❓ Hon Paddy Embry asks about crop yields in northern regions and the adequacy of government funding for exceptional circumstances. Hon Kim Chance acknowledges poor yields but believes the allocated funding for exceptional circumstances will be sufficient, while drought assistance may fall short.
AnsweredQoN 374Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
(1) Now that harvesting in the northern regions has been going on for quite some time, has the minister any advice on whether the yields are anywhere near the published details that the Department of Agriculture and other bodies have given? (2) If they are not, is the minister anticipating that the amount of money the Government pledged towards the State’s contribution to exceptional circumstances funding will be sufficient? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
I thank Hon Paddy Embry for a very serious and timely question, although it may be a little too early for me to respond with sufficient accuracy to satisfy the question. (1) From what we know so far, the yields in the northern agricultural area have generally been poor. The yields of grain generally, as measured by grain that meets receivable standards, have been poorer than expected, because a lot of the grain has been undersized, although that is probably not true of wheat. I think that wheat generally has come in fairly well on its screenings basis. The receivable standards for wheat have generally been met by most deliveries. However, there have been problems with other grains being below the anticipated quality and yield. (2) It really is too early to know. I think I can say with confidence that the amount of money that has been predicted to be required under the exact terms of the question, which related to the State’s side of the exceptional circumstances arrangement, will be sufficient; that is, the $1.6 million contingent portion of the state package. The reason I can say that is that generally we anticipate on the basis of a worst-case scenario. Usually the amount of money that we publish as being set aside for that purpose is not taken up because we anticipate levels of application and take-up that are very much higher than is normal in practice. The other part of the question could have related to the State’s own drought assistance, which is separate from the State’s contribution to exceptional circumstances funding. The State makes a separate allocation. It is a little early, but I believe we are more likely to fall short in our predictions in that area than that part that directly and accurately relates to the question, which is the State’s component of exceptional circumstances funding.
(2) If they are not, is the minister anticipating that the amount of money the Government pledged towards the State’s contribution to exceptional circumstances funding will be sufficient? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank Hon Paddy Embry for a very serious and timely question, although it may be a little too early for me to respond with sufficient accuracy to satisfy the question. (1) From what we know so far, the yields in the northern agricultural area have generally been poor. The yields of grain generally, as measured by grain that meets receivable standards, have been poorer than expected, because a lot of the grain has been undersized, although that is probably not true of wheat. I think that wheat generally has come in fairly well on its screenings basis. The receivable standards for wheat have generally been met by most deliveries. However, there have been problems with other grains being below the anticipated quality and yield. (2) It really is too early to know. I think I can say with confidence that the amount of money that has been predicted to be required under the exact terms of the question, which related to the State’s side of the exceptional circumstances arrangement, will be sufficient; that is, the $1.6 million contingent portion of the state package. The reason I can say that is that generally we anticipate on the basis of a worst-case scenario. Usually the amount of money that we publish as being set aside for that purpose is not taken up because we anticipate levels of application and take-up that are very much higher than is normal in practice. The other part of the question could have related to the State’s own drought assistance, which is separate from the State’s contribution to exceptional circumstances funding. The State makes a separate allocation. It is a little early, but I believe we are more likely to fall short in our predictions in that area than that part that directly and accurately relates to the question, which is the State’s component of exceptional circumstances funding.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank Hon Paddy Embry for a very serious and timely question, although it may be a little too early for me to respond with sufficient accuracy to satisfy the question. (1) From what we know so far, the yields in the northern agricultural area have generally been poor. The yields of grain generally, as measured by grain that meets receivable standards, have been poorer than expected, because a lot of the grain has been undersized, although that is probably not true of wheat. I think that wheat generally has come in fairly well on its screenings basis. The receivable standards for wheat have generally been met by most deliveries. However, there have been problems with other grains being below the anticipated quality and yield. (2) It really is too early to know. I think I can say with confidence that the amount of money that has been predicted to be required under the exact terms of the question, which related to the State’s side of the exceptional circumstances arrangement, will be sufficient; that is, the $1.6 million contingent portion of the state package. The reason I can say that is that generally we anticipate on the basis of a worst-case scenario. Usually the amount of money that we publish as being set aside for that purpose is not taken up because we anticipate levels of application and take-up that are very much higher than is normal in practice. The other part of the question could have related to the State’s own drought assistance, which is separate from the State’s contribution to exceptional circumstances funding. The State makes a separate allocation. It is a little early, but I believe we are more likely to fall short in our predictions in that area than that part that directly and accurately relates to the question, which is the State’s component of exceptional circumstances funding.
