister, take a seat. I formally call the member for Victoria Park for the second time. Minister. Mr D.T. REDMAN : Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am just highlighting the response from the Labor Party on the financial challenge and circumstances facing the Forest Products Commission. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, minister. I will give the minister the opportunity to answer this question in a moment. I do not know what the member for Victoria Park is attempting to do. A range of processes for obtaining information are available to all members of this place. One way to obtain information is to listen to the answer a minister is giving. I make that suggestion to the member for Victoria Park at this point. I formally call the member for the third time. Minister. Mr D.T. REDMAN : Thank you, Mr Speaker. The new plantation segment within the Forest Products Commission is the biggest challenge that it faces. This area is a drain on the organisation. It is putting the financial circumstances of the Forest Products Commission in an extremely parlous state. The response of the opposition to my going through what is certainly a regrettable but essential process of restructuring the organisation has been to suggest that we give the FPC another five years of subsidies and see how it goes. The decision on this area was made in about 2005. I attended the launch by Hon Kim Chance of the strategic tree farming exercise in Mt Barker. This project came on the back of $32 million of federal funds and $32 million of state funds, which was made up of $10 million in cash and $22 million in borrowings. At a time when there were successive $2 billion surpluses, the former government put the FPC under financial strain with $22 million of borrowings. This was a classic case in which the government’s mouth was in front of its money. Our government now has to turn that situation around. We have had to make the challenging decision to restructure the FPC and exit from that component. To set up an industry in the new plantation segment takes $40 million a year for 20 years. The former government overlooked that circumstance and made the decision without thinking about the future. Yes, it had a vision, but it was not fiscally responsible enough to play out that decision. Our government has had to make the tough calls. During times of financial restraint, the call from the opposition has been to give the FPC a bit more money—subsidise it a bit more—and let us hope that in five years’ time it will be able to make some money and, down the track, be able to return some sort of benefit to the taxpayers of Western Australia. The former government was financially irresponsible. It allowed this to happen. We have had to make the tough decision. It is certainly regrettable, because some voluntary redundancies will be part of this process. We have also had to locate the FPC within the Department of Agriculture and Food, so that some savings can be made within the bureaucracy by managing the organisation within another organisation. We have had to refocus the core business of the Forest Products Commission to native forests, mature plantations and sandalwood. These are essential decisions. These are tough decisions that this government has had to make. Just like its federal counterparts, the Labor Party did not exercise fiscal responsibility in putting the FPC in this dire financial situation. Our government is making the tough decisions to get through that.
Mr P.B. Watson interjected. Mr D.T. REDMAN : There is that noise from the back. I am sure that members in this place — Mr P.B. Watson interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Albany, you are entitled to ask questions in this place but not to continually interject. You know that probably better than most people in here. I formally call you for the second time. Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am sure that members in this place are quite aware of the restructure that we have to manage through the Forest Products Commission. We have had to deal with the challenges as a result of the position that the previous government put the Forest Products Commission in. In going through that process — Mr B.S. Wyatt : interjected. Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am sure the member is very keen to hear this. There was a report that Hayden Lowe did. That is an internal government report. It was a part of cabinet processes and therefore sits under cabinet confidentiality. The response — Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park, you may be interested in the answer; you may be interested in getting more of the answer. I would like to hear the minister answer the question. He may accept an interjection from you, but I will not at this moment. I am formally going to call you for the first time. Mr D.T. REDMAN : The restructure that we have had to go through with the Forest Products Commission is certainly regrettable, but it has been absolutely necessary as a result of the culmination of years of financial mismanagement by the previous Labor government. The response I got from the shadow Minister for Forestry was — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Minister, take a seat. I formally call the member for Victoria Park for the second time. Minister. Mr D.T. REDMAN : Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am just highlighting the response from the Labor Party on the financial challenge and circumstances facing the Forest Products Commission. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, minister. I will give the minister the opportunity to answer this question in a moment. I do not know what the member for Victoria Park is attempting to do. A range of processes for obtaining information are available to all members of this place. One way to obtain information is to listen to the answer a minister is giving. I make that suggestion to the member for Victoria Park at this point. I formally call the member for the third time. Minister. Mr D.T. REDMAN : Thank you, Mr Speaker. The new plantation segment within the Forest Products Commission is the biggest challenge that it faces. This area is a drain on the organisation. It is putting the financial circumstances of the Forest Products Commission in an extremely parlous state. The response of the opposition to my going through what is certainly a regrettable but essential process of restructuring the organisation has been to suggest that we give the FPC another five years of subsidies and see how it goes. The decision on this area was made in about 2005. I attended the launch by Hon Kim Chance of the strategic tree farming exercise in Mt Barker. This project came on the back of $32 million of federal funds and $32 million of state funds, which was made up of $10 million in cash and $22 million in borrowings. At a time when there were successive $2 billion surpluses, the former government put the FPC under financial strain with $22 million of borrowings. This was a classic case in which the government’s mouth was in front of its money. Our government now has to turn that situation around. We have had to make the challenging decision to restructure the FPC and exit from that component. To set up an industry in the new plantation segment takes $40 million a year for 20 years. The former government overlooked that circumstance and made the decision without thinking about the future. Yes, it had a vision, but it was not fiscally responsible enough to play out that decision. Our government has had to make the tough calls. During times of financial restraint, the call from the opposition has been to give the FPC a bit more money—subsidise it a bit more—and let us hope that in five years’ time it will be able to make some money and, down the track, be able to return some sort of benefit to the taxpayers of Western Australia. The former government was financially irresponsible. It allowed this to happen. We have had to make the tough decision. It is certainly regrettable, because some voluntary redundancies will be part of this process. We have also had to locate the FPC within the Department of Agriculture and Food, so that some savings can be made within the bureaucracy by managing the organisation within another organisation. We have had to refocus the core business of the Forest Products Commission to native forests, mature plantations and sandalwood. These are essential decisions. These are tough decisions that this government has had to make. Just like its federal counterparts, the Labor Party did not exercise fiscal responsibility in putting the FPC in this dire financial situation. Our government is making the tough decisions to get through that.
