❓ Opposition questions the Minister for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries regarding the Labor Party's promise of craft wood access for artisans, progress on tenders, and the establishment of craft wood licenses with direct forest access. The Minister acknowledges the promise but cites complexities and concerns regarding direct access.
AnsweredQoN 978Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
(1) Does the minister agree that prior to the election the Labor Party platform was to provide access to craft wood for artisans? (2) If yes, does the minister also agree that nearly four years later there is no final outcome on the tenders for feature grade material for fine wood crafts, and no forest craft wood licences are in place? (3) Will the minister guarantee to the House that regulated small-scale craft wood licences with direct access to the forest will be established; and, if not, why not? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) No. However, preparations for such arrangements are advanced. I made a public comment some years ago at the very start of this process that the question of craft wood licences and craft wood access would be among the last of the issues resolved. That is not because they are less important than any other part of the industry, but because it is necessary to get the core commercial users’ situation clearly decided and issues understood around the availability of material and its allocation before craft wood licensing is considered, which was always understood to be an outcome of the other processes. (3) If I understand the question correctly, the answer is no. However, I am saying that only on the basis that the question of direct access to the forest is always a difficult issue. The Forest Products Commission, the Department of Conservation and Land Management and, probably by extension, the Conservation Commission have concerns about direct access. That is because, firstly, issues such as public liability are involved. When people are permitted to enter state forests, especially when they are operating machinery, it creates some difficulty in light of residual public liability. Questions arise about the soil disturbance index, which is now part of the forest management plan at the insistence of the Conservation Commission. Someone must then oversee the operations of craft wood licensees operating in the state forest to monitor how they will be able to determine the soil disturbance index rating. It is quite a complex business. They must be able to determine not only the level of moisture in the soil but also, in that particular soil type, whether soil disturbance is likely. Despite all the capacity that the Forest Products Commission and CALM have, we are having great difficulty overcoming the objective and precise nature of the provisions of the soil disturbance index contained within the forest management plan. Assuming we can resolve issues of the separation of authorised and unauthorised extraction of resource from the forest - unfortunately, when people are allowed access to the forest, they go in without authorisation and steal resources - there is a considerable compliance cost to be overcome. The Forest Products Commission’s view is that it would be better for us to take the material out of the forest and sell it. That is already available to craft wood licensees. They already have access to the auctions that are conducted periodically. The PRESIDENT: Order! I trust the minister is wrapping up his answer; otherwise there will be no more green questions today! Hon KIM CHANCE: I am concluding. The basis of this question is not generally the availability of the resource because it is clearly available. Huge volumes of this resource are sold through Harvey every year. People do not want to pay the price that is established. However, in light of the three issues I mentioned, the full price of forest collection will probably be even higher.
(2) If yes, does the minister also agree that nearly four years later there is no final outcome on the tenders for feature grade material for fine wood crafts, and no forest craft wood licences are in place? (3) Will the minister guarantee to the House that regulated small-scale craft wood licences with direct access to the forest will be established; and, if not, why not? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) No. However, preparations for such arrangements are advanced. I made a public comment some years ago at the very start of this process that the question of craft wood licences and craft wood access would be among the last of the issues resolved. That is not because they are less important than any other part of the industry, but because it is necessary to get the core commercial users’ situation clearly decided and issues understood around the availability of material and its allocation before craft wood licensing is considered, which was always understood to be an outcome of the other processes. (3) If I understand the question correctly, the answer is no. However, I am saying that only on the basis that the question of direct access to the forest is always a difficult issue. The Forest Products Commission, the Department of Conservation and Land Management and, probably by extension, the Conservation Commission have concerns about direct access. That is because, firstly, issues such as public liability are involved. When people are permitted to enter state forests, especially when they are operating machinery, it creates some difficulty in light of residual public liability. Questions arise about the soil disturbance index, which is now part of the forest management plan at the insistence of the Conservation Commission. Someone must then oversee the operations of craft wood licensees operating in the state forest to monitor how they will be able to determine the soil disturbance index rating. It is quite a complex business. They must be able to determine not only the level of moisture in the soil but also, in that particular soil type, whether soil disturbance is likely. Despite all the capacity that the Forest Products Commission and CALM have, we are having great difficulty overcoming the objective and precise nature of the provisions of the soil disturbance index contained within the forest management plan. Assuming we can resolve issues of the separation of authorised and unauthorised extraction of resource from the forest - unfortunately, when people are allowed access to the forest, they go in without authorisation and steal resources - there is a considerable compliance cost to be overcome. The Forest Products Commission’s view is that it would be better for us to take the material out of the forest and sell it. That is already available to craft wood licensees. They already have access to the auctions that are conducted periodically. The PRESIDENT: Order! I trust the minister is wrapping up his answer; otherwise there will be no more green questions today! Hon KIM CHANCE: I am concluding. The basis of this question is not generally the availability of the resource because it is clearly available. Huge volumes of this resource are sold through Harvey every year. People do not want to pay the price that is established. However, in light of the three issues I mentioned, the full price of forest collection will probably be even higher.
