❓ Hon Peter Foss questions the Minister for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries about Treasury's refusal to transfer $10.4 million of uncommercial debt from the Forest Products Commission (FPC). The Minister explains the debt transfer process and Treasury's rationale, but suggests Foss direct further questions to the Treasurer.
AnsweredQoN 310Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
Today the minister tabled in the House a letter from Mr Murray Jorgensen dated 28 June, in which he states that Treasury has refused to take a transfer of the $10.4 million of uncommercial debt and that he will seek funding for it to finance that amount. Is there any reason, which is justified under the statute, that debt should remain with the Forest Products Commission? Is it being kept in the Forest Products Commission for any reason other than to make the State’s overall balance look better? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for the question.. It may be that I cannot answer it quite as fully as I could have, and as the member would have preferred, had I been given notice. The split between the functions of the Department of Conservation and Land Management and the new CALM and the Forest Products Commission required a transfer of debt from the corporation of CALM to the corporation of FPC. That transfer of debt is, roundly, $75 million. As a result of the implementation of the old-growth forest policy, an amount of around $10.46 million is involved in that transfer of debt, which I and the FPC believe is non-commercial debt. My belief is that the FPC is being asked to take on a liability for a non-commercial portion of the debt. That argument has not been readily embraced by the Department of Treasury and Finance. However, we accept Treasury’s view. Hon Peter Foss: You have no choice. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. Therefore, I was required to issue that direction at this stage. The options available to the Forest Products Commission - I think they are explained to some extent in that letter - were to prepare a business case for presentation to Treasury in order to expand its case. Hon Peter Foss: What is the reason for Treasury’s refusing it? Hon KIM CHANCE: I am not sure that I can tell the member that exactly - perhaps he needs to ask the Treasurer. However, I understand that Treasury refused to accept the FPC’s case because it had done a proportional allocation of debt between the two corporations. It had determined that was a reasonable proportion of debt and was unwilling to change that. However, to get an accurate answer to that, the member would need to ask the Treasurer.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for the question.. It may be that I cannot answer it quite as fully as I could have, and as the member would have preferred, had I been given notice. The split between the functions of the Department of Conservation and Land Management and the new CALM and the Forest Products Commission required a transfer of debt from the corporation of CALM to the corporation of FPC. That transfer of debt is, roundly, $75 million. As a result of the implementation of the old-growth forest policy, an amount of around $10.46 million is involved in that transfer of debt, which I and the FPC believe is non-commercial debt. My belief is that the FPC is being asked to take on a liability for a non-commercial portion of the debt. That argument has not been readily embraced by the Department of Treasury and Finance. However, we accept Treasury’s view. Hon Peter Foss: You have no choice. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. Therefore, I was required to issue that direction at this stage. The options available to the Forest Products Commission - I think they are explained to some extent in that letter - were to prepare a business case for presentation to Treasury in order to expand its case. Hon Peter Foss: What is the reason for Treasury’s refusing it? Hon KIM CHANCE: I am not sure that I can tell the member that exactly - perhaps he needs to ask the Treasurer. However, I understand that Treasury refused to accept the FPC’s case because it had done a proportional allocation of debt between the two corporations. It had determined that was a reasonable proportion of debt and was unwilling to change that. However, to get an accurate answer to that, the member would need to ask the Treasurer.
I thank the member for the question.. It may be that I cannot answer it quite as fully as I could have, and as the member would have preferred, had I been given notice. The split between the functions of the Department of Conservation and Land Management and the new CALM and the Forest Products Commission required a transfer of debt from the corporation of CALM to the corporation of FPC. That transfer of debt is, roundly, $75 million. As a result of the implementation of the old-growth forest policy, an amount of around $10.46 million is involved in that transfer of debt, which I and the FPC believe is non-commercial debt. My belief is that the FPC is being asked to take on a liability for a non-commercial portion of the debt. That argument has not been readily embraced by the Department of Treasury and Finance. However, we accept Treasury’s view. Hon Peter Foss: You have no choice. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. Therefore, I was required to issue that direction at this stage. The options available to the Forest Products Commission - I think they are explained to some extent in that letter - were to prepare a business case for presentation to Treasury in order to expand its case. Hon Peter Foss: What is the reason for Treasury’s refusing it? Hon KIM CHANCE: I am not sure that I can tell the member that exactly - perhaps he needs to ask the Treasurer. However, I understand that Treasury refused to accept the FPC’s case because it had done a proportional allocation of debt between the two corporations. It had determined that was a reasonable proportion of debt and was unwilling to change that. However, to get an accurate answer to that, the member would need to ask the Treasurer.