Mr D.T. REDMAN : There is that noise from the back. I am sure that members in this place — Mr P.B. Watson interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Albany, you are entitled to ask questions in this place but not to continually interject. You know that probably better than most people in here. I formally call you for the second time. Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am sure that members in this place are quite aware of the restructure that we have to manage through the Forest Products Commission. We have had to deal with the challenges as a result of the position that the previous government put the Forest Products Commission in. In going through that process — Mr B.S. Wyatt : interjected. Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am sure the member is very keen to hear this. There was a report that Hayden Lowe did. That is an internal government report. It was a part of cabinet processes and therefore sits under cabinet confidentiality. The response — Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park, you may be interested in the answer; you may be interested in getting more of the answer. I would like to hear the minister answer the question. He may accept an interjection from you, but I will not at this moment. I am formally going to call you for the first time. Mr D.T. REDMAN : The restructure that we have had to go through with the Forest Products Commission is certainly regrettable, but it has been absolutely necessary as a result of the culmination of years of financial mismanagement by the previous Labor government. The response I got from the shadow Minister for Forestry was — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Minister, take a seat. I formally call the member for Victoria Park for the second time. Minister. Mr D.T. REDMAN : Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am just highlighting the response from the Labor Party on the financial challenge and circumstances facing the Forest Products Commission. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, minister. I will give the minister the opportunity to answer this question in a moment. I do not know what the member for Victoria Park is attempting to do. A range of processes for obtaining information are available to all members of this place. One way to obtain information is to listen to the answer a minister is giving. I make that suggestion to the member for Victoria Park at this point. I formally call the member for the third time. Minister. Mr D.T. REDMAN : Thank you, Mr Speaker. The new plantation segment within the Forest Products Commission is the biggest challenge that it faces. This area is a drain on the organisation. It is putting the financial circumstances of the Forest Products Commission in an extremely parlous state. The response of the opposition to my going through what is certainly a regrettable but essential process of restructuring the organisation has been to suggest that we give the FPC another five years of subsidies and see how it goes. The decision on this area was made in about 2005. I attended the launch by Hon Kim Chance of the strategic tree farming exercise in Mt Barker. This project came on the back of $32 million of federal funds and $32 million of state funds, which was made up of $10 million in cash and $22 million in borrowings. At a time when there were successive $2 billion surpluses, the former government put the FPC under financial strain with $22 million of borrowings. This was a classic case in which the government’s mouth was in front of its money. Our government now has to turn that situation around. We have had to make the challenging decision to restructure the FPC and exit from that component. To set up an industry in the new plantation segment takes $40 million a year for 20 years. The former government overlooked that circumstance and made the decision without thinking about the future. Yes, it had a vision, but it was not fiscally responsible enough to play out that decision. Our government has had to make the tough calls. During times of financial restraint, the call from the opposition has been to give the FPC a bit more money—subsidise it a bit more—and let us hope that in five years’ time it will be able to make some money and, down the track, be able to return some sort of benefit to the taxpayers of Western Australia. The former government was financially irresponsible. It allowed this to happen. We have had to make the tough decision. It is certainly regrettable, because some voluntary redundancies will be part of this process. We have also had to locate the FPC within the Department of Agriculture and Food, so that some savings can be made within the bureaucracy by managing the organisation within another organisation. We have had to refocus the core business of the Forest Products Commission to native forests, mature plantations and sandalwood. These are essential decisions. These are tough decisions that this government has had to make. Just like its federal counterparts, the Labor Party did not exercise fiscal responsibility in putting the FPC in this dire financial situation. Our government is making the tough decisions to get through that.
Mr P.B. Watson interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Albany, you are entitled to ask questions in this place but not to continually interject. You know that probably better than most people in here. I formally call you for the second time. Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am sure that members in this place are quite aware of the restructure that we have to manage through the Forest Products Commission. We have had to deal with the challenges as a result of the position that the previous government put the Forest Products Commission in. In going through that process — Mr B.S. Wyatt : interjected. Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am sure the member is very keen to hear this. There was a report that Hayden Lowe did. That is an internal government report. It was a part of cabinet processes and therefore sits under cabinet confidentiality. The response — Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park, you may be interested in the answer; you may be interested in getting more of the answer. I would like to hear the minister answer the question. He may accept an interjection from you, but I will not at this moment. I am formally going to call you for the first time. Mr D.T. REDMAN : The restructure that we have had to go through with the Forest Products Commission is certainly regrettable, but it has been absolutely necessary as a result of the culmination of years of financial mismanagement by the previous Labor government. The response I got from the shadow Minister for Forestry was — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Minister, take a seat. I formally call the member for Victoria Park for the second time. Minister. Mr D.T. REDMAN : Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am just highlighting the response from the Labor Party on the financial challenge and circumstances facing the Forest Products Commission. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, minister. I will give the minister the opportunity to answer this question in a moment. I do not know what the member for Victoria Park is attempting to do. A range of processes for obtaining information are available to all members of this place. One way to obtain information is to listen to the answer a minister is giving. I make that suggestion to the member for Victoria Park at this point. I formally call the member for the third time. Minister. Mr D.T. REDMAN : Thank you, Mr Speaker. The new plantation segment within the Forest Products Commission is the biggest challenge that it faces. This area is a drain on the organisation. It is putting the financial circumstances of the Forest Products Commission in an extremely parlous state. The response of the opposition to my going through what is certainly a regrettable but essential process of restructuring the organisation has been to suggest that we give the FPC another five years of subsidies and see how it goes. The decision on this area was made in about 2005. I attended the launch by Hon Kim Chance of the strategic tree farming exercise in Mt Barker. This project came on the back of $32 million of federal funds and $32 million of state funds, which was made up of $10 million in cash and $22 million in borrowings. At a time when there were successive $2 billion surpluses, the former government put the FPC under financial strain with $22 million of borrowings. This was a classic case in which the government’s mouth was in front of its money. Our government now has to turn that situation around. We have had to make the challenging decision to restructure the FPC and exit from that component. To set up an industry in the new plantation segment takes $40 million a year for 20 years. The former government overlooked that circumstance and made the decision without thinking about the future. Yes, it had a vision, but it was not fiscally responsible enough to play out that decision. Our government has had to make the tough calls. During times of financial restraint, the call from the opposition has been to give the FPC a bit more money—subsidise it a bit more—and let us hope that in five years’ time it will be able to make some money and, down the track, be able to return some sort of benefit to the taxpayers of Western Australia. The former government was financially irresponsible. It allowed this to happen. We have had to make the tough decision. It is certainly regrettable, because some voluntary redundancies will be part of this process. We have also had to locate the FPC within the Department of Agriculture and Food, so that some savings can be made within the bureaucracy by managing the organisation within another organisation. We have had to refocus the core business of the Forest Products Commission to native forests, mature plantations and sandalwood. These are essential decisions. These are tough decisions that this government has had to make. Just like its federal counterparts, the Labor Party did not exercise fiscal responsibility in putting the FPC in this dire financial situation. Our government is making the tough decisions to get through that.
