❓ A parliamentary question addresses the Minister for Agriculture and Food regarding the control of a locust outbreak in the Agricultural Region, inquiring about the adequacy of control measures, funding, and manpower. The Minister expresses confidence based on departmental assurances and past experience, while acknowledging potential challenges and cost-benefit considerations.
AnsweredQoN 954Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
LOCUSTS - AGRICULTURAL REGION
No notice of this question has been given and it is in regard to locusts. (1) Is the minister satisfied that the locust outbreak developing in the Agricultural Region will be controlled? (2) Is there sufficient funding and manpower available to carry out the task? Hon KIM CHANCE
No notice of this question has been given and it is in regard to locusts. (1) Is the minister satisfied that the locust outbreak developing in the Agricultural Region will be controlled? (2) Is there sufficient funding and manpower available to carry out the task? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
I thank Hon Murray Criddle for his question. (1) Yes, I am, and that is not based on blind faith. I am satisfied that we can achieve the level of control that we are setting out to achieve because I have been assured, as recently as two days ago, by the Department of Agriculture and Food that that is the case. (2) Yes. In the event that we find the campaign challenged by resources, such as the amount of chemical or human resources, we will find the chemical and human resources to meet the level of control. I am sure the honourable member will understand this, but a person reading the answer may not understand it: the degree of control that the Department of Agriculture and Food sets out to achieve equates to about only 70 per cent of the total possible flying mass. It is probably technically possible to go about 10 per cent better than that; that is, for approximately 80 per cent control, but the cost of gaining that additional 10 per cent of control would probably be uneconomic. Certainly, it would double or even treble the cost of the control that we have now. At a little over $11 million from the state’s part of the control, we can effectively control about 70 per cent or a little better of the flying biomass. We believe, and it is not belief based on theory but on experience, particularly the experience we gained from what became an award winning control procedure carried out by the honourable member’s government in 2000, that we can achieve 70 per cent. We have learnt a lot from the 2000 campaign and that knowledge has been defined in subsequent smaller campaigns. I do have that confidence. We had that confidence shaken a little on day one of the spraying campaign when we had some difficulty with control of droplet size and the height at which the planes were operating. By the next day we thought we were over that, but there will always be little glitches. Little glitches aside, I can answer yes to both of those questions.
(1) Is the minister satisfied that the locust outbreak developing in the Agricultural Region will be controlled? (2) Is there sufficient funding and manpower available to carry out the task? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Murray Criddle for his question. (1) Yes, I am, and that is not based on blind faith. I am satisfied that we can achieve the level of control that we are setting out to achieve because I have been assured, as recently as two days ago, by the Department of Agriculture and Food that that is the case. (2) Yes. In the event that we find the campaign challenged by resources, such as the amount of chemical or human resources, we will find the chemical and human resources to meet the level of control. I am sure the honourable member will understand this, but a person reading the answer may not understand it: the degree of control that the Department of Agriculture and Food sets out to achieve equates to about only 70 per cent of the total possible flying mass. It is probably technically possible to go about 10 per cent better than that; that is, for approximately 80 per cent control, but the cost of gaining that additional 10 per cent of control would probably be uneconomic. Certainly, it would double or even treble the cost of the control that we have now. At a little over $11 million from the state’s part of the control, we can effectively control about 70 per cent or a little better of the flying biomass. We believe, and it is not belief based on theory but on experience, particularly the experience we gained from what became an award winning control procedure carried out by the honourable member’s government in 2000, that we can achieve 70 per cent. We have learnt a lot from the 2000 campaign and that knowledge has been defined in subsequent smaller campaigns. I do have that confidence. We had that confidence shaken a little on day one of the spraying campaign when we had some difficulty with control of droplet size and the height at which the planes were operating. By the next day we thought we were over that, but there will always be little glitches. Little glitches aside, I can answer yes to both of those questions.
