❓ Hon Christine Sharp questions the Forestry Minister about timber production contract 2672, specifically regarding market viability for value-added timber and the definition of "offerings" within the contract. The Minister deferred the first question, requesting it be placed on notice, and clarified the use of "offerings" in the contract.
AnsweredQoN 92Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
(1) I refer to schedule 5 of timber production contract 2672 between the Forest Products Commission and Sotico, which the minister kindly provided yesterday. What happens in the event that the sawmiller is unable to find an economically viable market for the amount of timber required to be value-added under the various categories, such as sawn timber for outdoor furniture? (2) Why are the specified amounts to be value-added in the various categories described in the schedule as “offerings” and what is the definition of “offerings” in this context? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
I thank Hon Christine Sharp for some notice of the question. (1) This question is hypothetical in the extreme, although I think it is reasonable and should be asked. It is hypothetical because it involves a range of possible scenarios, all of which would have to be considered in framing some kind of answer. That will take some time, to ensure that we are able to convey those answers adequately. For that reason, I ask that this part of the question be placed on notice. (2) The term “offerings” is a carryover from the business plan template required of proponents under stage B of the Forest Products Commission’s request for proposals allocation process. It is simply an adoption of the language from that process. It is a reflection of the request for proposals process that involved an offer by the Forest Products Commission for the purchase of a quantity of jarrah sawlogs. The table from the business plan template used by all proponents showing their commitments to value-adding from the Forest Products Commission’s offer to them then went on to form the fifth schedule to the final contract entered into with each successful proponent. The fifth schedule, which I highlighted in the documents tabled yesterday, is a direct carryover from the RFP process.
(2) Why are the specified amounts to be value-added in the various categories described in the schedule as “offerings” and what is the definition of “offerings” in this context? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank Hon Christine Sharp for some notice of the question. (1) This question is hypothetical in the extreme, although I think it is reasonable and should be asked. It is hypothetical because it involves a range of possible scenarios, all of which would have to be considered in framing some kind of answer. That will take some time, to ensure that we are able to convey those answers adequately. For that reason, I ask that this part of the question be placed on notice. (2) The term “offerings” is a carryover from the business plan template required of proponents under stage B of the Forest Products Commission’s request for proposals allocation process. It is simply an adoption of the language from that process. It is a reflection of the request for proposals process that involved an offer by the Forest Products Commission for the purchase of a quantity of jarrah sawlogs. The table from the business plan template used by all proponents showing their commitments to value-adding from the Forest Products Commission’s offer to them then went on to form the fifth schedule to the final contract entered into with each successful proponent. The fifth schedule, which I highlighted in the documents tabled yesterday, is a direct carryover from the RFP process.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank Hon Christine Sharp for some notice of the question. (1) This question is hypothetical in the extreme, although I think it is reasonable and should be asked. It is hypothetical because it involves a range of possible scenarios, all of which would have to be considered in framing some kind of answer. That will take some time, to ensure that we are able to convey those answers adequately. For that reason, I ask that this part of the question be placed on notice. (2) The term “offerings” is a carryover from the business plan template required of proponents under stage B of the Forest Products Commission’s request for proposals allocation process. It is simply an adoption of the language from that process. It is a reflection of the request for proposals process that involved an offer by the Forest Products Commission for the purchase of a quantity of jarrah sawlogs. The table from the business plan template used by all proponents showing their commitments to value-adding from the Forest Products Commission’s offer to them then went on to form the fifth schedule to the final contract entered into with each successful proponent. The fifth schedule, which I highlighted in the documents tabled yesterday, is a direct carryover from the RFP process.
I thank Hon Christine Sharp for some notice of the question. (1) This question is hypothetical in the extreme, although I think it is reasonable and should be asked. It is hypothetical because it involves a range of possible scenarios, all of which would have to be considered in framing some kind of answer. That will take some time, to ensure that we are able to convey those answers adequately. For that reason, I ask that this part of the question be placed on notice. (2) The term “offerings” is a carryover from the business plan template required of proponents under stage B of the Forest Products Commission’s request for proposals allocation process. It is simply an adoption of the language from that process. It is a reflection of the request for proposals process that involved an offer by the Forest Products Commission for the purchase of a quantity of jarrah sawlogs. The table from the business plan template used by all proponents showing their commitments to value-adding from the Forest Products Commission’s offer to them then went on to form the fifth schedule to the final contract entered into with each successful proponent. The fifth schedule, which I highlighted in the documents tabled yesterday, is a direct carryover from the RFP process.
(1) This question is hypothetical in the extreme, although I think it is reasonable and should be asked. It is hypothetical because it involves a range of possible scenarios, all of which would have to be considered in framing some kind of answer. That will take some time, to ensure that we are able to convey those answers adequately. For that reason, I ask that this part of the question be placed on notice. (2) The term “offerings” is a carryover from the business plan template required of proponents under stage B of the Forest Products Commission’s request for proposals allocation process. It is simply an adoption of the language from that process. It is a reflection of the request for proposals process that involved an offer by the Forest Products Commission for the purchase of a quantity of jarrah sawlogs. The table from the business plan template used by all proponents showing their commitments to value-adding from the Forest Products Commission’s offer to them then went on to form the fifth schedule to the final contract entered into with each successful proponent. The fifth schedule, which I highlighted in the documents tabled yesterday, is a direct carryover from the RFP process.
