❓ Question on the WA government's policy regarding potential sanctions against AWB Ltd and alternatives to AWB as the sole wheat supplier, given the Cole Royal Commission findings. The Minister supports AWB until conclusive evidence arises and supports the single desk.
AnsweredQoN 16Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
AWB LTD - SANCTIONS POLICY
Further to my question on 10 November last year regarding AWB Ltd and the likelihood of sanctions - (1) Now that trade sanctions against AWB Ltd are no longer hypothetical but an unfortunate reality, does the minister have any policy to deal with sanctions against AWB on behalf of Western Australian wheat growers? (2) Given that the minister supported AWB, will he now look at alternatives to AWB being the sole supplier of wheat under the single desk, particularly from WA? (3) Given that the Wheat Export Authority is responsible for the single desk and that the minister fully supports the single desk, will he now support any future applications by Co-operative Bulk Handling Ltd to export wheat under licence from the Wheat Export Authority, similar to the Grain Licensing Authority? (4) How can the minister support a single desk wheat pool, yet allow the Grain Licensing Authority to issue export permits in WA for barley, lupins and oats that are not enforceable and without any real penalty for non-use? Hon KIM CHANCE
Further to my question on 10 November last year regarding AWB Ltd and the likelihood of sanctions - (1) Now that trade sanctions against AWB Ltd are no longer hypothetical but an unfortunate reality, does the minister have any policy to deal with sanctions against AWB on behalf of Western Australian wheat growers? (2) Given that the minister supported AWB, will he now look at alternatives to AWB being the sole supplier of wheat under the single desk, particularly from WA? (3) Given that the Wheat Export Authority is responsible for the single desk and that the minister fully supports the single desk, will he now support any future applications by Co-operative Bulk Handling Ltd to export wheat under licence from the Wheat Export Authority, similar to the Grain Licensing Authority? (4) How can the minister support a single desk wheat pool, yet allow the Grain Licensing Authority to issue export permits in WA for barley, lupins and oats that are not enforceable and without any real penalty for non-use? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
A four-part question without notice. Let me have a go at that one. (1)-(4) I still support AWB, and I will remain a supporter of AWB until such time as there is conclusive evidence that I should not support it. None of us will have access to that conclusive evidence until the Cole royal commission has reported, and I refuse point-blank to comment on issues coming out of the Cole royal commission until such time as the Cole commission has reported. I think it is a gross discourtesy indeed - I do not refer to the honourable member but to members of the media and others who have seen fit to comment - for people to make comments and judgments on evidence delivered to the Cole royal commission without, in fairness, there being the opportunity for rebuttal or clarification of that evidence. Hon Norman Moore : That didn’t worry some of your colleagues in the previous Cole royal commission. Hon KIM CHANCE : Probably not, but I am not guided by anyone else’s actions. I was asked a question and I am answering that question. Indeed, it is an answer that the Prime Minister saw fit to quote in the House of Representatives recently when he suggested to my colleagues in the opposition in the federal Parliament that perhaps they could look at following the same methodology. I hasten to add, in fairness, that the Prime Minister referred to members on his side of the house in that regard also. I am a supporter of the single desk; our government is a supporter of the single desk. We are because we went to the election with that policy, and we will remain supporters of the single desk while it is clear that it provides advantages to the Western Australian grains industry to deal with the two together and while it is clearly supported by grain producers, as it is. Recent events in York, Western Australia, at a meeting convened by the member for Pearce, Ms Moylan, and also at Warracknabeal, Victoria, made it very clear that farmers in both Western Australia and Victoria are very much pro single desk, and I think in Western Australia even more so than in the eastern states. Notwithstanding that, it seems that AWB has some problems. However, we will not actually know that until such time as the Cole commission has reported. However, what next regarding Iraq? I believe that is the key part of the member’s question. I think he basically asked whether I support the Grains Council of Australia’s four-sisters model. If he did not ask that, I can say that the four-sisters model and a number of other models have been brought forward - one promoted by Wilson Tuckey, the member for O’Connor, and another one that is based more directly on the GLA model, although the Tuckey model and the GLA model are very similar. Hon Anthony Fels : More specifically CBH in WA and - Hon KIM CHANCE : Co-operative Bulk Handling Ltd in Western Australia is part of the four-sisters model. Any of those models would work and, without giving a view about the model I prefer, any of those models would work functionally and efficiently. In response to Hon Anthony Fels’ precise question about whether CBH can carry out that function for the Iraqi market, yes it can. However, because we are dealing with a national issue, it is difficult to deal with the question of CBH in isolation of what can be done by the Australian Barley Board for South Australia and Victoria, and Graincorp for Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. They are three of the organisations that comprise the four-sisters model. The fourth sister is AWB International. In the event that AWBI is not able to carry on as international marketer in a single-desk fashion, the necessity of maintaining the three sisters is guided by the fact that those three organisations - Graincorp, ABB and CBH - are the only organisations currently available to run a grain pool. Farmers would immediately turn to whomever could offer a pool, because that would be the first response. In a discussion I had recently with Peter McGauran, the federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, we agreed that our area of greatest concern is not the long-term position of grain marketing but the intermediate term. What will happen if everything goes pear-shaped for AWB in the Cole royal commission and in subsequent events, if we will not reach a long-term solution until around 2010? How will we handle the interregnum? I think the four-sisters model makes sense in that regard. It is established to carry out that work. From the point of view of Western Australia and South Australia, the two states that are the main exporters, CBH and ABB - Hon Anthony Fels : Therefore, you would support CBH in its application. Hon KIM CHANCE : Absolutely. In circumstances in which there is no prospect of the AWBI single desk remaining, I would obviously support the CBH model. Hon Anthony Fels also asked how I can support the single desk when I was responsible for instituting the Grain Licensing Authority in Western Australia. I do not want to repeat the second reading speech of that debate, but essentially we brought forward the GLA model, which I am happy to say has been very successful, in light of our requirement to meet our obligations under national competition policy. The basics of the GLA model were designed in concert between me and Graeme Samuel, the then chairman of the National Competition Council. It has worked functionally. Indeed, I have suggested to Peter McGauran that he should consider one aspect of that model in the event that AWBI loses its single-desk capacity. That is being speculative; we have not reached that stage yet, and I will not make judgments about whether that will happen and whether it is desirable.