The SPEAKER : Member for Albany, you are entitled to ask questions in this place but not to continually interject. You know that probably better than most people in here. I formally call you for the second time. Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am sure that members in this place are quite aware of the restructure that we have to manage through the Forest Products Commission. We have had to deal with the challenges as a result of the position that the previous government put the Forest Products Commission in. In going through that process — Mr B.S. Wyatt : interjected. Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am sure the member is very keen to hear this. There was a report that Hayden Lowe did. That is an internal government report. It was a part of cabinet processes and therefore sits under cabinet confidentiality. The response — Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park, you may be interested in the answer; you may be interested in getting more of the answer. I would like to hear the minister answer the question. He may accept an interjection from you, but I will not at this moment. I am formally going to call you for the first time. Mr D.T. REDMAN : The restructure that we have had to go through with the Forest Products Commission is certainly regrettable, but it has been absolutely necessary as a result of the culmination of years of financial mismanagement by the previous Labor government. The response I got from the shadow Minister for Forestry was — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Minister, take a seat. I formally call the member for Victoria Park for the second time. Minister. Mr D.T. REDMAN : Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am just highlighting the response from the Labor Party on the financial challenge and circumstances facing the Forest Products Commission. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, minister. I will give the minister the opportunity to answer this question in a moment. I do not know what the member for Victoria Park is attempting to do. A range of processes for obtaining information are available to all members of this place. One way to obtain information is to listen to the answer a minister is giving. I make that suggestion to the member for Victoria Park at this point. I formally call the member for the third time. Minister. Mr D.T. REDMAN : Thank you, Mr Speaker. The new plantation segment within the Forest Products Commission is the biggest challenge that it faces. This area is a drain on the organisation. It is putting the financial circumstances of the Forest Products Commission in an extremely parlous state. The response of the opposition to my going through what is certainly a regrettable but essential process of restructuring the organisation has been to suggest that we give the FPC another five years of subsidies and see how it goes. The decision on this area was made in about 2005. I attended the launch by Hon Kim Chance of the strategic tree farming exercise in Mt Barker. This project came on the back of $32 million of federal funds and $32 million of state funds, which was made up of $10 million in cash and $22 million in borrowings. At a time when there were successive $2 billion surpluses, the former government put the FPC under financial strain with $22 million of borrowings. This was a classic case in which the government’s mouth was in front of its money. Our government now has to turn that situation around. We have had to make the challenging decision to restructure the FPC and exit from that component. To set up an industry in the new plantation segment takes $40 million a year for 20 years. The former government overlooked that circumstance and made the decision without thinking about the future. Yes, it had a vision, but it was not fiscally responsible enough to play out that decision. Our government has had to make the tough calls. During times of financial restraint, the call from the opposition has been to give the FPC a bit more money—subsidise it a bit more—and let us hope that in five years’ time it will be able to make some money and, down the track, be able to return some sort of benefit to the taxpayers of Western Australia. The former government was financially irresponsible. It allowed this to happen. We have had to make the tough decision. It is certainly regrettable, because some voluntary redundancies will be part of this process. We have also had to locate the FPC within the Department of Agriculture and Food, so that some savings can be made within the bureaucracy by managing the organisation within another organisation. We have had to refocus the core business of the Forest Products Commission to native forests, mature plantations and sandalwood. These are essential decisions. These are tough decisions that this government has had to make. Just like its federal counterparts, the Labor Party did not exercise fiscal responsibility in putting the FPC in this dire financial situation. Our government is making the tough decisions to get through that.
Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am sure that members in this place are quite aware of the restructure that we have to manage through the Forest Products Commission. We have had to deal with the challenges as a result of the position that the previous government put the Forest Products Commission in. In going through that process — Mr B.S. Wyatt : interjected. Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am sure the member is very keen to hear this. There was a report that Hayden Lowe did. That is an internal government report. It was a part of cabinet processes and therefore sits under cabinet confidentiality. The response — Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park, you may be interested in the answer; you may be interested in getting more of the answer. I would like to hear the minister answer the question. He may accept an interjection from you, but I will not at this moment. I am formally going to call you for the first time. Mr D.T. REDMAN : The restructure that we have had to go through with the Forest Products Commission is certainly regrettable, but it has been absolutely necessary as a result of the culmination of years of financial mismanagement by the previous Labor government. The response I got from the shadow Minister for Forestry was — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Minister, take a seat. I formally call the member for Victoria Park for the second time. Minister. Mr D.T. REDMAN : Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am just highlighting the response from the Labor Party on the financial challenge and circumstances facing the Forest Products Commission. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, minister. I will give the minister the opportunity to answer this question in a moment. I do not know what the member for Victoria Park is attempting to do. A range of processes for obtaining information are available to all members of this place. One way to obtain information is to listen to the answer a minister is giving. I make that suggestion to the member for Victoria Park at this point. I formally call the member for the third time. Minister. Mr D.T. REDMAN : Thank you, Mr Speaker. The new plantation segment within the Forest Products Commission is the biggest challenge that it faces. This area is a drain on the organisation. It is putting the financial circumstances of the Forest Products Commission in an extremely parlous state. The response of the opposition to my going through what is certainly a regrettable but essential process of restructuring the organisation has been to suggest that we give the FPC another five years of subsidies and see how it goes. The decision on this area was made in about 2005. I attended the launch by Hon Kim Chance of the strategic tree farming exercise in Mt Barker. This project came on the back of $32 million of federal funds and $32 million of state funds, which was made up of $10 million in cash and $22 million in borrowings. At a time when there were successive $2 billion surpluses, the former government put the FPC under financial strain with $22 million of borrowings. This was a classic case in which the government’s mouth was in front of its money. Our government now has to turn that situation around. We have had to make the challenging decision to restructure the FPC and exit from that component. To set up an industry in the new plantation segment takes $40 million a year for 20 years. The former government overlooked that circumstance and made the decision without thinking about the future. Yes, it had a vision, but it was not fiscally responsible enough to play out that decision. Our government has had to make the tough calls. During times of financial restraint, the call from the opposition has been to give the FPC a bit more money—subsidise it a bit more—and let us hope that in five years’ time it will be able to make some money and, down the track, be able to return some sort of benefit to the taxpayers of Western Australia. The former government was financially irresponsible. It allowed this to happen. We have had to make the tough decision. It is certainly regrettable, because some voluntary redundancies will be part of this process. We have also had to locate the FPC within the Department of Agriculture and Food, so that some savings can be made within the bureaucracy by managing the organisation within another organisation. We have had to refocus the core business of the Forest Products Commission to native forests, mature plantations and sandalwood. These are essential decisions. These are tough decisions that this government has had to make. Just like its federal counterparts, the Labor Party did not exercise fiscal responsibility in putting the FPC in this dire financial situation. Our government is making the tough decisions to get through that.