(2) Is there sufficient funding and manpower available to carry out the task? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Murray Criddle for his question. (1) Yes, I am, and that is not based on blind faith. I am satisfied that we can achieve the level of control that we are setting out to achieve because I have been assured, as recently as two days ago, by the Department of Agriculture and Food that that is the case. (2) Yes. In the event that we find the campaign challenged by resources, such as the amount of chemical or human resources, we will find the chemical and human resources to meet the level of control. I am sure the honourable member will understand this, but a person reading the answer may not understand it: the degree of control that the Department of Agriculture and Food sets out to achieve equates to about only 70 per cent of the total possible flying mass. It is probably technically possible to go about 10 per cent better than that; that is, for approximately 80 per cent control, but the cost of gaining that additional 10 per cent of control would probably be uneconomic. Certainly, it would double or even treble the cost of the control that we have now. At a little over $11 million from the state’s part of the control, we can effectively control about 70 per cent or a little better of the flying biomass. We believe, and it is not belief based on theory but on experience, particularly the experience we gained from what became an award winning control procedure carried out by the honourable member’s government in 2000, that we can achieve 70 per cent. We have learnt a lot from the 2000 campaign and that knowledge has been defined in subsequent smaller campaigns. I do have that confidence. We had that confidence shaken a little on day one of the spraying campaign when we had some difficulty with control of droplet size and the height at which the planes were operating. By the next day we thought we were over that, but there will always be little glitches. Little glitches aside, I can answer yes to both of those questions.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Murray Criddle for his question. (1) Yes, I am, and that is not based on blind faith. I am satisfied that we can achieve the level of control that we are setting out to achieve because I have been assured, as recently as two days ago, by the Department of Agriculture and Food that that is the case. (2) Yes. In the event that we find the campaign challenged by resources, such as the amount of chemical or human resources, we will find the chemical and human resources to meet the level of control. I am sure the honourable member will understand this, but a person reading the answer may not understand it: the degree of control that the Department of Agriculture and Food sets out to achieve equates to about only 70 per cent of the total possible flying mass. It is probably technically possible to go about 10 per cent better than that; that is, for approximately 80 per cent control, but the cost of gaining that additional 10 per cent of control would probably be uneconomic. Certainly, it would double or even treble the cost of the control that we have now. At a little over $11 million from the state’s part of the control, we can effectively control about 70 per cent or a little better of the flying biomass. We believe, and it is not belief based on theory but on experience, particularly the experience we gained from what became an award winning control procedure carried out by the honourable member’s government in 2000, that we can achieve 70 per cent. We have learnt a lot from the 2000 campaign and that knowledge has been defined in subsequent smaller campaigns. I do have that confidence. We had that confidence shaken a little on day one of the spraying campaign when we had some difficulty with control of droplet size and the height at which the planes were operating. By the next day we thought we were over that, but there will always be little glitches. Little glitches aside, I can answer yes to both of those questions.
I thank Hon Murray Criddle for his question. (1) Yes, I am, and that is not based on blind faith. I am satisfied that we can achieve the level of control that we are setting out to achieve because I have been assured, as recently as two days ago, by the Department of Agriculture and Food that that is the case. (2) Yes. In the event that we find the campaign challenged by resources, such as the amount of chemical or human resources, we will find the chemical and human resources to meet the level of control. I am sure the honourable member will understand this, but a person reading the answer may not understand it: the degree of control that the Department of Agriculture and Food sets out to achieve equates to about only 70 per cent of the total possible flying mass. It is probably technically possible to go about 10 per cent better than that; that is, for approximately 80 per cent control, but the cost of gaining that additional 10 per cent of control would probably be uneconomic. Certainly, it would double or even treble the cost of the control that we have now. At a little over $11 million from the state’s part of the control, we can effectively control about 70 per cent or a little better of the flying biomass. We believe, and it is not belief based on theory but on experience, particularly the experience we gained from what became an award winning control procedure carried out by the honourable member’s government in 2000, that we can achieve 70 per cent. We have learnt a lot from the 2000 campaign and that knowledge has been defined in subsequent smaller campaigns. I do have that confidence. We had that confidence shaken a little on day one of the spraying campaign when we had some difficulty with control of droplet size and the height at which the planes were operating. By the next day we thought we were over that, but there will always be little glitches. Little glitches aside, I can answer yes to both of those questions.
(1) Yes, I am, and that is not based on blind faith. I am satisfied that we can achieve the level of control that we are setting out to achieve because I have been assured, as recently as two days ago, by the Department of Agriculture and Food that that is the case. (2) Yes. In the event that we find the campaign challenged by resources, such as the amount of chemical or human resources, we will find the chemical and human resources to meet the level of control. I am sure the honourable member will understand this, but a person reading the answer may not understand it: the degree of control that the Department of Agriculture and Food sets out to achieve equates to about only 70 per cent of the total possible flying mass. It is probably technically possible to go about 10 per cent better than that; that is, for approximately 80 per cent control, but the cost of gaining that additional 10 per cent of control would probably be uneconomic. Certainly, it would double or even treble the cost of the control that we have now. At a little over $11 million from the state’s part of the control, we can effectively control about 70 per cent or a little better of the flying biomass. We believe, and it is not belief based on theory but on experience, particularly the experience we gained from what became an award winning control procedure carried out by the honourable member’s government in 2000, that we can achieve 70 per cent. We have learnt a lot from the 2000 campaign and that knowledge has been defined in subsequent smaller campaigns. I do have that confidence. We had that confidence shaken a little on day one of the spraying campaign when we had some difficulty with control of droplet size and the height at which the planes were operating. By the next day we thought we were over that, but there will always be little glitches. Little glitches aside, I can answer yes to both of those questions.