(2) The term “offerings” is a carryover from the business plan template required of proponents under stage B of the Forest Products Commission’s request for proposals allocation process. It is simply an adoption of the language from that process. It is a reflection of the request for proposals process that involved an offer by the Forest Products Commission for the purchase of a quantity of jarrah sawlogs. The table from the business plan template used by all proponents showing their commitments to value-adding from the Forest Products Commission’s offer to them then went on to form the fifth schedule to the final contract entered into with each successful proponent. The fifth schedule, which I highlighted in the documents tabled yesterday, is a direct carryover from the RFP process.
(2) Why are the specified amounts to be value-added in the various categories described in the schedule as “offerings” and what is the definition of “offerings” in this context? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank Hon Christine Sharp for some notice of the question. (1) This question is hypothetical in the extreme, although I think it is reasonable and should be asked. It is hypothetical because it involves a range of possible scenarios, all of which would have to be considered in framing some kind of answer. That will take some time, to ensure that we are able to convey those answers adequately. For that reason, I ask that this part of the question be placed on notice. (2) The term “offerings” is a carryover from the business plan template required of proponents under stage B of the Forest Products Commission’s request for proposals allocation process. It is simply an adoption of the language from that process. It is a reflection of the request for proposals process that involved an offer by the Forest Products Commission for the purchase of a quantity of jarrah sawlogs. The table from the business plan template used by all proponents showing their commitments to value-adding from the Forest Products Commission’s offer to them then went on to form the fifth schedule to the final contract entered into with each successful proponent. The fifth schedule, which I highlighted in the documents tabled yesterday, is a direct carryover from the RFP process.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank Hon Christine Sharp for some notice of the question. (1) This question is hypothetical in the extreme, although I think it is reasonable and should be asked. It is hypothetical because it involves a range of possible scenarios, all of which would have to be considered in framing some kind of answer. That will take some time, to ensure that we are able to convey those answers adequately. For that reason, I ask that this part of the question be placed on notice. (2) The term “offerings” is a carryover from the business plan template required of proponents under stage B of the Forest Products Commission’s request for proposals allocation process. It is simply an adoption of the language from that process. It is a reflection of the request for proposals process that involved an offer by the Forest Products Commission for the purchase of a quantity of jarrah sawlogs. The table from the business plan template used by all proponents showing their commitments to value-adding from the Forest Products Commission’s offer to them then went on to form the fifth schedule to the final contract entered into with each successful proponent. The fifth schedule, which I highlighted in the documents tabled yesterday, is a direct carryover from the RFP process.
I thank Hon Christine Sharp for some notice of the question. (1) This question is hypothetical in the extreme, although I think it is reasonable and should be asked. It is hypothetical because it involves a range of possible scenarios, all of which would have to be considered in framing some kind of answer. That will take some time, to ensure that we are able to convey those answers adequately. For that reason, I ask that this part of the question be placed on notice. (2) The term “offerings” is a carryover from the business plan template required of proponents under stage B of the Forest Products Commission’s request for proposals allocation process. It is simply an adoption of the language from that process. It is a reflection of the request for proposals process that involved an offer by the Forest Products Commission for the purchase of a quantity of jarrah sawlogs. The table from the business plan template used by all proponents showing their commitments to value-adding from the Forest Products Commission’s offer to them then went on to form the fifth schedule to the final contract entered into with each successful proponent. The fifth schedule, which I highlighted in the documents tabled yesterday, is a direct carryover from the RFP process.
(1) This question is hypothetical in the extreme, although I think it is reasonable and should be asked. It is hypothetical because it involves a range of possible scenarios, all of which would have to be considered in framing some kind of answer. That will take some time, to ensure that we are able to convey those answers adequately. For that reason, I ask that this part of the question be placed on notice. (2) The term “offerings” is a carryover from the business plan template required of proponents under stage B of the Forest Products Commission’s request for proposals allocation process. It is simply an adoption of the language from that process. It is a reflection of the request for proposals process that involved an offer by the Forest Products Commission for the purchase of a quantity of jarrah sawlogs. The table from the business plan template used by all proponents showing their commitments to value-adding from the Forest Products Commission’s offer to them then went on to form the fifth schedule to the final contract entered into with each successful proponent. The fifth schedule, which I highlighted in the documents tabled yesterday, is a direct carryover from the RFP process.
(2) The term “offerings” is a carryover from the business plan template required of proponents under stage B of the Forest Products Commission’s request for proposals allocation process. It is simply an adoption of the language from that process. It is a reflection of the request for proposals process that involved an offer by the Forest Products Commission for the purchase of a quantity of jarrah sawlogs. The table from the business plan template used by all proponents showing their commitments to value-adding from the Forest Products Commission’s offer to them then went on to form the fifth schedule to the final contract entered into with each successful proponent. The fifth schedule, which I highlighted in the documents tabled yesterday, is a direct carryover from the RFP process.
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.