The split between the functions of the Department of Conservation and Land Management and the new CALM and the Forest Products Commission required a transfer of debt from the corporation of CALM to the corporation of FPC. That transfer of debt is, roundly, $75 million. As a result of the implementation of the old-growth forest policy, an amount of around $10.46 million is involved in that transfer of debt, which I and the FPC believe is non-commercial debt. My belief is that the FPC is being asked to take on a liability for a non-commercial portion of the debt. That argument has not been readily embraced by the Department of Treasury and Finance. However, we accept Treasury’s view. Hon Peter Foss: You have no choice. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. Therefore, I was required to issue that direction at this stage. The options available to the Forest Products Commission - I think they are explained to some extent in that letter - were to prepare a business case for presentation to Treasury in order to expand its case. Hon Peter Foss: What is the reason for Treasury’s refusing it? Hon KIM CHANCE: I am not sure that I can tell the member that exactly - perhaps he needs to ask the Treasurer. However, I understand that Treasury refused to accept the FPC’s case because it had done a proportional allocation of debt between the two corporations. It had determined that was a reasonable proportion of debt and was unwilling to change that. However, to get an accurate answer to that, the member would need to ask the Treasurer.
Hon Peter Foss: You have no choice. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. Therefore, I was required to issue that direction at this stage. The options available to the Forest Products Commission - I think they are explained to some extent in that letter - were to prepare a business case for presentation to Treasury in order to expand its case. Hon Peter Foss: What is the reason for Treasury’s refusing it? Hon KIM CHANCE: I am not sure that I can tell the member that exactly - perhaps he needs to ask the Treasurer. However, I understand that Treasury refused to accept the FPC’s case because it had done a proportional allocation of debt between the two corporations. It had determined that was a reasonable proportion of debt and was unwilling to change that. However, to get an accurate answer to that, the member would need to ask the Treasurer.
Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. Therefore, I was required to issue that direction at this stage. The options available to the Forest Products Commission - I think they are explained to some extent in that letter - were to prepare a business case for presentation to Treasury in order to expand its case. Hon Peter Foss: What is the reason for Treasury’s refusing it? Hon KIM CHANCE: I am not sure that I can tell the member that exactly - perhaps he needs to ask the Treasurer. However, I understand that Treasury refused to accept the FPC’s case because it had done a proportional allocation of debt between the two corporations. It had determined that was a reasonable proportion of debt and was unwilling to change that. However, to get an accurate answer to that, the member would need to ask the Treasurer.
Hon Peter Foss: What is the reason for Treasury’s refusing it? Hon KIM CHANCE: I am not sure that I can tell the member that exactly - perhaps he needs to ask the Treasurer. However, I understand that Treasury refused to accept the FPC’s case because it had done a proportional allocation of debt between the two corporations. It had determined that was a reasonable proportion of debt and was unwilling to change that. However, to get an accurate answer to that, the member would need to ask the Treasurer.
Hon KIM CHANCE: I am not sure that I can tell the member that exactly - perhaps he needs to ask the Treasurer. However, I understand that Treasury refused to accept the FPC’s case because it had done a proportional allocation of debt between the two corporations. It had determined that was a reasonable proportion of debt and was unwilling to change that. However, to get an accurate answer to that, the member would need to ask the Treasurer.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for the question.. It may be that I cannot answer it quite as fully as I could have, and as the member would have preferred, had I been given notice. The split between the functions of the Department of Conservation and Land Management and the new CALM and the Forest Products Commission required a transfer of debt from the corporation of CALM to the corporation of FPC. That transfer of debt is, roundly, $75 million. As a result of the implementation of the old-growth forest policy, an amount of around $10.46 million is involved in that transfer of debt, which I and the FPC believe is non-commercial debt. My belief is that the FPC is being asked to take on a liability for a non-commercial portion of the debt. That argument has not been readily embraced by the Department of Treasury and Finance. However, we accept Treasury’s view. Hon Peter Foss: You have no choice. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. Therefore, I was required to issue that direction at this stage. The options available to the Forest Products Commission - I think they are explained to some extent in that letter - were to prepare a business case for presentation to Treasury in order to expand its case. Hon Peter Foss: What is the reason for Treasury’s refusing it? Hon KIM CHANCE: I am not sure that I can tell the member that exactly - perhaps he needs to ask the Treasurer. However, I understand that Treasury refused to accept the FPC’s case because it had done a proportional allocation of debt between the two corporations. It had determined that was a reasonable proportion of debt and was unwilling to change that. However, to get an accurate answer to that, the member would need to ask the Treasurer.