Mr B.S. Wyatt : interjected. Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am sure the member is very keen to hear this. There was a report that Hayden Lowe did. That is an internal government report. It was a part of cabinet processes and therefore sits under cabinet confidentiality. The response — Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park, you may be interested in the answer; you may be interested in getting more of the answer. I would like to hear the minister answer the question. He may accept an interjection from you, but I will not at this moment. I am formally going to call you for the first time. Mr D.T. REDMAN : The restructure that we have had to go through with the Forest Products Commission is certainly regrettable, but it has been absolutely necessary as a result of the culmination of years of financial mismanagement by the previous Labor government. The response I got from the shadow Minister for Forestry was — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Minister, take a seat. I formally call the member for Victoria Park for the second time. Minister. Mr D.T. REDMAN : Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am just highlighting the response from the Labor Party on the financial challenge and circumstances facing the Forest Products Commission. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, minister. I will give the minister the opportunity to answer this question in a moment. I do not know what the member for Victoria Park is attempting to do. A range of processes for obtaining information are available to all members of this place. One way to obtain information is to listen to the answer a minister is giving. I make that suggestion to the member for Victoria Park at this point. I formally call the member for the third time. Minister. Mr D.T. REDMAN : Thank you, Mr Speaker. The new plantation segment within the Forest Products Commission is the biggest challenge that it faces. This area is a drain on the organisation. It is putting the financial circumstances of the Forest Products Commission in an extremely parlous state. The response of the opposition to my going through what is certainly a regrettable but essential process of restructuring the organisation has been to suggest that we give the FPC another five years of subsidies and see how it goes. The decision on this area was made in about 2005. I attended the launch by Hon Kim Chance of the strategic tree farming exercise in Mt Barker. This project came on the back of $32 million of federal funds and $32 million of state funds, which was made up of $10 million in cash and $22 million in borrowings. At a time when there were successive $2 billion surpluses, the former government put the FPC under financial strain with $22 million of borrowings. This was a classic case in which the government’s mouth was in front of its money. Our government now has to turn that situation around. We have had to make the challenging decision to restructure the FPC and exit from that component. To set up an industry in the new plantation segment takes $40 million a year for 20 years. The former government overlooked that circumstance and made the decision without thinking about the future. Yes, it had a vision, but it was not fiscally responsible enough to play out that decision. Our government has had to make the tough calls. During times of financial restraint, the call from the opposition has been to give the FPC a bit more money—subsidise it a bit more—and let us hope that in five years’ time it will be able to make some money and, down the track, be able to return some sort of benefit to the taxpayers of Western Australia. The former government was financially irresponsible. It allowed this to happen. We have had to make the tough decision. It is certainly regrettable, because some voluntary redundancies will be part of this process. We have also had to locate the FPC within the Department of Agriculture and Food, so that some savings can be made within the bureaucracy by managing the organisation within another organisation. We have had to refocus the core business of the Forest Products Commission to native forests, mature plantations and sandalwood. These are essential decisions. These are tough decisions that this government has had to make. Just like its federal counterparts, the Labor Party did not exercise fiscal responsibility in putting the FPC in this dire financial situation. Our government is making the tough decisions to get through that.
Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am sure the member is very keen to hear this. There was a report that Hayden Lowe did. That is an internal government report. It was a part of cabinet processes and therefore sits under cabinet confidentiality. The response — Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park, you may be interested in the answer; you may be interested in getting more of the answer. I would like to hear the minister answer the question. He may accept an interjection from you, but I will not at this moment. I am formally going to call you for the first time. Mr D.T. REDMAN : The restructure that we have had to go through with the Forest Products Commission is certainly regrettable, but it has been absolutely necessary as a result of the culmination of years of financial mismanagement by the previous Labor government. The response I got from the shadow Minister for Forestry was — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Minister, take a seat. I formally call the member for Victoria Park for the second time. Minister. Mr D.T. REDMAN : Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am just highlighting the response from the Labor Party on the financial challenge and circumstances facing the Forest Products Commission. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, minister. I will give the minister the opportunity to answer this question in a moment. I do not know what the member for Victoria Park is attempting to do. A range of processes for obtaining information are available to all members of this place. One way to obtain information is to listen to the answer a minister is giving. I make that suggestion to the member for Victoria Park at this point. I formally call the member for the third time. Minister. Mr D.T. REDMAN : Thank you, Mr Speaker. The new plantation segment within the Forest Products Commission is the biggest challenge that it faces. This area is a drain on the organisation. It is putting the financial circumstances of the Forest Products Commission in an extremely parlous state. The response of the opposition to my going through what is certainly a regrettable but essential process of restructuring the organisation has been to suggest that we give the FPC another five years of subsidies and see how it goes. The decision on this area was made in about 2005. I attended the launch by Hon Kim Chance of the strategic tree farming exercise in Mt Barker. This project came on the back of $32 million of federal funds and $32 million of state funds, which was made up of $10 million in cash and $22 million in borrowings. At a time when there were successive $2 billion surpluses, the former government put the FPC under financial strain with $22 million of borrowings. This was a classic case in which the government’s mouth was in front of its money. Our government now has to turn that situation around. We have had to make the challenging decision to restructure the FPC and exit from that component. To set up an industry in the new plantation segment takes $40 million a year for 20 years. The former government overlooked that circumstance and made the decision without thinking about the future. Yes, it had a vision, but it was not fiscally responsible enough to play out that decision. Our government has had to make the tough calls. During times of financial restraint, the call from the opposition has been to give the FPC a bit more money—subsidise it a bit more—and let us hope that in five years’ time it will be able to make some money and, down the track, be able to return some sort of benefit to the taxpayers of Western Australia. The former government was financially irresponsible. It allowed this to happen. We have had to make the tough decision. It is certainly regrettable, because some voluntary redundancies will be part of this process. We have also had to locate the FPC within the Department of Agriculture and Food, so that some savings can be made within the bureaucracy by managing the organisation within another organisation. We have had to refocus the core business of the Forest Products Commission to native forests, mature plantations and sandalwood. These are essential decisions. These are tough decisions that this government has had to make. Just like its federal counterparts, the Labor Party did not exercise fiscal responsibility in putting the FPC in this dire financial situation. Our government is making the tough decisions to get through that.
Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park, you may be interested in the answer; you may be interested in getting more of the answer. I would like to hear the minister answer the question. He may accept an interjection from you, but I will not at this moment. I am formally going to call you for the first time. Mr D.T. REDMAN : The restructure that we have had to go through with the Forest Products Commission is certainly regrettable, but it has been absolutely necessary as a result of the culmination of years of financial mismanagement by the previous Labor government. The response I got from the shadow Minister for Forestry was — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Minister, take a seat. I formally call the member for Victoria Park for the second time. Minister. Mr D.T. REDMAN : Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am just highlighting the response from the Labor Party on the financial challenge and circumstances facing the Forest Products Commission. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, minister. I will give the minister the opportunity to answer this question in a moment. I do not know what the member for Victoria Park is attempting to do. A range of processes for obtaining information are available to all members of this place. One way to obtain information is to listen to the answer a minister is giving. I make that suggestion to the member for Victoria Park at this point. I formally call the member for the third time. Minister. Mr D.T. REDMAN : Thank you, Mr Speaker. The new plantation segment within the Forest Products Commission is the biggest challenge that it faces. This area is a drain on the organisation. It is putting the financial circumstances of the Forest Products Commission in an extremely parlous state. The response of the opposition to my going through what is certainly a regrettable but essential process of restructuring the organisation has been to suggest that we give the FPC another five years of subsidies and see how it goes. The decision on this area was made in about 2005. I attended the launch by Hon Kim Chance of the strategic tree farming exercise in Mt Barker. This project came on the back of $32 million of federal funds and $32 million of state funds, which was made up of $10 million in cash and $22 million in borrowings. At a time when there were successive $2 billion surpluses, the former government put the FPC under financial strain with $22 million of borrowings. This was a classic case in which the government’s mouth was in front of its money. Our government now has to turn that situation around. We have had to make the challenging decision to restructure the FPC and exit from that component. To set up an industry in the new plantation segment takes $40 million a year for 20 years. The former government overlooked that circumstance and made the decision without thinking about the future. Yes, it had a vision, but it was not fiscally responsible enough to play out that decision. Our government has had to make the tough calls. During times of financial restraint, the call from the opposition has been to give the FPC a bit more money—subsidise it a bit more—and let us hope that in five years’ time it will be able to make some money and, down the track, be able to return some sort of benefit to the taxpayers of Western Australia. The former government was financially irresponsible. It allowed this to happen. We have had to make the tough decision. It is certainly regrettable, because some voluntary redundancies will be part of this process. We have also had to locate the FPC within the Department of Agriculture and Food, so that some savings can be made within the bureaucracy by managing the organisation within another organisation. We have had to refocus the core business of the Forest Products Commission to native forests, mature plantations and sandalwood. These are essential decisions. These are tough decisions that this government has had to make. Just like its federal counterparts, the Labor Party did not exercise fiscal responsibility in putting the FPC in this dire financial situation. Our government is making the tough decisions to get through that.
The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park, you may be interested in the answer; you may be interested in getting more of the answer. I would like to hear the minister answer the question. He may accept an interjection from you, but I will not at this moment. I am formally going to call you for the first time. Mr D.T. REDMAN : The restructure that we have had to go through with the Forest Products Commission is certainly regrettable, but it has been absolutely necessary as a result of the culmination of years of financial mismanagement by the previous Labor government. The response I got from the shadow Minister for Forestry was — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Minister, take a seat. I formally call the member for Victoria Park for the second time. Minister. Mr D.T. REDMAN : Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am just highlighting the response from the Labor Party on the financial challenge and circumstances facing the Forest Products Commission. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, minister. I will give the minister the opportunity to answer this question in a moment. I do not know what the member for Victoria Park is attempting to do. A range of processes for obtaining information are available to all members of this place. One way to obtain information is to listen to the answer a minister is giving. I make that suggestion to the member for Victoria Park at this point. I formally call the member for the third time. Minister. Mr D.T. REDMAN : Thank you, Mr Speaker. The new plantation segment within the Forest Products Commission is the biggest challenge that it faces. This area is a drain on the organisation. It is putting the financial circumstances of the Forest Products Commission in an extremely parlous state. The response of the opposition to my going through what is certainly a regrettable but essential process of restructuring the organisation has been to suggest that we give the FPC another five years of subsidies and see how it goes. The decision on this area was made in about 2005. I attended the launch by Hon Kim Chance of the strategic tree farming exercise in Mt Barker. This project came on the back of $32 million of federal funds and $32 million of state funds, which was made up of $10 million in cash and $22 million in borrowings. At a time when there were successive $2 billion surpluses, the former government put the FPC under financial strain with $22 million of borrowings. This was a classic case in which the government’s mouth was in front of its money. Our government now has to turn that situation around. We have had to make the challenging decision to restructure the FPC and exit from that component. To set up an industry in the new plantation segment takes $40 million a year for 20 years. The former government overlooked that circumstance and made the decision without thinking about the future. Yes, it had a vision, but it was not fiscally responsible enough to play out that decision. Our government has had to make the tough calls. During times of financial restraint, the call from the opposition has been to give the FPC a bit more money—subsidise it a bit more—and let us hope that in five years’ time it will be able to make some money and, down the track, be able to return some sort of benefit to the taxpayers of Western Australia. The former government was financially irresponsible. It allowed this to happen. We have had to make the tough decision. It is certainly regrettable, because some voluntary redundancies will be part of this process. We have also had to locate the FPC within the Department of Agriculture and Food, so that some savings can be made within the bureaucracy by managing the organisation within another organisation. We have had to refocus the core business of the Forest Products Commission to native forests, mature plantations and sandalwood. These are essential decisions. These are tough decisions that this government has had to make. Just like its federal counterparts, the Labor Party did not exercise fiscal responsibility in putting the FPC in this dire financial situation. Our government is making the tough decisions to get through that.
