❓ Question on Notice regarding the Muchea Saleyards project, including costs, construction progress, and implications for regional saleyards. The Minister provides updates on construction, cost escalations, and future plans, citing commercial sensitivity for some information.
AnsweredQoN 2677Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
(a) why has the Minister refused a Freedom of Information application made on 27 February 2007 for a copy of “The Review of Saleyard Options/GHD Consultancy Report of the Muchea Saleyards”, dated October 2006;
(b) will the Minister now table the report, and
(i) if not, why not;
(c) can the Minister advise construction progress of the Muchea Saleyards;
(d) will the Minister provide a construction timetable for the Muchea Saleyards, and
(i) if not why not;
(e) has there been a recent review of the design of the Muchea Saleyards plan, and
(i) if so, what has been altered from the last agreed design;
(f) what was the original estimated cost of the saleyards;
(g) will the Minister provide a current cost of the saleyards, and
(i) if not, why not;
(h) can the Minister advise the estimated value of the Midland Saleyard complex;
(i) will funds from the sale of the Midland Saleyards be quarantined and redirected to upgrade and improve community saleyards in regional Western Australia;
(j) what are the reasons behind the extremely high cost of the Muchea Saleyards when other States with much higher stock throughput figures have provided saleyards at a fraction of the cost;
(k) what specialised services are being made available to explain the high cost of the saleyards;
(l) what other available options were considered for a centralised saleyard complex, and
(i) if so, will the Minister provide details, and
(ii) if not, why not;
(m) as a result of the sale of the Midland Saleyards, what funds will be available to upgrade and improve regional facilities at Katanning, Mt Barker and Boyanup;
(n) is a new regional saleyard complex at Kemerton being considered as a long term solution, and
(i) if not, why not;
(o) given that WorkSafe have issued over 60 work order improvement notices to operators of saleyards at Serpentine, Brunswick, Manjimup, Bridgetown and Shark Lake, what action does the Minister intend to take to ensure these yards remain operational as saleyards or transit depots;
(p) given that costs associated with undertaking the improvements to satisfy the
Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984
could amount to over $1 million, what action is proposed by the Minister to ensure WorkSafe notices are necessary;
(q) what are the implications and consequences of these improvement notices to the agricultural industry and specifically to the live stock industry;
(r) will the Minister support an application from the Western Australian Livestock Salesmen’s Association for Government funds to cover the improvement notices imposed by WorkSafe, given the industry’s outstanding safety record; and
(s) can the Minster advise what interim measures are in place to replace these community saleyards which may be forced to close?
(b) will the Minister now table the report, and
(i) if not, why not;
(c) can the Minister advise construction progress of the Muchea Saleyards;
(d) will the Minister provide a construction timetable for the Muchea Saleyards, and
(i) if not why not;
(e) has there been a recent review of the design of the Muchea Saleyards plan, and
(i) if so, what has been altered from the last agreed design;
(f) what was the original estimated cost of the saleyards;
(g) will the Minister provide a current cost of the saleyards, and
(i) if not, why not;
(h) can the Minister advise the estimated value of the Midland Saleyard complex;
(i) will funds from the sale of the Midland Saleyards be quarantined and redirected to upgrade and improve community saleyards in regional Western Australia;
(j) what are the reasons behind the extremely high cost of the Muchea Saleyards when other States with much higher stock throughput figures have provided saleyards at a fraction of the cost;
(k) what specialised services are being made available to explain the high cost of the saleyards;
(l) what other available options were considered for a centralised saleyard complex, and
(i) if so, will the Minister provide details, and
(ii) if not, why not;
(m) as a result of the sale of the Midland Saleyards, what funds will be available to upgrade and improve regional facilities at Katanning, Mt Barker and Boyanup;
(n) is a new regional saleyard complex at Kemerton being considered as a long term solution, and
(i) if not, why not;
(o) given that WorkSafe have issued over 60 work order improvement notices to operators of saleyards at Serpentine, Brunswick, Manjimup, Bridgetown and Shark Lake, what action does the Minister intend to take to ensure these yards remain operational as saleyards or transit depots;
(p) given that costs associated with undertaking the improvements to satisfy the
Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984
could amount to over $1 million, what action is proposed by the Minister to ensure WorkSafe notices are necessary;
(q) what are the implications and consequences of these improvement notices to the agricultural industry and specifically to the live stock industry;
(r) will the Minister support an application from the Western Australian Livestock Salesmen’s Association for Government funds to cover the improvement notices imposed by WorkSafe, given the industry’s outstanding safety record; and
(s) can the Minster advise what interim measures are in place to replace these community saleyards which may be forced to close?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
16 October 2007
Responded by
Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Agriculture and Food
Response time
28 days
(a) The Minister's office did not receive this Freedom of Information Application. The Freedom of Information Application was directed to the Department of Agriculture and Food.