I thank the member for the question.. It may be that I cannot answer it quite as fully as I could have, and as the member would have preferred, had I been given notice. The split between the functions of the Department of Conservation and Land Management and the new CALM and the Forest Products Commission required a transfer of debt from the corporation of CALM to the corporation of FPC. That transfer of debt is, roundly, $75 million. As a result of the implementation of the old-growth forest policy, an amount of around $10.46 million is involved in that transfer of debt, which I and the FPC believe is non-commercial debt. My belief is that the FPC is being asked to take on a liability for a non-commercial portion of the debt. That argument has not been readily embraced by the Department of Treasury and Finance. However, we accept Treasury’s view. Hon Peter Foss: You have no choice. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. Therefore, I was required to issue that direction at this stage. The options available to the Forest Products Commission - I think they are explained to some extent in that letter - were to prepare a business case for presentation to Treasury in order to expand its case. Hon Peter Foss: What is the reason for Treasury’s refusing it? Hon KIM CHANCE: I am not sure that I can tell the member that exactly - perhaps he needs to ask the Treasurer. However, I understand that Treasury refused to accept the FPC’s case because it had done a proportional allocation of debt between the two corporations. It had determined that was a reasonable proportion of debt and was unwilling to change that. However, to get an accurate answer to that, the member would need to ask the Treasurer.
The split between the functions of the Department of Conservation and Land Management and the new CALM and the Forest Products Commission required a transfer of debt from the corporation of CALM to the corporation of FPC. That transfer of debt is, roundly, $75 million. As a result of the implementation of the old-growth forest policy, an amount of around $10.46 million is involved in that transfer of debt, which I and the FPC believe is non-commercial debt. My belief is that the FPC is being asked to take on a liability for a non-commercial portion of the debt. That argument has not been readily embraced by the Department of Treasury and Finance. However, we accept Treasury’s view. Hon Peter Foss: You have no choice. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. Therefore, I was required to issue that direction at this stage. The options available to the Forest Products Commission - I think they are explained to some extent in that letter - were to prepare a business case for presentation to Treasury in order to expand its case. Hon Peter Foss: What is the reason for Treasury’s refusing it? Hon KIM CHANCE: I am not sure that I can tell the member that exactly - perhaps he needs to ask the Treasurer. However, I understand that Treasury refused to accept the FPC’s case because it had done a proportional allocation of debt between the two corporations. It had determined that was a reasonable proportion of debt and was unwilling to change that. However, to get an accurate answer to that, the member would need to ask the Treasurer.
Hon Peter Foss: You have no choice. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. Therefore, I was required to issue that direction at this stage. The options available to the Forest Products Commission - I think they are explained to some extent in that letter - were to prepare a business case for presentation to Treasury in order to expand its case. Hon Peter Foss: What is the reason for Treasury’s refusing it? Hon KIM CHANCE: I am not sure that I can tell the member that exactly - perhaps he needs to ask the Treasurer. However, I understand that Treasury refused to accept the FPC’s case because it had done a proportional allocation of debt between the two corporations. It had determined that was a reasonable proportion of debt and was unwilling to change that. However, to get an accurate answer to that, the member would need to ask the Treasurer.
Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. Therefore, I was required to issue that direction at this stage. The options available to the Forest Products Commission - I think they are explained to some extent in that letter - were to prepare a business case for presentation to Treasury in order to expand its case. Hon Peter Foss: What is the reason for Treasury’s refusing it? Hon KIM CHANCE: I am not sure that I can tell the member that exactly - perhaps he needs to ask the Treasurer. However, I understand that Treasury refused to accept the FPC’s case because it had done a proportional allocation of debt between the two corporations. It had determined that was a reasonable proportion of debt and was unwilling to change that. However, to get an accurate answer to that, the member would need to ask the Treasurer.
Hon Peter Foss: What is the reason for Treasury’s refusing it? Hon KIM CHANCE: I am not sure that I can tell the member that exactly - perhaps he needs to ask the Treasurer. However, I understand that Treasury refused to accept the FPC’s case because it had done a proportional allocation of debt between the two corporations. It had determined that was a reasonable proportion of debt and was unwilling to change that. However, to get an accurate answer to that, the member would need to ask the Treasurer.
Hon KIM CHANCE: I am not sure that I can tell the member that exactly - perhaps he needs to ask the Treasurer. However, I understand that Treasury refused to accept the FPC’s case because it had done a proportional allocation of debt between the two corporations. It had determined that was a reasonable proportion of debt and was unwilling to change that. However, to get an accurate answer to that, the member would need to ask the Treasurer.
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.