Mr D.T. REDMAN : The restructure that we have had to go through with the Forest Products Commission is certainly regrettable, but it has been absolutely necessary as a result of the culmination of years of financial mismanagement by the previous Labor government. The response I got from the shadow Minister for Forestry was — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Minister, take a seat. I formally call the member for Victoria Park for the second time. Minister. Mr D.T. REDMAN : Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am just highlighting the response from the Labor Party on the financial challenge and circumstances facing the Forest Products Commission. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, minister. I will give the minister the opportunity to answer this question in a moment. I do not know what the member for Victoria Park is attempting to do. A range of processes for obtaining information are available to all members of this place. One way to obtain information is to listen to the answer a minister is giving. I make that suggestion to the member for Victoria Park at this point. I formally call the member for the third time. Minister. Mr D.T. REDMAN : Thank you, Mr Speaker. The new plantation segment within the Forest Products Commission is the biggest challenge that it faces. This area is a drain on the organisation. It is putting the financial circumstances of the Forest Products Commission in an extremely parlous state. The response of the opposition to my going through what is certainly a regrettable but essential process of restructuring the organisation has been to suggest that we give the FPC another five years of subsidies and see how it goes. The decision on this area was made in about 2005. I attended the launch by Hon Kim Chance of the strategic tree farming exercise in Mt Barker. This project came on the back of $32 million of federal funds and $32 million of state funds, which was made up of $10 million in cash and $22 million in borrowings. At a time when there were successive $2 billion surpluses, the former government put the FPC under financial strain with $22 million of borrowings. This was a classic case in which the government’s mouth was in front of its money. Our government now has to turn that situation around. We have had to make the challenging decision to restructure the FPC and exit from that component. To set up an industry in the new plantation segment takes $40 million a year for 20 years. The former government overlooked that circumstance and made the decision without thinking about the future. Yes, it had a vision, but it was not fiscally responsible enough to play out that decision. Our government has had to make the tough calls. During times of financial restraint, the call from the opposition has been to give the FPC a bit more money—subsidise it a bit more—and let us hope that in five years’ time it will be able to make some money and, down the track, be able to return some sort of benefit to the taxpayers of Western Australia. The former government was financially irresponsible. It allowed this to happen. We have had to make the tough decision. It is certainly regrettable, because some voluntary redundancies will be part of this process. We have also had to locate the FPC within the Department of Agriculture and Food, so that some savings can be made within the bureaucracy by managing the organisation within another organisation. We have had to refocus the core business of the Forest Products Commission to native forests, mature plantations and sandalwood. These are essential decisions. These are tough decisions that this government has had to make. Just like its federal counterparts, the Labor Party did not exercise fiscal responsibility in putting the FPC in this dire financial situation. Our government is making the tough decisions to get through that.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Minister, take a seat. I formally call the member for Victoria Park for the second time. Minister. Mr D.T. REDMAN : Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am just highlighting the response from the Labor Party on the financial challenge and circumstances facing the Forest Products Commission. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, minister. I will give the minister the opportunity to answer this question in a moment. I do not know what the member for Victoria Park is attempting to do. A range of processes for obtaining information are available to all members of this place. One way to obtain information is to listen to the answer a minister is giving. I make that suggestion to the member for Victoria Park at this point. I formally call the member for the third time. Minister. Mr D.T. REDMAN : Thank you, Mr Speaker. The new plantation segment within the Forest Products Commission is the biggest challenge that it faces. This area is a drain on the organisation. It is putting the financial circumstances of the Forest Products Commission in an extremely parlous state. The response of the opposition to my going through what is certainly a regrettable but essential process of restructuring the organisation has been to suggest that we give the FPC another five years of subsidies and see how it goes. The decision on this area was made in about 2005. I attended the launch by Hon Kim Chance of the strategic tree farming exercise in Mt Barker. This project came on the back of $32 million of federal funds and $32 million of state funds, which was made up of $10 million in cash and $22 million in borrowings. At a time when there were successive $2 billion surpluses, the former government put the FPC under financial strain with $22 million of borrowings. This was a classic case in which the government’s mouth was in front of its money. Our government now has to turn that situation around. We have had to make the challenging decision to restructure the FPC and exit from that component. To set up an industry in the new plantation segment takes $40 million a year for 20 years. The former government overlooked that circumstance and made the decision without thinking about the future. Yes, it had a vision, but it was not fiscally responsible enough to play out that decision. Our government has had to make the tough calls. During times of financial restraint, the call from the opposition has been to give the FPC a bit more money—subsidise it a bit more—and let us hope that in five years’ time it will be able to make some money and, down the track, be able to return some sort of benefit to the taxpayers of Western Australia. The former government was financially irresponsible. It allowed this to happen. We have had to make the tough decision. It is certainly regrettable, because some voluntary redundancies will be part of this process. We have also had to locate the FPC within the Department of Agriculture and Food, so that some savings can be made within the bureaucracy by managing the organisation within another organisation. We have had to refocus the core business of the Forest Products Commission to native forests, mature plantations and sandalwood. These are essential decisions. These are tough decisions that this government has had to make. Just like its federal counterparts, the Labor Party did not exercise fiscal responsibility in putting the FPC in this dire financial situation. Our government is making the tough decisions to get through that.