(1) Now that trade sanctions against AWB Ltd are no longer hypothetical but an unfortunate reality, does the minister have any policy to deal with sanctions against AWB on behalf of Western Australian wheat growers? (2) Given that the minister supported AWB, will he now look at alternatives to AWB being the sole supplier of wheat under the single desk, particularly from WA? (3) Given that the Wheat Export Authority is responsible for the single desk and that the minister fully supports the single desk, will he now support any future applications by Co-operative Bulk Handling Ltd to export wheat under licence from the Wheat Export Authority, similar to the Grain Licensing Authority? (4) How can the minister support a single desk wheat pool, yet allow the Grain Licensing Authority to issue export permits in WA for barley, lupins and oats that are not enforceable and without any real penalty for non-use? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: A four-part question without notice. Let me have a go at that one. (1)-(4) I still support AWB, and I will remain a supporter of AWB until such time as there is conclusive evidence that I should not support it. None of us will have access to that conclusive evidence until the Cole royal commission has reported, and I refuse point-blank to comment on issues coming out of the Cole royal commission until such time as the Cole commission has reported. I think it is a gross discourtesy indeed - I do not refer to the honourable member but to members of the media and others who have seen fit to comment - for people to make comments and judgments on evidence delivered to the Cole royal commission without, in fairness, there being the opportunity for rebuttal or clarification of that evidence. Hon Norman Moore : That didn’t worry some of your colleagues in the previous Cole royal commission. Hon KIM CHANCE : Probably not, but I am not guided by anyone else’s actions. I was asked a question and I am answering that question. Indeed, it is an answer that the Prime Minister saw fit to quote in the House of Representatives recently when he suggested to my colleagues in the opposition in the federal Parliament that perhaps they could look at following the same methodology. I hasten to add, in fairness, that the Prime Minister referred to members on his side of the house in that regard also. I am a supporter of the single desk; our government is a supporter of the single desk. We are because we went to the election with that policy, and we will remain supporters of the single desk while it is clear that it provides advantages to the Western Australian grains industry to deal with the two together and while it is clearly supported by grain producers, as it is. Recent events in York, Western Australia, at a meeting convened by the member for Pearce, Ms Moylan, and also at Warracknabeal, Victoria, made it very clear that farmers in both Western Australia and Victoria are very much pro single desk, and I think in Western Australia even more so than in the eastern states. Notwithstanding that, it seems that AWB has some problems. However, we will not actually know that until such time as the Cole commission has reported. However, what next regarding Iraq? I believe that is the key part of the member’s question. I think he basically asked whether I support the Grains Council of Australia’s four-sisters model. If he did not ask that, I can say that the four-sisters model and a number of other models have been brought forward - one promoted by Wilson Tuckey, the member for O’Connor, and another one that is based more directly on the GLA model, although the Tuckey model and the GLA model are very similar. Hon Anthony Fels : More specifically CBH in WA and - Hon KIM CHANCE : Co-operative Bulk Handling Ltd in Western Australia is part of the four-sisters model. Any of those models would work and, without giving a view about the model I prefer, any of those models would work functionally and efficiently. In response to Hon Anthony Fels’ precise question about whether CBH can carry out that function for the Iraqi market, yes it can. However, because we are dealing with a national issue, it is difficult to deal with the question of CBH in isolation of what can be done by the Australian Barley Board for South Australia and Victoria, and Graincorp for Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. They are three of the organisations that comprise the four-sisters model. The fourth sister is AWB International. In the event that AWBI is not able to carry on as international marketer in a single-desk fashion, the necessity of maintaining the three sisters is guided by the fact that those three organisations - Graincorp, ABB and CBH - are the only organisations currently available to run a grain pool. Farmers would immediately turn to whomever could offer a pool, because that would be the first response. In a discussion I had recently with Peter McGauran, the federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, we agreed that our area of greatest concern is not the long-term position of grain marketing but the intermediate term. What will happen if everything goes pear-shaped for AWB in the Cole royal commission and in subsequent events, if we will not reach a long-term solution until around 2010? How will we handle the interregnum? I think the four-sisters model makes sense in that regard. It is established to carry out that work. From the point of view of Western Australia and South Australia, the two states that are the main exporters, CBH and ABB - Hon Anthony Fels : Therefore, you would support CBH in its application. Hon KIM CHANCE : Absolutely. In circumstances in which there is no prospect of the AWBI single desk remaining, I would obviously support the CBH model. Hon Anthony Fels also asked how I can support the single desk when I was responsible for instituting the Grain Licensing Authority in Western Australia. I do not want to repeat the second reading speech of that debate, but essentially we brought forward the GLA model, which I am happy to say has been very successful, in light of our requirement to meet our obligations under national competition policy. The basics of the GLA model were designed in concert between me and Graeme Samuel, the then chairman of the National Competition Council. It has worked functionally. Indeed, I have suggested to Peter McGauran that he should consider one aspect of that model in the event that AWBI loses its single-desk capacity. That is being speculative; we have not reached that stage yet, and I will not make judgments about whether that will happen and whether it is desirable.