(3) Will the minister guarantee to the House that regulated small-scale craft wood licences with direct access to the forest will be established; and, if not, why not? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) No. However, preparations for such arrangements are advanced. I made a public comment some years ago at the very start of this process that the question of craft wood licences and craft wood access would be among the last of the issues resolved. That is not because they are less important than any other part of the industry, but because it is necessary to get the core commercial users’ situation clearly decided and issues understood around the availability of material and its allocation before craft wood licensing is considered, which was always understood to be an outcome of the other processes. (3) If I understand the question correctly, the answer is no. However, I am saying that only on the basis that the question of direct access to the forest is always a difficult issue. The Forest Products Commission, the Department of Conservation and Land Management and, probably by extension, the Conservation Commission have concerns about direct access. That is because, firstly, issues such as public liability are involved. When people are permitted to enter state forests, especially when they are operating machinery, it creates some difficulty in light of residual public liability. Questions arise about the soil disturbance index, which is now part of the forest management plan at the insistence of the Conservation Commission. Someone must then oversee the operations of craft wood licensees operating in the state forest to monitor how they will be able to determine the soil disturbance index rating. It is quite a complex business. They must be able to determine not only the level of moisture in the soil but also, in that particular soil type, whether soil disturbance is likely. Despite all the capacity that the Forest Products Commission and CALM have, we are having great difficulty overcoming the objective and precise nature of the provisions of the soil disturbance index contained within the forest management plan. Assuming we can resolve issues of the separation of authorised and unauthorised extraction of resource from the forest - unfortunately, when people are allowed access to the forest, they go in without authorisation and steal resources - there is a considerable compliance cost to be overcome. The Forest Products Commission’s view is that it would be better for us to take the material out of the forest and sell it. That is already available to craft wood licensees. They already have access to the auctions that are conducted periodically. The PRESIDENT: Order! I trust the minister is wrapping up his answer; otherwise there will be no more green questions today! Hon KIM CHANCE: I am concluding. The basis of this question is not generally the availability of the resource because it is clearly available. Huge volumes of this resource are sold through Harvey every year. People do not want to pay the price that is established. However, in light of the three issues I mentioned, the full price of forest collection will probably be even higher.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) No. However, preparations for such arrangements are advanced. I made a public comment some years ago at the very start of this process that the question of craft wood licences and craft wood access would be among the last of the issues resolved. That is not because they are less important than any other part of the industry, but because it is necessary to get the core commercial users’ situation clearly decided and issues understood around the availability of material and its allocation before craft wood licensing is considered, which was always understood to be an outcome of the other processes. (3) If I understand the question correctly, the answer is no. However, I am saying that only on the basis that the question of direct access to the forest is always a difficult issue. The Forest Products Commission, the Department of Conservation and Land Management and, probably by extension, the Conservation Commission have concerns about direct access. That is because, firstly, issues such as public liability are involved. When people are permitted to enter state forests, especially when they are operating machinery, it creates some difficulty in light of residual public liability. Questions arise about the soil disturbance index, which is now part of the forest management plan at the insistence of the Conservation Commission. Someone must then oversee the operations of