The SPEAKER : Minister, take a seat. I formally call the member for Victoria Park for the second time. Minister. Mr D.T. REDMAN : Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am just highlighting the response from the Labor Party on the financial challenge and circumstances facing the Forest Products Commission. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, minister. I will give the minister the opportunity to answer this question in a moment. I do not know what the member for Victoria Park is attempting to do. A range of processes for obtaining information are available to all members of this place. One way to obtain information is to listen to the answer a minister is giving. I make that suggestion to the member for Victoria Park at this point. I formally call the member for the third time. Minister. Mr D.T. REDMAN : Thank you, Mr Speaker. The new plantation segment within the Forest Products Commission is the biggest challenge that it faces. This area is a drain on the organisation. It is putting the financial circumstances of the Forest Products Commission in an extremely parlous state. The response of the opposition to my going through what is certainly a regrettable but essential process of restructuring the organisation has been to suggest that we give the FPC another five years of subsidies and see how it goes. The decision on this area was made in about 2005. I attended the launch by Hon Kim Chance of the strategic tree farming exercise in Mt Barker. This project came on the back of $32 million of federal funds and $32 million of state funds, which was made up of $10 million in cash and $22 million in borrowings. At a time when there were successive $2 billion surpluses, the former government put the FPC under financial strain with $22 million of borrowings. This was a classic case in which the government’s mouth was in front of its money. Our government now has to turn that situation around. We have had to make the challenging decision to restructure the FPC and exit from that component. To set up an industry in the new plantation segment takes $40 million a year for 20 years. The former government overlooked that circumstance and made the decision without thinking about the future. Yes, it had a vision, but it was not fiscally responsible enough to play out that decision. Our government has had to make the tough calls. During times of financial restraint, the call from the opposition has been to give the FPC a bit more money—subsidise it a bit more—and let us hope that in five years’ time it will be able to make some money and, down the track, be able to return some sort of benefit to the taxpayers of Western Australia. The former government was financially irresponsible. It allowed this to happen. We have had to make the tough decision. It is certainly regrettable, because some voluntary redundancies will be part of this process. We have also had to locate the FPC within the Department of Agriculture and Food, so that some savings can be made within the bureaucracy by managing the organisation within another organisation. We have had to refocus the core business of the Forest Products Commission to native forests, mature plantations and sandalwood. These are essential decisions. These are tough decisions that this government has had to make. Just like its federal counterparts, the Labor Party did not exercise fiscal responsibility in putting the FPC in this dire financial situation. Our government is making the tough decisions to get through that.
Mr D.T. REDMAN : Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am just highlighting the response from the Labor Party on the financial challenge and circumstances facing the Forest Products Commission. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, minister. I will give the minister the opportunity to answer this question in a moment. I do not know what the member for Victoria Park is attempting to do. A range of processes for obtaining information are available to all members of this place. One way to obtain information is to listen to the answer a minister is giving. I make that suggestion to the member for Victoria Park at this point. I formally call the member for the third time. Minister. Mr D.T. REDMAN : Thank you, Mr Speaker. The new plantation segment within the Forest Products Commission is the biggest challenge that it faces. This area is a drain on the organisation. It is putting the financial circumstances of the Forest Products Commission in an extremely parlous state. The response of the opposition to my going through what is certainly a regrettable but essential process of restructuring the organisation has been to suggest that we give the FPC another five years of subsidies and see how it goes. The decision on this area was made in about 2005. I attended the launch by Hon Kim Chance of the strategic tree farming exercise in Mt Barker. This project came on the back of $32 million of federal funds and $32 million of state funds, which was made up of $10 million in cash and $22 million in borrowings. At a time when there were successive $2 billion surpluses, the former government put the FPC under financial strain with $22 million of borrowings. This was a classic case in which the government’s mouth was in front of its money. Our government now has to turn that situation around. We have had to make the challenging decision to restructure the FPC and exit from that component. To set up an industry in the new plantation segment takes $40 million a year for 20 years. The former government overlooked that circumstance and made the decision without thinking about the future. Yes, it had a vision, but it was not fiscally responsible enough to play out that decision. Our government has had to make the tough calls. During times of financial restraint, the call from the opposition has been to give the FPC a bit more money—subsidise it a bit more—and let us hope that in five years’ time it will be able to make some money and, down the track, be able to return some sort of benefit to the taxpayers of Western Australia. The former government was financially irresponsible. It allowed this to happen. We have had to make the tough decision. It is certainly regrettable, because some voluntary redundancies will be part of this process. We have also had to locate the FPC within the Department of Agriculture and Food, so that some savings can be made within the bureaucracy by managing the organisation within another organisation. We have had to refocus the core business of the Forest Products Commission to native forests, mature plantations and sandalwood. These are essential decisions. These are tough decisions that this government has had to make. Just like its federal counterparts, the Labor Party did not exercise fiscal responsibility in putting the FPC in this dire financial situation. Our government is making the tough decisions to get through that.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, minister. I will give the minister the opportunity to answer this question in a moment. I do not know what the member for Victoria Park is attempting to do. A range of processes for obtaining information are available to all members of this place. One way to obtain information is to listen to the answer a minister is giving. I make that suggestion to the member for Victoria Park at this point. I formally call the member for the third time. Minister. Mr D.T. REDMAN : Thank you, Mr Speaker. The new plantation segment within the Forest Products Commission is the biggest challenge that it faces. This area is a drain on the organisation. It is putting the financial circumstances of the Forest Products Commission in an extremely parlous state. The response of the opposition to my going through what is certainly a regrettable but essential process of restructuring the organisation has been to suggest that we give the FPC another five years of subsidies and see how it goes. The decision on this area was made in about 2005. I attended the launch by Hon Kim Chance of the strategic tree farming exercise in Mt Barker. This project came on the back of $32 million of federal funds and $32 million of state funds, which was made up of $10 million in cash and $22 million in borrowings. At a time when there were successive $2 billion surpluses, the former government put the FPC under financial strain with $22 million of borrowings. This was a classic case in which the government’s mouth was in front of its money. Our government now has to turn that situation around. We have had to make the challenging decision to restructure the FPC and exit from that component. To set up an industry in the new plantation segment takes $40 million a year for 20 years. The former government overlooked that circumstance and made the decision without thinking about the future. Yes, it had a vision, but it was not fiscally responsible enough to play out that decision. Our government has had to make the tough calls. During times of financial restraint, the call from the opposition has been to give the FPC a bit more money—subsidise it a bit more—and let us hope that in five years’ time it will be able to make some money and, down the track, be able to return some sort of benefit to the taxpayers of Western Australia. The former government was financially irresponsible. It allowed this to happen. We have had to make the tough decision. It is certainly regrettable, because some voluntary redundancies will be part of this process. We have also had to locate the FPC within the Department of Agriculture and Food, so that some savings can be made within the bureaucracy by managing the organisation within another organisation. We have had to refocus the core business of the Forest Products Commission to native forests, mature plantations and sandalwood. These are essential decisions. These are tough decisions that this government has had to make. Just like its federal counterparts, the Labor Party did not exercise fiscal responsibility in putting the FPC in this dire financial situation. Our government is making the tough decisions to get through that.