(2) Given that the minister supported AWB, will he now look at alternatives to AWB being the sole supplier of wheat under the single desk, particularly from WA? (3) Given that the Wheat Export Authority is responsible for the single desk and that the minister fully supports the single desk, will he now support any future applications by Co-operative Bulk Handling Ltd to export wheat under licence from the Wheat Export Authority, similar to the Grain Licensing Authority? (4) How can the minister support a single desk wheat pool, yet allow the Grain Licensing Authority to issue export permits in WA for barley, lupins and oats that are not enforceable and without any real penalty for non-use? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: A four-part question without notice. Let me have a go at that one. (1)-(4) I still support AWB, and I will remain a supporter of AWB until such time as there is conclusive evidence that I should not support it. None of us will have access to that conclusive evidence until the Cole royal commission has reported, and I refuse point-blank to comment on issues coming out of the Cole royal commission until such time as the Cole commission has reported. I think it is a gross discourtesy indeed - I do not refer to the honourable member but to members of the media and others who have seen fit to comment - for people to make comments and judgments on evidence delivered to the Cole royal commission without, in fairness, there being the opportunity for rebuttal or clarification of that evidence. Hon Norman Moore : That didn’t worry some of your colleagues in the previous Cole royal commission. Hon KIM CHANCE : Probably not, but I am not guided by anyone else’s actions. I was asked a question and I am answering that question. Indeed, it is an answer that the Prime Minister saw fit to quote in the House of Representatives recently when he suggested to my colleagues in the opposition in the federal Parliament that perhaps they could look at following the same methodology. I hasten to add, in fairness, that the Prime Minister referred to members on his side of the house in that regard also. I am a supporter of the single desk; our government is a supporter of the single desk. We are because we went to the election with that policy, and we will remain supporters of the single desk while it is clear that it provides advantages to the Western Australian grains industry to deal with the two together and while it is clearly supported by grain producers, as it is. Recent events in York, Western Australia, at a meeting convened by the member for Pearce, Ms Moylan, and also at Warracknabeal, Victoria, made it very clear that farmers in both Western Australia and Victoria are very much pro single desk, and I think in Western Australia even more so than in the eastern states. Notwithstanding that, it seems that AWB has some problems. However, we will not actually know that until such time as the Cole commission has reported. However, what next regarding Iraq? I believe that is the key part of the member’s question. I think he basically asked whether I support the Grains Council of Australia’s four-sisters model. If he did not ask that, I can say that the four-sisters model and a number of other models have been brought forward - one promoted by Wilson Tuckey, the member for O’Connor, and another one that is based more directly on the GLA model, although the Tuckey model and the GLA model are very similar. Hon Anthony Fels : More specifically CBH in WA and - Hon KIM CHANCE : Co-operative Bulk Handling Ltd in Western Australia is part of the four-sisters model. Any of those models would work and, without giving a view about the model I prefer, any of those models would work functionally and efficiently. In response to Hon Anthony Fels’ precise question about whether CBH can carry out that function for the Iraqi market, yes it can. However, because we are dealing with a national issue, it is difficult to deal with the question of CBH in isolation of what can be done by the Australian Barley Board for South Australia and Victoria, and Graincorp for Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. They are three of the organisations that comprise the four-sisters model. The fourth sister is AWB International. In the event that AWBI is not able to carry on as international marketer in a single-desk fashion, the necessity of maintaining the three sisters is guided by the fact that those three organisations - Graincorp, ABB and CBH - are the only organisations currently available to run a grain pool. Farmers would immediately turn to whomever could offer a pool, because that would be the first response. In a discussion I had recently with Peter McGauran, the federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, we agreed that our area of greatest concern is not the long-term position of grain marketing but the intermediate term. What will happen if everything goes pear-shaped for AWB in the Cole royal commission and in subsequent events, if we will not reach a long-term solution until around 2010? How will we handle the interregnum? I think the four-sisters model makes sense in that regard. It is established to carry out that work. From the point of view of Western Australia and South Australia, the two states that are the main exporters, CBH and ABB - Hon Anthony Fels : Therefore, you would support CBH in its application. Hon KIM CHANCE : Absolutely. In circumstances in which there is no prospect of the AWBI single desk remaining, I would obviously support the CBH model. Hon Anthony Fels also asked how I can support the single desk when I was responsible for instituting the Grain Licensing Authority in Western Australia. I do not want to repeat the second reading speech of that debate, but essentially we brought forward the GLA model, which I am happy to say has been very successful, in light of our requirement to meet our obligations under national competition policy. The basics of the GLA model were designed in concert between me and Graeme Samuel, the then chairman of the National Competition Council. It has worked functionally. Indeed, I have suggested to Peter McGauran that he should consider one aspect of that model in the event that AWBI loses its single-desk capacity. That is being speculative; we have not reached that stage yet, and I will not make judgments about whether that will happen and whether it is desirable.