craft wood licensees operating in the state forest to monitor how they will be able to determine the soil disturbance index rating. It is quite a complex business. They must be able to determine not only the level of moisture in the soil but also, in that particular soil type, whether soil disturbance is likely. Despite all the capacity that the Forest Products Commission and CALM have, we are having great difficulty overcoming the objective and precise nature of the provisions of the soil disturbance index contained within the forest management plan. Assuming we can resolve issues of the separation of authorised and unauthorised extraction of resource from the forest - unfortunately, when people are allowed access to the forest, they go in without authorisation and steal resources - there is a considerable compliance cost to be overcome. The Forest Products Commission’s view is that it would be better for us to take the material out of the forest and sell it. That is already available to craft wood licensees. They already have access to the auctions that are conducted periodically. The PRESIDENT: Order! I trust the minister is wrapping up his answer; otherwise there will be no more green questions today! Hon KIM CHANCE: I am concluding. The basis of this question is not generally the availability of the resource because it is clearly available. Huge volumes of this resource are sold through Harvey every year. People do not want to pay the price that is established. However, in light of the three issues I mentioned, the full price of forest collection will probably be even higher.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) No. However, preparations for such arrangements are advanced. I made a public comment some years ago at the very start of this process that the question of craft wood licences and craft wood access would be among the last of the issues resolved. That is not because they are less important than any other part of the industry, but because it is necessary to get the core commercial users’ situation clearly decided and issues understood around the availability of material and its allocation before craft wood licensing is considered, which was always understood to be an outcome of the other processes. (3) If I understand the question correctly, the answer is no. However, I am saying that only on the basis that the question of direct access to the forest is always a difficult issue. The Forest Products Commission, the Department of Conservation and Land Management and, probably by extension, the Conservation Commission have concerns about direct access. That is because, firstly, issues such as public liability are involved. When people are permitted to enter state forests, especially when they are operating machinery, it creates some difficulty in light of residual public liability. Questions arise about the soil disturbance index, which is now part of the forest management plan at the insistence of the Conservation Commission. Someone must then oversee the operations of craft wood licensees operating in the state forest to monitor how they will be able to determine the soil disturbance index rating. It is quite a complex business. They must be able to determine not only the level of moisture in the soil but also, in that particular soil type, whether soil disturbance is likely. Despite all the capacity that the Forest Products Commission and CALM have, we are having great difficulty overcoming the objective and precise nature of the provisions of the soil disturbance index contained within the forest management plan. Assuming we can resolve issues of the separation of authorised and unauthorised extraction of resource from the forest - unfortunately, when people are allowed access to the forest, they go in without authorisation and steal resources - there is a considerable compliance cost to be overcome. The Forest Products Commission’s view is that it would be better for us to take the material out of the forest and sell it. That is already available to craft wood licensees. They already have access to the auctions that are conducted periodically. The PRESIDENT: Order! I trust the minister is wrapping up his answer; otherwise there will be no more green questions today! Hon KIM CHANCE: I am concluding. The basis of this question is not generally the availability of the resource because it is clearly available. Huge volumes of this resource are sold through Harvey every year. People do not want to pay the price that is established. However, in light of the three issues I mentioned, the full price of forest collection will probably be even higher.