The SPEAKER : Take a seat, minister. I will give the minister the opportunity to answer this question in a moment. I do not know what the member for Victoria Park is attempting to do. A range of processes for obtaining information are available to all members of this place. One way to obtain information is to listen to the answer a minister is giving. I make that suggestion to the member for Victoria Park at this point. I formally call the member for the third time. Minister. Mr D.T. REDMAN : Thank you, Mr Speaker. The new plantation segment within the Forest Products Commission is the biggest challenge that it faces. This area is a drain on the organisation. It is putting the financial circumstances of the Forest Products Commission in an extremely parlous state. The response of the opposition to my going through what is certainly a regrettable but essential process of restructuring the organisation has been to suggest that we give the FPC another five years of subsidies and see how it goes. The decision on this area was made in about 2005. I attended the launch by Hon Kim Chance of the strategic tree farming exercise in Mt Barker. This project came on the back of $32 million of federal funds and $32 million of state funds, which was made up of $10 million in cash and $22 million in borrowings. At a time when there were successive $2 billion surpluses, the former government put the FPC under financial strain with $22 million of borrowings. This was a classic case in which the government’s mouth was in front of its money. Our government now has to turn that situation around. We have had to make the challenging decision to restructure the FPC and exit from that component. To set up an industry in the new plantation segment takes $40 million a year for 20 years. The former government overlooked that circumstance and made the decision without thinking about the future. Yes, it had a vision, but it was not fiscally responsible enough to play out that decision. Our government has had to make the tough calls. During times of financial restraint, the call from the opposition has been to give the FPC a bit more money—subsidise it a bit more—and let us hope that in five years’ time it will be able to make some money and, down the track, be able to return some sort of benefit to the taxpayers of Western Australia. The former government was financially irresponsible. It allowed this to happen. We have had to make the tough decision. It is certainly regrettable, because some voluntary redundancies will be part of this process. We have also had to locate the FPC within the Department of Agriculture and Food, so that some savings can be made within the bureaucracy by managing the organisation within another organisation. We have had to refocus the core business of the Forest Products Commission to native forests, mature plantations and sandalwood. These are essential decisions. These are tough decisions that this government has had to make. Just like its federal counterparts, the Labor Party did not exercise fiscal responsibility in putting the FPC in this dire financial situation. Our government is making the tough decisions to get through that.
Mr D.T. REDMAN : Thank you, Mr Speaker. The new plantation segment within the Forest Products Commission is the biggest challenge that it faces. This area is a drain on the organisation. It is putting the financial circumstances of the Forest Products Commission in an extremely parlous state. The response of the opposition to my going through what is certainly a regrettable but essential process of restructuring the organisation has been to suggest that we give the FPC another five years of subsidies and see how it goes. The decision on this area was made in about 2005. I attended the launch by Hon Kim Chance of the strategic tree farming exercise in Mt Barker. This project came on the back of $32 million of federal funds and $32 million of state funds, which was made up of $10 million in cash and $22 million in borrowings. At a time when there were successive $2 billion surpluses, the former government put the FPC under financial strain with $22 million of borrowings. This was a classic case in which the government’s mouth was in front of its money. Our government now has to turn that situation around. We have had to make the challenging decision to restructure the FPC and exit from that component. To set up an industry in the new plantation segment takes $40 million a year for 20 years. The former government overlooked that circumstance and made the decision without thinking about the future. Yes, it had a vision, but it was not fiscally responsible enough to play out that decision. Our government has had to make the tough calls. During times of financial restraint, the call from the opposition has been to give the FPC a bit more money—subsidise it a bit more—and let us hope that in five years’ time it will be able to make some money and, down the track, be able to return some sort of benefit to the taxpayers of Western Australia. The former government was financially irresponsible. It allowed this to happen. We have had to make the tough decision. It is certainly regrettable, because some voluntary redundancies will be part of this process. We have also had to locate the FPC within the Department of Agriculture and Food, so that some savings can be made within the bureaucracy by managing the organisation within another organisation. We have had to refocus the core business of the Forest Products Commission to native forests, mature plantations and sandalwood. These are essential decisions. These are tough decisions that this government has had to make. Just like its federal counterparts, the Labor Party did not exercise fiscal responsibility in putting the FPC in this dire financial situation. Our government is making the tough decisions to get through that.
To set up an industry in the new plantation segment takes $40 million a year for 20 years. The former government overlooked that circumstance and made the decision without thinking about the future. Yes, it had a vision, but it was not fiscally responsible enough to play out that decision. Our government has had to make the tough calls. During times of financial restraint, the call from the opposition has been to give the FPC a bit more money—subsidise it a bit more—and let us hope that in five years’ time it will be able to make some money and, down the track, be able to return some sort of benefit to the taxpayers of Western Australia. The former government was financially irresponsible. It allowed this to happen. We have had to make the tough decision. It is certainly regrettable, because some voluntary redundancies will be part of this process. We have also had to locate the FPC within the Department of Agriculture and Food, so that some savings can be made within the bureaucracy by managing the organisation within another organisation. We have had to refocus the core business of the Forest Products Commission to native forests, mature plantations and sandalwood. These are essential decisions. These are tough decisions that this government has had to make. Just like its federal counterparts, the Labor Party did not exercise fiscal responsibility in putting the FPC in this dire financial situation. Our government is making the tough decisions to get through that.
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.