(3) Given that the Wheat Export Authority is responsible for the single desk and that the minister fully supports the single desk, will he now support any future applications by Co-operative Bulk Handling Ltd to export wheat under licence from the Wheat Export Authority, similar to the Grain Licensing Authority? (4) How can the minister support a single desk wheat pool, yet allow the Grain Licensing Authority to issue export permits in WA for barley, lupins and oats that are not enforceable and without any real penalty for non-use? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: A four-part question without notice. Let me have a go at that one. (1)-(4) I still support AWB, and I will remain a supporter of AWB until such time as there is conclusive evidence that I should not support it. None of us will have access to that conclusive evidence until the Cole royal commission has reported, and I refuse point-blank to comment on issues coming out of the Cole royal commission until such time as the Cole commission has reported. I think it is a gross discourtesy indeed - I do not refer to the honourable member but to members of the media and others who have seen fit to comment - for people to make comments and judgments on evidence delivered to the Cole royal commission without, in fairness, there being the opportunity for rebuttal or clarification of that evidence. Hon Norman Moore : That didn’t worry some of your colleagues in the previous Cole royal commission. Hon KIM CHANCE : Probably not, but I am not guided by anyone else’s actions. I was asked a question and I am answering that question. Indeed, it is an answer that the Prime Minister saw fit to quote in the House of Representatives recently when he suggested to my colleagues in the opposition in the federal Parliament that perhaps they could look at following the same methodology. I hasten to add, in fairness, that the Prime Minister referred to members on his side of the house in that regard also. I am a supporter of the single desk; our government is a supporter of the single desk. We are because we went to the election with that policy, and we will remain supporters of the single desk while it is clear that it provides advantages to the Western Australian grains industry to deal with the two together and while it is clearly supported by grain producers, as it is. Recent events in York, Western Australia, at a meeting convened by the member for Pearce, Ms Moylan, and also at Warracknabeal, Victoria, made it very clear that farmers in both Western Australia and Victoria are very much pro single desk, and I think in Western Australia even more so than in the eastern states. Notwithstanding that, it seems that AWB has some problems. However, we will not actually know that until such time as the Cole commission has reported. However, what next regarding Iraq? I believe that is the key part of the member’s question. I think he basically asked whether I support the Grains Council of Australia’s four-sisters model. If he did not ask that, I can say that the four-sisters model and a number of other models have been brought forward - one promoted by Wilson Tuckey, the member for O’Connor, and another one that is based more directly on the GLA model, although the Tuckey model and the GLA model are very similar. Hon Anthony Fels : More specifically CBH in WA and - Hon KIM CHANCE : Co-operative Bulk Handling Ltd in Western Australia is part of the four-sisters model. Any of those models would work and, without giving a view about the model I prefer, any of those models would work functionally and efficiently. In response to Hon Anthony Fels’ precise question about whether CBH can carry out that function for the Iraqi market, yes it can. However, because we are dealing with a national issue, it is difficult to deal with the question of CBH in isolation of what can be done by the Australian Barley Board for South Australia and Victoria, and Graincorp for Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. They are three of the organisations that comprise the four-sisters model. The fourth sister is AWB International. In the event that AWBI is not able to carry on as international marketer in a single-desk fashion, the necessity of maintaining the three sisters is guided by the fact that those three organisations - Graincorp, ABB and CBH - are the only organisations currently available to run a grain pool. Farmers would immediately turn to whomever could offer a pool, because that would be the first response. In a discussion I had recently with Peter McGauran, the federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, we agreed that our area of greatest concern is not the long-term position of grain marketing but the intermediate term. What will happen if everything goes pear-shaped for AWB in the Cole royal commission and in subsequent events, if we will not reach a long-term solution until around 2010? How will we handle the interregnum? I think the four-sisters model makes sense in that regard. It is established to carry out that work. From the point of view of Western Australia and South Australia, the two states that are the main exporters, CBH and ABB - Hon Anthony Fels : Therefore, you would support CBH in its application. Hon KIM CHANCE : Absolutely. In circumstances in which there is no prospect of the AWBI single desk remaining, I would obviously support the CBH model. Hon Anthony Fels also asked how I can support the single desk when I was responsible for instituting the Grain Licensing Authority in Western Australia. I do not want to repeat the second reading speech of that debate, but essentially we brought forward the GLA model, which I am happy to say has been very successful, in light of our requirement to meet our obligations under national competition policy. The basics of the GLA model were designed in concert between me and Graeme Samuel, the then chairman of the National Competition Council. It has worked functionally. Indeed, I have suggested to Peter McGauran that he should consider one aspect of that model in the event that AWBI loses its single-desk capacity. That is being speculative; we have not reached that stage yet, and I will not make judgments about whether that will happen and whether it is desirable.