(1) Yes. (2) No. However, preparations for such arrangements are advanced. I made a public comment some years ago at the very start of this process that the question of craft wood licences and craft wood access would be among the last of the issues resolved. That is not because they are less important than any other part of the industry, but because it is necessary to get the core commercial users’ situation clearly decided and issues understood around the availability of material and its allocation before craft wood licensing is considered, which was always understood to be an outcome of the other processes. (3) If I understand the question correctly, the answer is no. However, I am saying that only on the basis that the question of direct access to the forest is always a difficult issue. The Forest Products Commission, the Department of Conservation and Land Management and, probably by extension, the Conservation Commission have concerns about direct access. That is because, firstly, issues such as public liability are involved. When people are permitted to enter state forests, especially when they are operating machinery, it creates some difficulty in light of residual public liability. Questions arise about the soil disturbance index, which is now part of the forest management plan at the insistence of the Conservation Commission. Someone must then oversee the operations of craft wood licensees operating in the state forest to monitor how they will be able to determine the soil disturbance index rating. It is quite a complex business. They must be able to determine not only the level of moisture in the soil but also, in that particular soil type, whether soil disturbance is likely. Despite all the capacity that the Forest Products Commission and CALM have, we are having great difficulty overcoming the objective and precise nature of the provisions of the soil disturbance index contained within the forest management plan. Assuming we can resolve issues of the separation of authorised and unauthorised extraction of resource from the forest - unfortunately, when people are allowed access to the forest, they go in without authorisation and steal resources - there is a considerable compliance cost to be overcome. The Forest Products Commission’s view is that it would be better for us to take the material out of the forest and sell it. That is already available to craft wood licensees. They already have access to the auctions that are conducted periodically. The PRESIDENT: Order! I trust the minister is wrapping up his answer; otherwise there will be no more green questions today! Hon KIM CHANCE: I am concluding. The basis of this question is not generally the availability of the resource because it is clearly available. Huge volumes of this resource are sold through Harvey every year. People do not want to pay the price that is established. However, in light of the three issues I mentioned, the full price of forest collection will probably be even higher.
(2) No. However, preparations for such arrangements are advanced. I made a public comment some years ago at the very start of this process that the question of craft wood licences and craft wood access would be among the last of the issues resolved. That is not because they are less important than any other part of the industry, but because it is necessary to get the core commercial users’ situation clearly decided and issues understood around the availability of material and its allocation before craft wood licensing is considered, which was always understood to be an outcome of the other processes. (3) If I understand the question correctly, the answer is no. However, I am saying that only on the basis that the question of direct access to the forest is always a difficult issue. The Forest Products Commission, the Department of Conservation and Land Management and, probably by extension, the Conservation Commission have concerns about direct access. That is because, firstly, issues such as public liability are involved. When people are permitted to enter state forests, especially when they are operating machinery, it creates some difficulty in light of residual public liability. Questions arise about the soil disturbance index, which is now part of the forest management plan at the insistence of the Conservation Commission. Someone must then oversee the operations of craft wood licensees operating in the state forest to monitor how they will be able to determine the soil disturbance index rating. It is quite a complex business. They must be able to determine not only the level of moisture in the soil but also, in that particular soil type, whether soil disturbance is likely. Despite all the capacity that the Forest Products Commission and CALM have, we are having great difficulty overcoming the objective and precise nature of the provisions of the soil disturbance index contained within the forest management plan. Assuming we can resolve issues of the separation of authorised and unauthorised extraction of resource from the forest - unfortunately, when people are allowed access to the forest, they go in without authorisation and steal resources - there is a considerable compliance cost to be overcome. The Forest Products Commission’s view is that it would be better for us to take the material out of the forest and sell it. That is already available to craft wood licensees. They already have access to the auctions that are conducted periodically. The PRESIDENT: Order! I trust the minister is wrapping up his answer; otherwise there will be no more green questions today! Hon KIM CHANCE: I am concluding. The basis of this question is not generally the availability of the resource because it is clearly available. Huge volumes of this resource are sold through Harvey every year. People do not want to pay the price that is established. However, in light of the three issues I mentioned, the full price of forest collection will probably be even higher.