I thank Hon Paddy Embry for a very serious and timely question, although it may be a little too early for me to respond with sufficient accuracy to satisfy the question. (1) From what we know so far, the yields in the northern agricultural area have generally been poor. The yields of grain generally, as measured by grain that meets receivable standards, have been poorer than expected, because a lot of the grain has been undersized, although that is probably not true of wheat. I think that wheat generally has come in fairly well on its screenings basis. The receivable standards for wheat have generally been met by most deliveries. However, there have been problems with other grains being below the anticipated quality and yield. (2) It really is too early to know. I think I can say with confidence that the amount of money that has been predicted to be required under the exact terms of the question, which related to the State’s side of the exceptional circumstances arrangement, will be sufficient; that is, the $1.6 million contingent portion of the state package. The reason I can say that is that generally we anticipate on the basis of a worst-case scenario. Usually the amount of money that we publish as being set aside for that purpose is not taken up because we anticipate levels of application and take-up that are very much higher than is normal in practice. The other part of the question could have related to the State’s own drought assistance, which is separate from the State’s contribution to exceptional circumstances funding. The State makes a separate allocation. It is a little early, but I believe we are more likely to fall short in our predictions in that area than that part that directly and accurately relates to the question, which is the State’s component of exceptional circumstances funding.
(1) From what we know so far, the yields in the northern agricultural area have generally been poor. The yields of grain generally, as measured by grain that meets receivable standards, have been poorer than expected, because a lot of the grain has been undersized, although that is probably not true of wheat. I think that wheat generally has come in fairly well on its screenings basis. The receivable standards for wheat have generally been met by most deliveries. However, there have been problems with other grains being below the anticipated quality and yield. (2) It really is too early to know. I think I can say with confidence that the amount of money that has been predicted to be required under the exact terms of the question, which related to the State’s side of the exceptional circumstances arrangement, will be sufficient; that is, the $1.6 million contingent portion of the state package. The reason I can say that is that generally we anticipate on the basis of a worst-case scenario. Usually the amount of money that we publish as being set aside for that purpose is not taken up because we anticipate levels of application and take-up that are very much higher than is normal in practice. The other part of the question could have related to the State’s own drought assistance, which is separate from the State’s contribution to exceptional circumstances funding. The State makes a separate allocation. It is a little early, but I believe we are more likely to fall short in our predictions in that area than that part that directly and accurately relates to the question, which is the State’s component of exceptional circumstances funding.
(2) It really is too early to know. I think I can say with confidence that the amount of money that has been predicted to be required under the exact terms of the question, which related to the State’s side of the exceptional circumstances arrangement, will be sufficient; that is, the $1.6 million contingent portion of the state package. The reason I can say that is that generally we anticipate on the basis of a worst-case scenario. Usually the amount of money that we publish as being set aside for that purpose is not taken up because we anticipate levels of application and take-up that are very much higher than is normal in practice. The other part of the question could have related to the State’s own drought assistance, which is separate from the State’s contribution to exceptional circumstances funding. The State makes a separate allocation. It is a little early, but I believe we are more likely to fall short in our predictions in that area than that part that directly and accurately relates to the question, which is the State’s component of exceptional circumstances funding.
The other part of the question could have related to the State’s own drought assistance, which is separate from the State’s contribution to exceptional circumstances funding. The State makes a separate allocation. It is a little early, but I believe we are more likely to fall short in our predictions in that area than that part that directly and accurately relates to the question, which is the State’s component of exceptional circumstances funding.
(2) If they are not, is the minister anticipating that the amount of money the Government pledged towards the State’s contribution to exceptional circumstances funding will be sufficient? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank Hon Paddy Embry for a very serious and timely question, although it may be a little too early for me to respond with sufficient accuracy to satisfy the question. (1) From what we know so far, the yields in the northern agricultural area have generally been poor. The yields of grain generally, as measured by grain that meets receivable standards, have been poorer than expected, because a lot of the grain has been undersized, although that is probably not true of wheat. I think that wheat generally has come in fairly well on its screenings basis. The receivable standards for wheat have generally been met by most deliveries. However, there have been problems with other grains being below the anticipated quality and yield. (2) It really is too early to know. I think I can say with confidence that the amount of money that has been predicted to be required under the exact terms of the question, which related to the State’s side of the exceptional circumstances arrangement, will be sufficient; that is, the $1.6 million contingent portion of the state package. The reason I can say that is that generally we anticipate on the basis of a worst-case scenario. Usually the amount of money that we publish as being set aside for that purpose is not taken up because we anticipate levels of application and take-up that are very much higher than is normal in practice. The other part of the question could have related to the State’s own drought assistance, which is separate from the State’s contribution to exceptional circumstances funding. The State makes a separate allocation. It is a little early, but I believe we are more likely to fall short in our predictions in that area than that part that directly and accurately relates to the question, which is the State’s component of exceptional circumstances funding.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank Hon Paddy Embry for a very serious and timely question, although it may be a little too early for me to respond with sufficient accuracy to satisfy the question. (1) From what we know so far, the yields in the northern agricultural area have generally been poor. The yields of grain generally, as measured by grain that meets receivable standards, have been poorer than expected, because a lot of the grain has been undersized, although that is probably not true of wheat. I think that wheat generally has come in fairly well on its screenings basis. The receivable standards for wheat have generally been met by most deliveries. However, there have been problems with other grains being below the anticipated quality and yield. (2) It really is too early to know. I think I can say with confidence that the amount of money that has been predicted to be required under the exact terms of the question, which related to the State’s side of the exceptional circumstances arrangement, will be sufficient; that is, the $1.6 million contingent portion of the state package. The reason I can say that is that generally we anticipate on the basis of a worst-case scenario. Usually the amount of money that we publish as being set aside for that purpose is not taken up because we anticipate levels of application and take-up that are very much higher than is normal in practice. The other part of the question could have related to the State’s own drought assistance, which is separate from the State’s contribution to exceptional circumstances funding. The State makes a separate allocation. It is a little early, but I believe we are more likely to fall short in our predictions in that area than that part that directly and accurately relates to the question, which is the State’s component of exceptional circumstances funding.