(4) How can the minister support a single desk wheat pool, yet allow the Grain Licensing Authority to issue export permits in WA for barley, lupins and oats that are not enforceable and without any real penalty for non-use? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: A four-part question without notice. Let me have a go at that one. (1)-(4) I still support AWB, and I will remain a supporter of AWB until such time as there is conclusive evidence that I should not support it. None of us will have access to that conclusive evidence until the Cole royal commission has reported, and I refuse point-blank to comment on issues coming out of the Cole royal commission until such time as the Cole commission has reported. I think it is a gross discourtesy indeed - I do not refer to the honourable member but to members of the media and others who have seen fit to comment - for people to make comments and judgments on evidence delivered to the Cole royal commission without, in fairness, there being the opportunity for rebuttal or clarification of that evidence. Hon Norman Moore : That didn’t worry some of your colleagues in the previous Cole royal commission. Hon KIM CHANCE : Probably not, but I am not guided by anyone else’s actions. I was asked a question and I am answering that question. Indeed, it is an answer that the Prime Minister saw fit to quote in the House of Representatives recently when he suggested to my colleagues in the opposition in the federal Parliament that perhaps they could look at following the same methodology. I hasten to add, in fairness, that the Prime Minister referred to members on his side of the house in that regard also. I am a supporter of the single desk; our government is a supporter of the single desk. We are because we went to the election with that policy, and we will remain supporters of the single desk while it is clear that it provides advantages to the Western Australian grains industry to deal with the two together and while it is clearly supported by grain producers, as it is. Recent events in York, Western Australia, at a meeting convened by the member for Pearce, Ms Moylan, and also at Warracknabeal, Victoria, made it very clear that farmers in both Western Australia and Victoria are very much pro single desk, and I think in Western Australia even more so than in the eastern states. Notwithstanding that, it seems that AWB has some problems. However, we will not actually know that until such time as the Cole commission has reported. However, what next regarding Iraq? I believe that is the key part of the member’s question. I think he basically asked whether I support the Grains Council of Australia’s four-sisters model. If he did not ask that, I can say that the four-sisters model and a number of other models have been brought forward - one promoted by Wilson Tuckey, the member for O’Connor, and another one that is based more directly on the GLA model, although the Tuckey model and the GLA model are very similar. Hon Anthony Fels : More specifically CBH in WA and - Hon KIM CHANCE : Co-operative Bulk Handling Ltd in Western Australia is part of the four-sisters model. Any of those models would work and, without giving a view about the model I prefer, any of those models would work functionally and efficiently. In response to Hon Anthony Fels’ precise question about whether CBH can carry out that function for the Iraqi market, yes it can. However, because we are dealing with a national issue, it is difficult to deal with the question of CBH in isolation of what can be done by the Australian Barley Board for South Australia and Victoria, and Graincorp for Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. They are three of the organisations that comprise the four-sisters model. The fourth sister is AWB International. In the event that AWBI is not able to carry on as international marketer in a single-desk fashion, the necessity of maintaining the three sisters is guided by the fact that those three organisations - Graincorp, ABB and CBH - are the only organisations currently available to run a grain pool. Farmers would immediately turn to whomever could offer a pool, because that would be the first response. In a discussion I had recently with Peter McGauran, the federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, we agreed that our area of greatest concern is not the long-term position of grain marketing but the intermediate term. What will happen if everything goes pear-shaped for AWB in the Cole royal commission and in subsequent events, if we will not reach a long-term solution until around 2010? How will we handle the interregnum? I think the four-sisters model makes sense in that regard. It is established to carry out that work. From the point of view of Western Australia and South Australia, the two states that are the main exporters, CBH and ABB - Hon Anthony Fels : Therefore, you would support CBH in its application. Hon KIM CHANCE : Absolutely. In circumstances in which there is no prospect of the AWBI single desk remaining, I would obviously support the CBH model. Hon Anthony Fels also asked how I can support the single desk when I was responsible for instituting the Grain Licensing Authority in Western Australia. I do not want to repeat the second reading speech of that debate, but essentially we brought forward the GLA model, which I am happy to say has been very successful, in light of our requirement to meet our obligations under national competition policy. The basics of the GLA model were designed in concert between me and Graeme Samuel, the then chairman of the National Competition Council. It has worked functionally. Indeed, I have suggested to Peter McGauran that he should consider one aspect of that model in the event that AWBI loses its single-desk capacity. That is being speculative; we have not reached that stage yet, and I will not make judgments about whether that will happen and whether it is desirable.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: A four-part question without notice. Let me have a go at that one. (1)-(4) I still support AWB, and I will remain a supporter of AWB until such time as there is conclusive evidence that I should not support it. None of us will have access to that conclusive evidence until the Cole royal commission has reported, and I refuse point-blank to comment on issues coming out of the Cole royal commission until such time as the Cole commission has reported. I think it is a gross discourtesy indeed - I do not refer to the honourable member but to members of the media and others who have seen fit to comment - for people to make comments and judgments on evidence delivered to the Cole royal commission without, in fairness, there being the opportunity for rebuttal or clarification of that evidence. Hon Norman Moore : That didn’t worry some of your colleagues in the previous Cole royal commission. Hon KIM CHANCE : Probably not, but I am not guided by anyone else’s actions. I was asked a question and I am answering that question. Indeed, it is an answer that the Prime Minister saw fit to quote in the House of Representatives recently when he suggested to my colleagues in the opposition in the federal Parliament that perhaps they could look at following the same methodology. I hasten to add, in fairness, that the Prime Minister referred to members on his side of the house in that regard also. I am a supporter of the single desk; our government is a supporter of the single desk. We are because we went to the election with that policy, and we will remain supporters of the single desk while it is clear that it provides advantages to the Western Australian