(3) If I understand the question correctly, the answer is no. However, I am saying that only on the basis that the question of direct access to the forest is always a difficult issue. The Forest Products Commission, the Department of Conservation and Land Management and, probably by extension, the Conservation Commission have concerns about direct access. That is because, firstly, issues such as public liability are involved. When people are permitted to enter state forests, especially when they are operating machinery, it creates some difficulty in light of residual public liability. Questions arise about the soil disturbance index, which is now part of the forest management plan at the insistence of the Conservation Commission. Someone must then oversee the operations of craft wood licensees operating in the state forest to monitor how they will be able to determine the soil disturbance index rating. It is quite a complex business. They must be able to determine not only the level of moisture in the soil but also, in that particular soil type, whether soil disturbance is likely. Despite all the capacity that the Forest Products Commission and CALM have, we are having great difficulty overcoming the objective and precise nature of the provisions of the soil disturbance index contained within the forest management plan. Assuming we can resolve issues of the separation of authorised and unauthorised extraction of resource from the forest - unfortunately, when people are allowed access to the forest, they go in without authorisation and steal resources - there is a considerable compliance cost to be overcome. The Forest Products Commission’s view is that it would be better for us to take the material out of the forest and sell it. That is already available to craft wood licensees. They already have access to the auctions that are conducted periodically. The PRESIDENT: Order! I trust the minister is wrapping up his answer; otherwise there will be no more green questions today! Hon KIM CHANCE: I am concluding. The basis of this question is not generally the availability of the resource because it is clearly available. Huge volumes of this resource are sold through Harvey every year. People do not want to pay the price that is established. However, in light of the three issues I mentioned, the full price of forest collection will probably be even higher.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I trust the minister is wrapping up his answer; otherwise there will be no more green questions today! Hon KIM CHANCE: I am concluding. The basis of this question is not generally the availability of the resource because it is clearly available. Huge volumes of this resource are sold through Harvey every year. People do not want to pay the price that is established. However, in light of the three issues I mentioned, the full price of forest collection will probably be even higher.
Hon KIM CHANCE: I am concluding. The basis of this question is not generally the availability of the resource because it is clearly available. Huge volumes of this resource are sold through Harvey every year. People do not want to pay the price that is established. However, in light of the three issues I mentioned, the full price of forest collection will probably be even higher.
(2) If yes, does the minister also agree that nearly four years later there is no final outcome on the tenders for feature grade material for fine wood crafts, and no forest craft wood licences are in place? (3) Will the minister guarantee to the House that regulated small-scale craft wood licences with direct access to the forest will be established; and, if not, why not? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) No. However, preparations for such arrangements are advanced. I made a public comment some years ago at the very start of this process that the question of craft wood licences and craft wood access would be among the last of the issues resolved. That is not because they are less important than any other part of the industry, but because it is necessary to get the core commercial users’ situation clearly decided and issues understood around the availability of material and its allocation before craft wood licensing is considered, which was always understood to be an outcome of the other processes. (3) If I understand the question correctly, the answer is no. However, I am saying that only on the basis that the question of direct access to the forest is always a difficult issue. The Forest Products Commission, the Department of Conservation and Land Management and, probably by extension, the Conservation Commission have concerns about direct access. That is because, firstly, issues such as public liability are involved. When people are permitted to enter state forests, especially when they are operating machinery, it creates some difficulty in light of residual public liability. Questions arise about the soil disturbance index, which is now part of the forest management plan at the insistence of the Conservation Commission. Someone must then oversee the operations of craft wood licensees operating in the state forest to monitor how they will be able to determine the soil disturbance index rating. It is quite a complex business. They must be able to determine not only the level of moisture in the soil but also, in that particular soil type, whether soil disturbance is likely. Despite all the capacity that the Forest Products Commission and CALM have, we are having great difficulty overcoming the objective and precise nature of the provisions of the soil disturbance index contained within the forest management plan. Assuming we can resolve issues of the separation of authorised and unauthorised extraction of resource from the forest - unfortunately, when people are allowed access to the forest, they go in without authorisation and steal resources - there is a considerable compliance cost to be overcome. The Forest Products Commission’s view is that it would be better for us to take the material out of the forest and sell it. That is already available to craft wood licensees. They already have access to the auctions that are conducted periodically. The PRESIDENT: Order! I trust the minister is wrapping up his answer; otherwise there will be no more green questions today! Hon KIM CHANCE: I am concluding. The basis of this question is not generally the availability of the resource because it is clearly available. Huge volumes of this resource are sold through Harvey every year. People do not want to pay the price that is established. However, in light of the three issues I mentioned, the full price of forest collection will probably be even higher.