I thank Hon Paddy Embry for a very serious and timely question, although it may be a little too early for me to respond with sufficient accuracy to satisfy the question. (1) From what we know so far, the yields in the northern agricultural area have generally been poor. The yields of grain generally, as measured by grain that meets receivable standards, have been poorer than expected, because a lot of the grain has been undersized, although that is probably not true of wheat. I think that wheat generally has come in fairly well on its screenings basis. The receivable standards for wheat have generally been met by most deliveries. However, there have been problems with other grains being below the anticipated quality and yield. (2) It really is too early to know. I think I can say with confidence that the amount of money that has been predicted to be required under the exact terms of the question, which related to the State’s side of the exceptional circumstances arrangement, will be sufficient; that is, the $1.6 million contingent portion of the state package. The reason I can say that is that generally we anticipate on the basis of a worst-case scenario. Usually the amount of money that we publish as being set aside for that purpose is not taken up because we anticipate levels of application and take-up that are very much higher than is normal in practice. The other part of the question could have related to the State’s own drought assistance, which is separate from the State’s contribution to exceptional circumstances funding. The State makes a separate allocation. It is a little early, but I believe we are more likely to fall short in our predictions in that area than that part that directly and accurately relates to the question, which is the State’s component of exceptional circumstances funding.
(1) From what we know so far, the yields in the northern agricultural area have generally been poor. The yields of grain generally, as measured by grain that meets receivable standards, have been poorer than expected, because a lot of the grain has been undersized, although that is probably not true of wheat. I think that wheat generally has come in fairly well on its screenings basis. The receivable standards for wheat have generally been met by most deliveries. However, there have been problems with other grains being below the anticipated quality and yield. (2) It really is too early to know. I think I can say with confidence that the amount of money that has been predicted to be required under the exact terms of the question, which related to the State’s side of the exceptional circumstances arrangement, will be sufficient; that is, the $1.6 million contingent portion of the state package. The reason I can say that is that generally we anticipate on the basis of a worst-case scenario. Usually the amount of money that we publish as being set aside for that purpose is not taken up because we anticipate levels of application and take-up that are very much higher than is normal in practice. The other part of the question could have related to the State’s own drought assistance, which is separate from the State’s contribution to exceptional circumstances funding. The State makes a separate allocation. It is a little early, but I believe we are more likely to fall short in our predictions in that area than that part that directly and accurately relates to the question, which is the State’s component of exceptional circumstances funding.
(2) It really is too early to know. I think I can say with confidence that the amount of money that has been predicted to be required under the exact terms of the question, which related to the State’s side of the exceptional circumstances arrangement, will be sufficient; that is, the $1.6 million contingent portion of the state package. The reason I can say that is that generally we anticipate on the basis of a worst-case scenario. Usually the amount of money that we publish as being set aside for that purpose is not taken up because we anticipate levels of application and take-up that are very much higher than is normal in practice. The other part of the question could have related to the State’s own drought assistance, which is separate from the State’s contribution to exceptional circumstances funding. The State makes a separate allocation. It is a little early, but I believe we are more likely to fall short in our predictions in that area than that part that directly and accurately relates to the question, which is the State’s component of exceptional circumstances funding.
The other part of the question could have related to the State’s own drought assistance, which is separate from the State’s contribution to exceptional circumstances funding. The State makes a separate allocation. It is a little early, but I believe we are more likely to fall short in our predictions in that area than that part that directly and accurately relates to the question, which is the State’s component of exceptional circumstances funding.
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.