grains industry to deal with the two together and while it is clearly supported by grain producers, as it is. Recent events in York, Western Australia, at a meeting convened by the member for Pearce, Ms Moylan, and also at Warracknabeal, Victoria, made it very clear that farmers in both Western Australia and Victoria are very much pro single desk, and I think in Western Australia even more so than in the eastern states. Notwithstanding that, it seems that AWB has some problems. However, we will not actually know that until such time as the Cole commission has reported. However, what next regarding Iraq? I believe that is the key part of the member’s question. I think he basically asked whether I support the Grains Council of Australia’s four-sisters model. If he did not ask that, I can say that the four-sisters model and a number of other models have been brought forward - one promoted by Wilson Tuckey, the member for O’Connor, and another one that is based more directly on the GLA model, although the Tuckey model and the GLA model are very similar. Hon Anthony Fels : More specifically CBH in WA and - Hon KIM CHANCE : Co-operative Bulk Handling Ltd in Western Australia is part of the four-sisters model. Any of those models would work and, without giving a view about the model I prefer, any of those models would work functionally and efficiently. In response to Hon Anthony Fels’ precise question about whether CBH can carry out that function for the Iraqi market, yes it can. However, because we are dealing with a national issue, it is difficult to deal with the question of CBH in isolation of what can be done by the Australian Barley Board for South Australia and Victoria, and Graincorp for Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. They are three of the organisations that comprise the four-sisters model. The fourth sister is AWB International. In the event that AWBI is not able to carry on as international marketer in a single-desk fashion, the necessity of maintaining the three sisters is guided by the fact that those three organisations - Graincorp, ABB and CBH - are the only organisations currently available to run a grain pool. Farmers would immediately turn to whomever could offer a pool, because that would be the first response. In a discussion I had recently with Peter McGauran, the federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, we agreed that our area of greatest concern is not the long-term position of grain marketing but the intermediate term. What will happen if everything goes pear-shaped for AWB in the Cole royal commission and in subsequent events, if we will not reach a long-term solution until around 2010? How will we handle the interregnum? I think the four-sisters model makes sense in that regard. It is established to carry out that work. From the point of view of Western Australia and South Australia, the two states that are the main exporters, CBH and ABB - Hon Anthony Fels : Therefore, you would support CBH in its application. Hon KIM CHANCE : Absolutely. In circumstances in which there is no prospect of the AWBI single desk remaining, I would obviously support the CBH model. Hon Anthony Fels also asked how I can support the single desk when I was responsible for instituting the Grain Licensing Authority in Western Australia. I do not want to repeat the second reading speech of that debate, but essentially we brought forward the GLA model, which I am happy to say has been very successful, in light of our requirement to meet our obligations under national competition policy. The basics of the GLA model were designed in concert between me and Graeme Samuel, the then chairman of the National Competition Council. It has worked functionally. Indeed, I have suggested to Peter McGauran that he should consider one aspect of that model in the event that AWBI loses its single-desk capacity. That is being speculative; we have not reached that stage yet, and I will not make judgments about whether that will happen and whether it is desirable.
A four-part question without notice. Let me have a go at that one. (1)-(4) I still support AWB, and I will remain a supporter of AWB until such time as there is conclusive evidence that I should not support it. None of us will have access to that conclusive evidence until the Cole royal commission has reported, and I refuse point-blank to comment on issues coming out of the Cole royal commission until such time as the Cole commission has reported. I think it is a gross discourtesy indeed - I do not refer to the honourable member but to members of the media and others who have seen fit to comment - for people to make comments and judgments on evidence delivered to the Cole royal commission without, in fairness, there being the opportunity for rebuttal or clarification of that evidence. Hon Norman Moore : That didn’t worry some of your colleagues in the previous Cole royal commission. Hon KIM CHANCE : Probably not, but I am not guided by anyone else’s actions. I was asked a question and I am answering that question. Indeed, it is an answer that the Prime Minister saw fit to quote in the House of Representatives recently when he suggested to my colleagues in the opposition in the federal Parliament that perhaps they could look at following the same methodology. I hasten to add, in fairness, that the Prime Minister referred to members on his side of the house in that regard also. I am a supporter of the single desk; our government is a supporter of the single desk. We are because we went to the election with that policy, and we will remain supporters of the single desk while it is clear that it provides advantages to the Western Australian grains industry to deal with the two together and while it is clearly supported by grain producers, as it is. Recent events in York, Western Australia, at a meeting convened by the member for Pearce, Ms Moylan, and also at Warracknabeal, Victoria, made it very clear that farmers in both Western Australia and Victoria are very much pro single desk, and I think in Western Australia even more so than in the eastern states. Notwithstanding that, it seems that AWB has some problems. However, we will not actually know that until such time as the Cole commission has reported. However, what next regarding Iraq? I believe that is the key part of the member’s question. I think he basically asked whether I support the Grains Council of Australia’s four-sisters model. If he did not ask that, I can say that the four-sisters model and a number of other models have been brought forward - one promoted by Wilson Tuckey, the member for O’Connor, and another one that is based more directly on the GLA model, although the Tuckey model and the GLA model are very similar. Hon Anthony Fels : More specifically CBH in WA and - Hon KIM CHANCE : Co-operative Bulk Handling Ltd in Western Australia is part of the four-sisters model. Any of those models would work and, without giving a view about the model I prefer, any of those models would work functionally and efficiently. In response to Hon Anthony Fels’ precise question about whether CBH can carry out that function for the Iraqi market, yes it can. However, because we are dealing with a national issue, it is difficult to deal with the question of CBH in isolation of what can be done by the Australian Barley Board for South Australia and Victoria, and Graincorp for Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. They are three of the organisations that comprise the four-sisters model. The fourth sister is AWB International. In the event that AWBI is not able to carry on as international marketer in a single-desk fashion, the