The Member sought a copy of the Review of Saleyard Options which includes the GHD Consultancy Report on the Muchea Saleyards, dated October 2006 from the Department of Agriculture and Food. The report is not a public document and was prepared by the Department of Agriculture and Food to assist Cabinet's deliberations relating to the Midland Saleyard Relocation Project. The report provides detailed financial information that is considered to be of a commercial nature by the Western Australian Meat Industry Authority. This commercial information includes the forecast trading position of the proposed Muchea facility, information on construction cost estimates and land valuations for elements of the project that have yet to progress to tender. Public release of this information at this time could have a negative impact on tenders for construction and returns from land sales.
Therefore in accordance with the
Freedom of Information Act 1992
exemption is claimed under
Schedule 1 Clause 10. Subclause (4).
(b) No.
(c) Expressions of interest for the construction and the fabrication of the gates, panels and rails were advertised on 12 September and 19 September 2007. This closes 10 October 2007. This process will allow for interested parties to be identified and then vetted. Tenders will then be sought from suitable parties.
(d) Cut and fill of the 16 ha site will be completed before Christmas 2007.
Construction will commence early 2008 and is scheduled for be completion by the end of 2008.
(e) Yes
(i) The review is in the final stages of reporting and is not available at this time. The basis of the review was to find (1) cost savings and (2) modify design to streamline operational flow and labour efficiency.
(f) In October 2003 Government provided in-principle approval for relocation of the Midland Saleyard to the Muchea area. At that time the estimated cost was $13.4m.
Cost estimates since 2003 have increased dramatically. Let me provide you with some detail. The Western Australian Meat Industry Authority (WAMIA) carried out Stage One of the project and reassessed the expected costs and returns. Selection of a specific site at Muchea was also carried out to enable initial environmental assessment to ensure that there are no fatal flaws. The Stage One report identified cost estimates in the order of $16m could be funded by the sale of the Authority's existing land holdings.
In August 2004 Cabinet endorsed progression to stage two of the relocation project. Stage Two involved design of the facility, site investigations at Muchea and preparation of the Midland and Hazelmere land for sale. This unfortunately took longer than expected as 38 conditions placed on the development resulted in delays in achieving Development Approval and Environmental Protection Authority clearance. By September 2006 cost estimates had escalated dramatically to over $30 million. The Stage Two investigations revealed major increases in expected site costs at Muchea. These include additional road costs and earth works costs. Cost increases also resulted from an increase in saleyard pen sizes in response to new animal welfare standards and as a result of construction cost escalation.
The cost increases were independently reviewed and were not considered to be extraordinary for livestock saleyards in the recent overheated construction market where steel, labour and overall construction costs have escalated.
(g) The current cost will be known when tenders are submitted.
(h) The full value of the Midland saleyard complex will not be known until the Midland saleyard site is vacated and sold. Current income estimates will cover relocation costs to Muchea and also provide for some assistance to the primary regional saleyards.
(i) ln December last year Government recognised the deteriorating state of the regional livestock saleyards and adjusted the relocation project to provide wider support to the saleyard sector. Surplus funds from the sale of the Midland land will be used for an assistance package for the primary regional livestock saleyards.
(j) I am not aware if saleyards in the eastern states that have been recently constructed, provide similar features to the Muchea proposal and have been constructed at a fraction of the cost for similar throughput levels.
The Western Australian Meat industry Authority considers that cost estimates for interstate yards of similar capacity may be in the order of $18 million. It is important to note however that this estimate is for yards still in planning stages.