(3) Will the minister guarantee to the House that regulated small-scale craft wood licences with direct access to the forest will be established; and, if not, why not? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) No. However, preparations for such arrangements are advanced. I made a public comment some years ago at the very start of this process that the question of craft wood licences and craft wood access would be among the last of the issues resolved. That is not because they are less important than any other part of the industry, but because it is necessary to get the core commercial users’ situation clearly decided and issues understood around the availability of material and its allocation before craft wood licensing is considered, which was always understood to be an outcome of the other processes. (3) If I understand the question correctly, the answer is no. However, I am saying that only on the basis that the question of direct access to the forest is always a difficult issue. The Forest Products Commission, the Department of Conservation and Land Management and, probably by extension, the Conservation Commission have concerns about direct access. That is because, firstly, issues such as public liability are involved. When people are permitted to enter state forests, especially when they are operating machinery, it creates some difficulty in light of residual public liability. Questions arise about the soil disturbance index, which is now part of the forest management plan at the insistence of the Conservation Commission. Someone must then oversee the operations of craft wood licensees operating in the state forest to monitor how they will be able to determine the soil disturbance index rating. It is quite a complex business. They must be able to determine not only the level of moisture in the soil but also, in that particular soil type, whether soil disturbance is likely. Despite all the capacity that the Forest Products Commission and CALM have, we are having great difficulty overcoming the objective and precise nature of the provisions of the soil disturbance index contained within the forest management plan. Assuming we can resolve issues of the separation of authorised and unauthorised extraction of resource from the forest - unfortunately, when people are allowed access to the forest, they go in without authorisation and steal resources - there is a considerable compliance cost to be overcome. The Forest Products Commission’s view is that it would be better for us to take the material out of the forest and sell it. That is already available to craft wood licensees. They already have access to the auctions that are conducted periodically. The PRESIDENT: Order! I trust the minister is wrapping up his answer; otherwise there will be no more green questions today! Hon KIM CHANCE: I am concluding. The basis of this question is not generally the availability of the resource because it is clearly available. Huge volumes of this resource are sold through Harvey every year. People do not want to pay the price that is established. However, in light of the three issues I mentioned, the full price of forest collection will probably be even higher.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) No. However, preparations for such arrangements are advanced. I made a public comment some years ago at the very start of this process that the question of craft wood licences and craft wood access would be among the last of the issues resolved. That is not because they are less important than any other part of the industry, but because it is necessary to get the core commercial users’ situation clearly decided and issues understood around the availability of material and its allocation before craft wood licensing is considered, which was always understood to be an outcome of the other processes. (3) If I understand the question correctly, the answer is no. However, I am saying that only on the basis that the question of direct access to the forest is always a difficult issue. The Forest Products Commission, the Department of Conservation and Land Management and, probably by extension, the Conservation Commission have concerns about direct access. That is because, firstly, issues such as public liability are involved. When people are permitted to enter state forests, especially when they are operating machinery, it creates some difficulty in light of residual public liability. Questions arise about the soil disturbance index, which is now part of the forest management plan at the insistence of the Conservation Commission. Someone must then oversee the operations of craft wood licensees operating in the state forest to monitor how they will be able to determine the soil disturbance index rating. It is quite a complex business. They must be able to determine not only the level of moisture in the soil but also, in that particular soil type, whether soil disturbance is likely. Despite all the capacity that the Forest Products Commission and CALM have, we are having great difficulty overcoming the objective and precise nature of the provisions of the soil disturbance index contained within the forest management plan. Assuming we can resolve issues of the separation of authorised and unauthorised extraction of resource from the forest - unfortunately, when people are allowed access to the forest, they go in without authorisation and steal resources - there is a considerable compliance cost to be overcome. The Forest Products Commission’s view is that it would be better for us to take the material out of the forest and sell it. That is already available to craft wood licensees. They already have access to the auctions that are conducted periodically. The PRESIDENT: Order! I trust the minister is wrapping up his answer; otherwise there will be no more green questions today! Hon KIM CHANCE: I am concluding. The basis of this question is not generally the availability of the resource because it is clearly available. Huge volumes of this resource are sold through Harvey every year. People do not want to pay the price that is established. However, in light of the three issues I mentioned, the full price of forest collection will probably be even higher.