necessity of maintaining the three sisters is guided by the fact that those three organisations - Graincorp, ABB and CBH - are the only organisations currently available to run a grain pool. Farmers would immediately turn to whomever could offer a pool, because that would be the first response. In a discussion I had recently with Peter McGauran, the federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, we agreed that our area of greatest concern is not the long-term position of grain marketing but the intermediate term. What will happen if everything goes pear-shaped for AWB in the Cole royal commission and in subsequent events, if we will not reach a long-term solution until around 2010? How will we handle the interregnum? I think the four-sisters model makes sense in that regard. It is established to carry out that work. From the point of view of Western Australia and South Australia, the two states that are the main exporters, CBH and ABB - Hon Anthony Fels : Therefore, you would support CBH in its application. Hon KIM CHANCE : Absolutely. In circumstances in which there is no prospect of the AWBI single desk remaining, I would obviously support the CBH model. Hon Anthony Fels also asked how I can support the single desk when I was responsible for instituting the Grain Licensing Authority in Western Australia. I do not want to repeat the second reading speech of that debate, but essentially we brought forward the GLA model, which I am happy to say has been very successful, in light of our requirement to meet our obligations under national competition policy. The basics of the GLA model were designed in concert between me and Graeme Samuel, the then chairman of the National Competition Council. It has worked functionally. Indeed, I have suggested to Peter McGauran that he should consider one aspect of that model in the event that AWBI loses its single-desk capacity. That is being speculative; we have not reached that stage yet, and I will not make judgments about whether that will happen and whether it is desirable.
(1)-(4) I still support AWB, and I will remain a supporter of AWB until such time as there is conclusive evidence that I should not support it. None of us will have access to that conclusive evidence until the Cole royal commission has reported, and I refuse point-blank to comment on issues coming out of the Cole royal commission until such time as the Cole commission has reported. I think it is a gross discourtesy indeed - I do not refer to the honourable member but to members of the media and others who have seen fit to comment - for people to make comments and judgments on evidence delivered to the Cole royal commission without, in fairness, there being the opportunity for rebuttal or clarification of that evidence. Hon Norman Moore : That didn’t worry some of your colleagues in the previous Cole royal commission. Hon KIM CHANCE : Probably not, but I am not guided by anyone else’s actions. I was asked a question and I am answering that question. Indeed, it is an answer that the Prime Minister saw fit to quote in the House of Representatives recently when he suggested to my colleagues in the opposition in the federal Parliament that perhaps they could look at following the same methodology. I hasten to add, in fairness, that the Prime Minister referred to members on his side of the house in that regard also. I am a supporter of the single desk; our government is a supporter of the single desk. We are because we went to the election with that policy, and we will remain supporters of the single desk while it is clear that it provides advantages to the Western Australian grains industry to deal with the two together and while it is clearly supported by grain producers, as it is. Recent events in York, Western Australia, at a meeting convened by the member for Pearce, Ms Moylan, and also at Warracknabeal, Victoria, made it very clear that farmers in both Western Australia and Victoria are very much pro single desk, and I think in Western Australia even more so than in the eastern states. Notwithstanding that, it seems that AWB has some problems. However, we will not actually know that until such time as the Cole commission has reported. However, what next regarding Iraq? I believe that is the key part of the member’s question. I think he basically asked whether I support the Grains Council of Australia’s four-sisters model. If he did not ask that, I can say that the four-sisters model and a number of other models have been brought forward - one promoted by Wilson Tuckey, the member for O’Connor, and another one that is based more directly on the GLA model, although the Tuckey model and the GLA model are very similar. Hon Anthony Fels : More specifically CBH in WA and - Hon KIM CHANCE : Co-operative Bulk Handling Ltd in Western Australia is part of the four-sisters model. Any of those models would work and, without giving a view about the model I prefer, any of those models would work functionally and efficiently. In response to Hon Anthony Fels’ precise question about whether CBH can carry out that function for the Iraqi market, yes it can. However, because we are dealing with a national issue, it is difficult to deal with the question of CBH in isolation of what can be done by the Australian Barley Board for South Australia and Victoria, and Graincorp for Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. They are three of the organisations that comprise the four-sisters model. The fourth sister is AWB International. In the event that AWBI is not able to carry on as international marketer in a single-desk fashion, the necessity of maintaining the three sisters is guided by the fact that those three organisations - Graincorp, ABB and CBH - are the only organisations currently available to run a grain pool. Farmers would immediately turn to whomever could offer a pool, because that would be the first response. In a discussion I had recently with Peter McGauran, the federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, we agreed that our area of greatest concern is not the long-term position of grain marketing but the intermediate term. What will happen if everything goes pear-shaped for AWB in the Cole royal commission and in subsequent events, if we will not reach a long-term solution until around 2010? How will we handle the interregnum? I think the four-sisters model makes sense in that regard. It is established to carry out that work. From the point of view of Western Australia and South Australia, the two states that are the main exporters, CBH and ABB - Hon Anthony Fels : Therefore, you would support CBH in its application. Hon KIM CHANCE : Absolutely. In circumstances in which there is no prospect of the AWBI single desk remaining, I would obviously support the CBH model. Hon Anthony Fels also asked how I can support the single desk when I was responsible for instituting the Grain Licensing Authority in Western Australia. I do not want to repeat the second reading speech of that debate, but essentially we brought forward the GLA model, which I am happy to say has been very successful, in light of our requirement to meet our obligations under national competition policy. The basics of the GLA model were designed in concert between me and Graeme Samuel, the then chairman of the National Competition Council. It has worked functionally. Indeed, I have suggested to Peter McGauran that he should consider one aspect of that model in the event that AWBI loses its single-desk capacity. That is being speculative; we have not reached that stage yet, and I will not make judgments about whether that will happen and whether it is desirable.