I believe there has been rapid escalation in cost estimates for some saleyards on the drawing board in the eastern states. For example:
In August 2002 development costs of $6 million were forecast for a new Livestock Exchange near Blayney in the central west of New South Wales. 2005 estimates were of $16m. This is close to a three fold increase (2.7) in cost estimates over four years.
Another example is Bathurst Regional Council's budget estimates for redeveloping their saleyards. I believe these increased from $11 million in July 2005 to $22 million in August 2006. That is cost estimates doubled in a year. Even the $11 million estimate was an increase over earlier estimates due to factors including improved environmental measures, increase in steel prices, changed roof design, and previously un-costed items such as pavements. Bathurst saleyard has less that 30% of the value of stock passing through it than expected for the Muchea facility. I believe Bathurst Council will now expect to close the facility
A more accurate indication of interstate costs is to look at completed yards that offer similar quality standards to those proposed for the Muchea facility. For example the Forbes livestock selling centre in New South Wales was completed in March 2006 for a total cost of approximately $12 million ($10 million capital cost plus land). The facility was developed on a green field site and provides state of the art features comparable to those expected of the Muchea facility. The facility is a cattle selling complex only and was designed for throughput of approximately 65,000 animals per year; whereas Muchea is a combined cattle and sheep facility designed for annual throughput of 100,000 cattle and 800,000 sheep. The capital cost per unit throughput would be about the same for Forbes and Muchea
(k) The saleyard provides state of the art features and provides superior stock management, animal welfare, and occupational health and safety services.
One high cost key feature is roofing of the yards for client and animal welfare. This also improves environmental management and enables water harvesting and recycling. Higher capital costs also result from features that provide operating efficiency and improved safety. For example the saleyard will have the latest in electronic recording and use remote controlled hydraulics in cattle drafts to improve animal and worker safety.
(l) Separate cattle and sheep facilities were considered however industry rejected this option as significantly inferior to a combined species facility.
(i) I have asked proponents of alternative options to engage the key industry bodies in developing and assessing their proposals. Support has remained for a combined facility at Muchea.
As late as May this year I have kept the door open for the Shire of Northam to provide a viable alternative. I urged the Northam proponents to discuss their proposal with a number of key user and industry groups however there was an absence of demonstrated support for their proposal.
(m) Land sales have not been finalised, so the specific level of assistance funding is not known at this time. As I have said previously, Government has already identified that regional livestock saleyards are seeking support and agreed that funding would be available to assist strategically located saleyards.
This funding is expected to be substantial and in the order of several million dollars however this assistance will only be a proportion of the capital required for new regional saleyards.Government will provide assistance however at the end of the day regional saleyard businesses are the responsibility of the commercial sector.
(n) Yes.
(o) Serpentine, Manjimup, Bridgetown, Brunswick and Shark Lake are privately operated. Like any private enterprise, the operators need to make a commercial decision on expenditure of funds for improvements and maintenance. It could well be that throughput at these smaller yards no longer provides sufficient return to support their continued operation.
The 2006 State Saleyard Strategy identified that small saleyards would come under increasing commercial pressure and forecast rationalisation into a small number of larger regional facilities.
(p) Let me point out that all businesses including stockyard owners and controllers have a responsibility to provide a safe working environment, to carry out risk assessments, and implement controls to eliminate or reduce the risks of hazards.
I arranged a meeting in February this year between the WorkSafe Commissioner and the Western Australian Livestock Salesman's Association (WALSA) to build a shared understanding of the WorkSafe issues and a sensible approach to addressing these in livestock saleyards. WALSA was offered the opportunity to provide a strategic and staged approach to implementing necessary improvements.
(q) I expect that necessary expenditure to ensure safe work places will be one of many factors influencing business decisions about the future operation of saleyards. As I have said the 2006 State Saleyard Strategy identified that small saleyards would come under increasing commercial pressure and forecast rationalisation into a small number of larger regional facilities. I expect there will also be some acceleration of the shift to other selling pathways, such as direct contract selling.
(r) The Western Australian Livestock Salesman's Association runs a number of selling facilities as commercial businesses and needs to take responsibility for safety requirements.
Any funding assistance will be targeted to assist with the development of strategically placed regional saleyards that can deliver efficient and safe services to the livestock sector.