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) No. However, preparations for such arrangements are advanced. I made a public comment some years ago at the very start of this process that the question of craft wood licences and craft wood access would be among the last of the issues resolved. That is not because they are less important than any other part of the industry, but because it is necessary to get the core commercial users’ situation clearly decided and issues understood around the availability of material and its allocation before craft wood licensing is considered, which was always understood to be an outcome of the other processes. (3) If I understand the question correctly, the answer is no. However, I am saying that only on the basis that the question of direct access to the forest is always a difficult issue. The Forest Products Commission, the Department of Conservation and Land Management and, probably by extension, the Conservation Commission have concerns about direct access. That is because, firstly, issues such as public liability are involved. When people are permitted to enter state forests, especially when they are operating machinery, it creates some difficulty in light of residual public liability. Questions arise about the soil disturbance index, which is now part of the forest management plan at the insistence of the Conservation Commission. Someone must then oversee the operations of craft wood licensees operating in the state forest to monitor how they will be able to determine the soil disturbance index rating. It is quite a complex business. They must be able to determine not only the level of moisture in the soil but also, in that particular soil type, whether soil disturbance is likely. Despite all the capacity that the Forest Products Commission and CALM have, we are having great difficulty overcoming the objective and precise nature of the provisions of the soil disturbance index contained within the forest management plan. Assuming we can resolve issues of the separation of authorised and unauthorised extraction of resource from the forest - unfortunately, when people are allowed access to the forest, they go in without authorisation and steal resources - there is a considerable compliance cost to be overcome. The Forest Products Commission’s view is that it would be better for us to take the material out of the forest and sell it. That is already available to craft wood licensees. They already have access to the auctions that are conducted periodically. The PRESIDENT: Order! I trust the minister is wrapping up his answer; otherwise there will be no more green questions today! Hon KIM CHANCE: I am concluding. The basis of this question is not generally the availability of the resource because it is clearly available. Huge volumes of this resource are sold through Harvey every year. People do not want to pay the price that is established. However, in light of the three issues I mentioned, the full price of forest collection will probably be even higher.
(1) Yes. (2) No. However, preparations for such arrangements are advanced. I made a public comment some years ago at the very start of this process that the question of craft wood licences and craft wood access would be among the last of the issues resolved. That is not because they are less important than any other part of the industry, but because it is necessary to get the core commercial users’ situation clearly decided and issues understood around the availability of material and its allocation before craft wood licensing is considered, which was always understood to be an outcome of the other processes. (3) If I understand the question correctly, the answer is no. However, I am saying that only on the basis that the question of direct access to the forest is always a difficult issue. The Forest Products Commission, the Department of Conservation and Land Management and, probably by extension, the Conservation Commission have concerns about direct access. That is because, firstly, issues such as public liability are involved. When people are permitted to enter state forests, especially when they are operating machinery, it creates some difficulty in light of residual public liability. Questions arise about the soil disturbance index, which is now part of the forest management plan at the insistence of the Conservation Commission. Someone must then oversee the operations of craft wood licensees operating in the state forest to monitor how they will be able to determine the soil disturbance index rating. It is quite a complex business. They must be able to determine not only the level of moisture in the soil but also, in that particular soil type, whether soil disturbance is likely. Despite all the capacity that the Forest Products Commission and CALM have, we are having great difficulty overcoming the objective and precise nature of the provisions of the soil disturbance index contained within the forest management plan. Assuming we can resolve issues of the separation of authorised and unauthorised extraction of resource from the forest - unfortunately, when people are allowed access to the forest, they go in without authorisation and steal resources - there is a considerable compliance cost to be overcome. The Forest Products Commission’s view is that it would be better for us to take the material out of the forest and sell it. That is already available to craft wood licensees. They already have access to the auctions that are conducted periodically. The PRESIDENT: Order! I trust the minister is wrapping up his answer; otherwise there will be no more green questions today! Hon KIM CHANCE: I am concluding. The basis of this question is not generally the availability of the resource because it is clearly available. Huge volumes of this resource are sold through Harvey every year. People do not want to pay the price that is established. However, in light of the three issues I mentioned, the full price of forest collection will probably be even higher.