(2) Yes. In the event that we find the campaign challenged by resources, such as the amount of chemical or human resources, we will find the chemical and human resources to meet the level of control. I am sure the honourable member will understand this, but a person reading the answer may not understand it: the degree of control that the Department of Agriculture and Food sets out to achieve equates to about only 70 per cent of the total possible flying mass. It is probably technically possible to go about 10 per cent better than that; that is, for approximately 80 per cent control, but the cost of gaining that additional 10 per cent of control would probably be uneconomic. Certainly, it would double or even treble the cost of the control that we have now. At a little over $11 million from the state’s part of the control, we can effectively control about 70 per cent or a little better of the flying biomass. We believe, and it is not belief based on theory but on experience, particularly the experience we gained from what became an award winning control procedure carried out by the honourable member’s government in 2000, that we can achieve 70 per cent. We have learnt a lot from the 2000 campaign and that knowledge has been defined in subsequent smaller campaigns. I do have that confidence. We had that confidence shaken a little on day one of the spraying campaign when we had some difficulty with control of droplet size and the height at which the planes were operating. By the next day we thought we were over that, but there will always be little glitches. Little glitches aside, I can answer yes to both of those questions.
(1) Is the minister satisfied that the locust outbreak developing in the Agricultural Region will be controlled? (2) Is there sufficient funding and manpower available to carry out the task? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Murray Criddle for his question. (1) Yes, I am, and that is not based on blind faith. I am satisfied that we can achieve the level of control that we are setting out to achieve because I have been assured, as recently as two days ago, by the Department of Agriculture and Food that that is the case. (2) Yes. In the event that we find the campaign challenged by resources, such as the amount of chemical or human resources, we will find the chemical and human resources to meet the level of control. I am sure the honourable member will understand this, but a person reading the answer may not understand it: the degree of control that the Department of Agriculture and Food sets out to achieve equates to about only 70 per cent of the total possible flying mass. It is probably technically possible to go about 10 per cent better than that; that is, for approximately 80 per cent control, but the cost of gaining that additional 10 per cent of control would probably be uneconomic. Certainly, it would double or even treble the cost of the control that we have now. At a little over $11 million from the state’s part of the control, we can effectively control about 70 per cent or a little better of the flying biomass. We believe, and it is not belief based on theory but on experience, particularly the experience we gained from what became an award winning control procedure carried out by the honourable member’s government in 2000, that we can achieve 70 per cent. We have learnt a lot from the 2000 campaign and that knowledge has been defined in subsequent smaller campaigns. I do have that confidence. We had that confidence shaken a little on day one of the spraying campaign when we had some difficulty with control of droplet size and the height at which the planes were operating. By the next day we thought we were over that, but there will always be little glitches. Little glitches aside, I can answer yes to both of those questions.
(2) Is there sufficient funding and manpower available to carry out the task? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Murray Criddle for his question. (1) Yes, I am, and that is not based on blind faith. I am satisfied that we can achieve the level of control that we are setting out to achieve because I have been assured, as recently as two days ago, by the Department of Agriculture and Food that that is the case. (2) Yes. In the event that we find the campaign challenged by resources, such as the amount of chemical or human resources, we will find the chemical and human resources to meet the level of control. I am sure the honourable member will understand this, but a person reading the answer may not understand it: the degree of control that the Department of Agriculture and Food sets out to achieve equates to about only 70 per cent of the total possible flying mass. It is probably technically possible to go about 10 per cent better than that; that is, for approximately 80 per cent control, but the cost of gaining that additional 10 per cent of control would probably be uneconomic. Certainly, it would double or even treble the cost of the control that we have now. At a little over $11 million from the state’s part of the control, we can effectively control about 70 per cent or a little better of the flying biomass. We believe, and it is not belief based on theory but on experience, particularly the experience we gained from what became an award winning control procedure carried out by the honourable member’s government in 2000, that we can achieve 70 per cent. We have learnt a lot from the 2000 campaign and that knowledge has been defined in subsequent smaller campaigns. I do have that confidence. We had that confidence shaken a little on day one of the spraying campaign when we had some difficulty with control of droplet size and the height at which the planes were operating. By the next day we thought we were over that, but there will always be little glitches. Little glitches aside, I can answer yes to both of those questions.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Murray Criddle for his question. (1) Yes, I am, and that is not based on blind faith. I am satisfied that we can achieve the level of control that we are setting out to achieve because I have been assured, as recently as two days ago, by the Department of Agriculture and Food that that is the case. (2) Yes. In the event that we find the campaign challenged by resources, such as the amount of chemical or human resources, we will find the chemical and human resources to meet the level of control. I am sure the honourable member will understand this, but a person reading the answer may not understand it: the degree of control that the Department of Agriculture and Food sets out to achieve equates to about only 70 per cent of the total possible flying mass. It is probably technically possible to go about 10 per cent better than that; that is, for approximately 80 per cent control, but the cost of gaining that additional 10 per cent of control would probably be uneconomic. Certainly, it would double or even treble the cost of the control that we have now. At a little over $11 million from the state’s part of the control, we can effectively control about 70 per cent or a little better of the flying biomass. We believe, and it is not belief based on theory but on experience, particularly the experience we gained from what became an award winning control procedure carried out by the honourable member’s government in 2000, that we can achieve 70 per cent. We have learnt a lot from the 2000 campaign and that knowledge has been defined in subsequent smaller campaigns. I do have that confidence. We had that confidence shaken a little on day one of the spraying campaign when we had some difficulty with control of droplet size and the height at which the planes were operating. By the next day we thought we were over that, but there will always be little glitches. Little glitches aside, I can answer yes to both of those questions.