(s) Expenditure of public funds to prop up unviable small yards is not a responsible use of tax payers' funds.
Notice: This document is created or edited using unregistered or evaluation copy of rtLib valid for testing or development purposes only. To use it for productive or any other purposes please register it. You may purchase the license on
http://www.rtlib.com
The Member sought a copy of the Review of Saleyard Options which includes the GHD Consultancy Report on the Muchea Saleyards, dated October 2006 from the Department of Agriculture and Food. The report is not a public document and was prepared by the Department of Agriculture and Food to assist Cabinet's deliberations relating to the Midland Saleyard Relocation Project. The report provides detailed financial information that is considered to be of a commercial nature by the Western Australian Meat Industry Authority. This commercial information includes the forecast trading position of the proposed Muchea facility, information on construction cost estimates and land valuations for elements of the project that have yet to progress to tender. Public release of this information at this time could have a negative impact on tenders for construction and returns from land sales.
Therefore in accordance with the
Freedom of Information Act 1992
exemption is claimed under
Schedule 1 Clause 10. Subclause (4).
(b) No.
(c) Expressions of interest for the construction and the fabrication of the gates, panels and rails were advertised on 12 September and 19 September 2007. This closes 10 October 2007. This process will allow for interested parties to be identified and then vetted. Tenders will then be sought from suitable parties.
(d) Cut and fill of the 16 ha site will be completed before Christmas 2007.
Construction will commence early 2008 and is scheduled for be completion by the end of 2008.
(e) Yes
(i) The review is in the final stages of reporting and is not available at this time. The basis of the review was to find (1) cost savings and (2) modify design to streamline operational flow and labour efficiency.
(f) In October 2003 Government provided in-principle approval for relocation of the Midland Saleyard to the Muchea area. At that time the estimated cost was $13.4m.
Cost estimates since 2003 have increased dramatically. Let me provide you with some detail. The Western Australian Meat Industry Authority (WAMIA) carried out Stage One of the project and reassessed the expected costs and returns. Selection of a specific site at Muchea was also carried out to enable initial environmental assessment to ensure that there are no fatal flaws. The Stage One report identified cost estimates in the order of $16m could be funded by the sale of the Authority's existing land holdings.
In August 2004 Cabinet endorsed progression to stage two of the relocation project. Stage Two involved design of the facility, site investigations at Muchea and preparation of the Midland and Hazelmere land for sale. This unfortunately took longer than expected as 38 conditions placed on the development resulted in delays in achieving Development Approval and Environmental Protection Authority clearance. By September 2006 cost estimates had escalated dramatically to over $30 million. The Stage Two investigations revealed major increases in expected site costs at Muchea. These include additional road costs and earth works costs. Cost increases also resulted from an increase in saleyard pen sizes in response to new animal welfare standards and as a result of construction cost escalation.
The cost increases were independently reviewed and were not considered to be extraordinary for livestock saleyards in the recent overheated construction market where steel, labour and overall construction costs have escalated.
(g) The current cost will be known when tenders are submitted.
(h) The full value of the Midland saleyard complex will not be known until the Midland saleyard site is vacated and sold. Current income estimates will cover relocation costs to Muchea and also provide for some assistance to the primary regional saleyards.
(i) ln December last year Government recognised the deteriorating state of the regional livestock saleyards and adjusted the relocation project to provide wider support to the saleyard sector. Surplus funds from the sale of the Midland land will be used for an assistance package for the primary regional livestock saleyards.
(j) I am not aware if saleyards in the eastern states that have been recently constructed, provide similar features to the Muchea proposal and have been constructed at a fraction of the cost for similar throughput levels.
The Western Australian Meat industry Authority considers that cost estimates for interstate yards of similar capacity may be in the order of $18 million. It is important to note however that this estimate is for yards still in planning stages.
I believe there has been rapid escalation in cost estimates for some saleyards on the drawing board in the eastern states. For example:
In August 2002 development costs of $6 million were forecast for a new Livestock Exchange near Blayney in the central west of New South Wales. 2005 estimates were of $16m. This is close to a three fold increase (2.7) in cost estimates over four years.