(2) No. However, preparations for such arrangements are advanced. I made a public comment some years ago at the very start of this process that the question of craft wood licences and craft wood access would be among the last of the issues resolved. That is not because they are less important than any other part of the industry, but because it is necessary to get the core commercial users’ situation clearly decided and issues understood around the availability of material and its allocation before craft wood licensing is considered, which was always understood to be an outcome of the other processes. (3) If I understand the question correctly, the answer is no. However, I am saying that only on the basis that the question of direct access to the forest is always a difficult issue. The Forest Products Commission, the Department of Conservation and Land Management and, probably by extension, the Conservation Commission have concerns about direct access. That is because, firstly, issues such as public liability are involved. When people are permitted to enter state forests, especially when they are operating machinery, it creates some difficulty in light of residual public liability. Questions arise about the soil disturbance index, which is now part of the forest management plan at the insistence of the Conservation Commission. Someone must then oversee the operations of craft wood licensees operating in the state forest to monitor how they will be able to determine the soil disturbance index rating. It is quite a complex business. They must be able to determine not only the level of moisture in the soil but also, in that particular soil type, whether soil disturbance is likely. Despite all the capacity that the Forest Products Commission and CALM have, we are having great difficulty overcoming the objective and precise nature of the provisions of the soil disturbance index contained within the forest management plan. Assuming we can resolve issues of the separation of authorised and unauthorised extraction of resource from the forest - unfortunately, when people are allowed access to the forest, they go in without authorisation and steal resources - there is a considerable compliance cost to be overcome. The Forest Products Commission’s view is that it would be better for us to take the material out of the forest and sell it. That is already available to craft wood licensees. They already have access to the auctions that are conducted periodically. The PRESIDENT: Order! I trust the minister is wrapping up his answer; otherwise there will be no more green questions today! Hon KIM CHANCE: I am concluding. The basis of this question is not generally the availability of the resource because it is clearly available. Huge volumes of this resource are sold through Harvey every year. People do not want to pay the price that is established. However, in light of the three issues I mentioned, the full price of forest collection will probably be even higher.
(3) If I understand the question correctly, the answer is no. However, I am saying that only on the basis that the question of direct access to the forest is always a difficult issue. The Forest Products Commission, the Department of Conservation and Land Management and, probably by extension, the Conservation Commission have concerns about direct access. That is because, firstly, issues such as public liability are involved. When people are permitted to enter state forests, especially when they are operating machinery, it creates some difficulty in light of residual public liability. Questions arise about the soil disturbance index, which is now part of the forest management plan at the insistence of the Conservation Commission. Someone must then oversee the operations of craft wood licensees operating in the state forest to monitor how they will be able to determine the soil disturbance index rating. It is quite a complex business. They must be able to determine not only the level of moisture in the soil but also, in that particular soil type, whether soil disturbance is likely. Despite all the capacity that the Forest Products Commission and CALM have, we are having great difficulty overcoming the objective and precise nature of the provisions of the soil disturbance index contained within the forest management plan. Assuming we can resolve issues of the separation of authorised and unauthorised extraction of resource from the forest - unfortunately, when people are allowed access to the forest, they go in without authorisation and steal resources - there is a considerable compliance cost to be overcome. The Forest Products Commission’s view is that it would be better for us to take the material out of the forest and sell it. That is already available to craft wood licensees. They already have access to the auctions that are conducted periodically. The PRESIDENT: Order! I trust the minister is wrapping up his answer; otherwise there will be no more green questions today! Hon KIM CHANCE: I am concluding. The basis of this question is not generally the availability of the resource because it is clearly available. Huge volumes of this resource are sold through Harvey every year. People do not want to pay the price that is established. However, in light of the three issues I mentioned, the full price of forest collection will probably be even higher.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I trust the minister is wrapping up his answer; otherwise there will be no more green questions today! Hon KIM CHANCE: I am concluding. The basis of this question is not generally the availability of the resource because it is clearly available. Huge volumes of this resource are sold through Harvey every year. People do not want to pay the price that is established. However, in light of the three issues I mentioned, the full price of forest collection will probably be even higher.
Hon KIM CHANCE: I am concluding. The basis of this question is not generally the availability of the resource because it is clearly available. Huge volumes of this resource are sold through Harvey every year. People do not want to pay the price that is established. However, in light of the three issues I mentioned, the full price of forest collection will probably be even higher.
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.