I thank Hon Murray Criddle for his question. (1) Yes, I am, and that is not based on blind faith. I am satisfied that we can achieve the level of control that we are setting out to achieve because I have been assured, as recently as two days ago, by the Department of Agriculture and Food that that is the case. (2) Yes. In the event that we find the campaign challenged by resources, such as the amount of chemical or human resources, we will find the chemical and human resources to meet the level of control. I am sure the honourable member will understand this, but a person reading the answer may not understand it: the degree of control that the Department of Agriculture and Food sets out to achieve equates to about only 70 per cent of the total possible flying mass. It is probably technically possible to go about 10 per cent better than that; that is, for approximately 80 per cent control, but the cost of gaining that additional 10 per cent of control would probably be uneconomic. Certainly, it would double or even treble the cost of the control that we have now. At a little over $11 million from the state’s part of the control, we can effectively control about 70 per cent or a little better of the flying biomass. We believe, and it is not belief based on theory but on experience, particularly the experience we gained from what became an award winning control procedure carried out by the honourable member’s government in 2000, that we can achieve 70 per cent. We have learnt a lot from the 2000 campaign and that knowledge has been defined in subsequent smaller campaigns. I do have that confidence. We had that confidence shaken a little on day one of the spraying campaign when we had some difficulty with control of droplet size and the height at which the planes were operating. By the next day we thought we were over that, but there will always be little glitches. Little glitches aside, I can answer yes to both of those questions.
(1) Yes, I am, and that is not based on blind faith. I am satisfied that we can achieve the level of control that we are setting out to achieve because I have been assured, as recently as two days ago, by the Department of Agriculture and Food that that is the case. (2) Yes. In the event that we find the campaign challenged by resources, such as the amount of chemical or human resources, we will find the chemical and human resources to meet the level of control. I am sure the honourable member will understand this, but a person reading the answer may not understand it: the degree of control that the Department of Agriculture and Food sets out to achieve equates to about only 70 per cent of the total possible flying mass. It is probably technically possible to go about 10 per cent better than that; that is, for approximately 80 per cent control, but the cost of gaining that additional 10 per cent of control would probably be uneconomic. Certainly, it would double or even treble the cost of the control that we have now. At a little over $11 million from the state’s part of the control, we can effectively control about 70 per cent or a little better of the flying biomass. We believe, and it is not belief based on theory but on experience, particularly the experience we gained from what became an award winning control procedure carried out by the honourable member’s government in 2000, that we can achieve 70 per cent. We have learnt a lot from the 2000 campaign and that knowledge has been defined in subsequent smaller campaigns. I do have that confidence. We had that confidence shaken a little on day one of the spraying campaign when we had some difficulty with control of droplet size and the height at which the planes were operating. By the next day we thought we were over that, but there will always be little glitches. Little glitches aside, I can answer yes to both of those questions.
(2) Yes. In the event that we find the campaign challenged by resources, such as the amount of chemical or human resources, we will find the chemical and human resources to meet the level of control. I am sure the honourable member will understand this, but a person reading the answer may not understand it: the degree of control that the Department of Agriculture and Food sets out to achieve equates to about only 70 per cent of the total possible flying mass. It is probably technically possible to go about 10 per cent better than that; that is, for approximately 80 per cent control, but the cost of gaining that additional 10 per cent of control would probably be uneconomic. Certainly, it would double or even treble the cost of the control that we have now. At a little over $11 million from the state’s part of the control, we can effectively control about 70 per cent or a little better of the flying biomass. We believe, and it is not belief based on theory but on experience, particularly the experience we gained from what became an award winning control procedure carried out by the honourable member’s government in 2000, that we can achieve 70 per cent. We have learnt a lot from the 2000 campaign and that knowledge has been defined in subsequent smaller campaigns. I do have that confidence. We had that confidence shaken a little on day one of the spraying campaign when we had some difficulty with control of droplet size and the height at which the planes were operating. By the next day we thought we were over that, but there will always be little glitches. Little glitches aside, I can answer yes to both of those questions.
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.