Another example is Bathurst Regional Council's budget estimates for redeveloping their saleyards. I believe these increased from $11 million in July 2005 to $22 million in August 2006. That is cost estimates doubled in a year. Even the $11 million estimate was an increase over earlier estimates due to factors including improved environmental measures, increase in steel prices, changed roof design, and previously un-costed items such as pavements. Bathurst saleyard has less that 30% of the value of stock passing through it than expected for the Muchea facility. I believe Bathurst Council will now expect to close the facility
A more accurate indication of interstate costs is to look at completed yards that offer similar quality standards to those proposed for the Muchea facility. For example the Forbes livestock selling centre in New South Wales was completed in March 2006 for a total cost of approximately $12 million ($10 million capital cost plus land). The facility was developed on a green field site and provides state of the art features comparable to those expected of the Muchea facility. The facility is a cattle selling complex only and was designed for throughput of approximately 65,000 animals per year; whereas Muchea is a combined cattle and sheep facility designed for annual throughput of 100,000 cattle and 800,000 sheep. The capital cost per unit throughput would be about the same for Forbes and Muchea
(k) The saleyard provides state of the art features and provides superior stock management, animal welfare, and occupational health and safety services.
One high cost key feature is roofing of the yards for client and animal welfare. This also improves environmental management and enables water harvesting and recycling. Higher capital costs also result from features that provide operating efficiency and improved safety. For example the saleyard will have the latest in electronic recording and use remote controlled hydraulics in cattle drafts to improve animal and worker safety.
(l) Separate cattle and sheep facilities were considered however industry rejected this option as significantly inferior to a combined species facility.
(i) I have asked proponents of alternative options to engage the key industry bodies in developing and assessing their proposals. Support has remained for a combined facility at Muchea.
As late as May this year I have kept the door open for the Shire of Northam to provide a viable alternative. I urged the Northam proponents to discuss their proposal with a number of key user and industry groups however there was an absence of demonstrated support for their proposal.
(m) Land sales have not been finalised, so the specific level of assistance funding is not known at this time. As I have said previously, Government has already identified that regional livestock saleyards are seeking support and agreed that funding would be available to assist strategically located saleyards.
This funding is expected to be substantial and in the order of several million dollars however this assistance will only be a proportion of the capital required for new regional saleyards.Government will provide assistance however at the end of the day regional saleyard businesses are the responsibility of the commercial sector.
(n) Yes.
(o) Serpentine, Manjimup, Bridgetown, Brunswick and Shark Lake are privately operated. Like any private enterprise, the operators need to make a commercial decision on expenditure of funds for improvements and maintenance. It could well be that throughput at these smaller yards no longer provides sufficient return to support their continued operation.
The 2006 State Saleyard Strategy identified that small saleyards would come under increasing commercial pressure and forecast rationalisation into a small number of larger regional facilities.
(p) Let me point out that all businesses including stockyard owners and controllers have a responsibility to provide a safe working environment, to carry out risk assessments, and implement controls to eliminate or reduce the risks of hazards.
I arranged a meeting in February this year between the WorkSafe Commissioner and the Western Australian Livestock Salesman's Association (WALSA) to build a shared understanding of the WorkSafe issues and a sensible approach to addressing these in livestock saleyards. WALSA was offered the opportunity to provide a strategic and staged approach to implementing necessary improvements.
(q) I expect that necessary expenditure to ensure safe work places will be one of many factors influencing business decisions about the future operation of saleyards. As I have said the 2006 State Saleyard Strategy identified that small saleyards would come under increasing commercial pressure and forecast rationalisation into a small number of larger regional facilities. I expect there will also be some acceleration of the shift to other selling pathways, such as direct contract selling.
(r) The Western Australian Livestock Salesman's Association runs a number of selling facilities as commercial businesses and needs to take responsibility for safety requirements.
Any funding assistance will be targeted to assist with the development of strategically placed regional saleyards that can deliver efficient and safe services to the livestock sector.
(s) Expenditure of public funds to prop up unviable small yards is not a responsible use of tax payers' funds.
Notice: This document is created or edited using unregistered or evaluation copy of rtLib valid for testing or development purposes only. To use it for productive or any other purposes please register it. You may purchase the license on
http://www.rtlib.com
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.