Hon Norman Moore : That didn’t worry some of your colleagues in the previous Cole royal commission. Hon KIM CHANCE : Probably not, but I am not guided by anyone else’s actions. I was asked a question and I am answering that question. Indeed, it is an answer that the Prime Minister saw fit to quote in the House of Representatives recently when he suggested to my colleagues in the opposition in the federal Parliament that perhaps they could look at following the same methodology. I hasten to add, in fairness, that the Prime Minister referred to members on his side of the house in that regard also. I am a supporter of the single desk; our government is a supporter of the single desk. We are because we went to the election with that policy, and we will remain supporters of the single desk while it is clear that it provides advantages to the Western Australian grains industry to deal with the two together and while it is clearly supported by grain producers, as it is. Recent events in York, Western Australia, at a meeting convened by the member for Pearce, Ms Moylan, and also at Warracknabeal, Victoria, made it very clear that farmers in both Western Australia and Victoria are very much pro single desk, and I think in Western Australia even more so than in the eastern states. Notwithstanding that, it seems that AWB has some problems. However, we will not actually know that until such time as the Cole commission has reported. However, what next regarding Iraq? I believe that is the key part of the member’s question. I think he basically asked whether I support the Grains Council of Australia’s four-sisters model. If he did not ask that, I can say that the four-sisters model and a number of other models have been brought forward - one promoted by Wilson Tuckey, the member for O’Connor, and another one that is based more directly on the GLA model, although the Tuckey model and the GLA model are very similar. Hon Anthony Fels : More specifically CBH in WA and - Hon KIM CHANCE : Co-operative Bulk Handling Ltd in Western Australia is part of the four-sisters model. Any of those models would work and, without giving a view about the model I prefer, any of those models would work functionally and efficiently. In response to Hon Anthony Fels’ precise question about whether CBH can carry out that function for the Iraqi market, yes it can. However, because we are dealing with a national issue, it is difficult to deal with the question of CBH in isolation of what can be done by the Australian Barley Board for South Australia and Victoria, and Graincorp for Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. They are three of the organisations that comprise the four-sisters model. The fourth sister is AWB International. In the event that AWBI is not able to carry on as international marketer in a single-desk fashion, the necessity of maintaining the three sisters is guided by the fact that those three organisations - Graincorp, ABB and CBH - are the only organisations currently available to run a grain pool. Farmers would immediately turn to whomever could offer a pool, because that would be the first response. In a discussion I had recently with Peter McGauran, the federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, we agreed that our area of greatest concern is not the long-term position of grain marketing but the intermediate term. What will happen if everything goes pear-shaped for AWB in the Cole royal commission and in subsequent events, if we will not reach a long-term solution until around 2010? How will we handle the interregnum? I think the four-sisters model makes sense in that regard. It is established to carry out that work. From the point of view of Western Australia and South Australia, the two states that are the main exporters, CBH and ABB - Hon Anthony Fels : Therefore, you would support CBH in its application. Hon KIM CHANCE : Absolutely. In circumstances in which there is no prospect of the AWBI single desk remaining, I would obviously support the CBH model. Hon Anthony Fels also asked how I can support the single desk when I was responsible for instituting the Grain Licensing Authority in Western Australia. I do not want to repeat the second reading speech of that debate, but essentially we brought forward the GLA model, which I am happy to say has been very successful, in light of our requirement to meet our obligations under national competition policy. The basics of the GLA model were designed in concert between me and Graeme Samuel, the then chairman of the National Competition Council. It has worked functionally. Indeed, I have suggested to Peter McGauran that he should consider one aspect of that model in the event that AWBI loses its single-desk capacity. That is being speculative; we have not reached that stage yet, and I will not make judgments about whether that will happen and whether it is desirable.
Hon KIM CHANCE : Probably not, but I am not guided by anyone else’s actions. I was asked a question and I am answering that question. Indeed, it is an answer that the Prime Minister saw fit to quote in the House of Representatives recently when he suggested to my colleagues in the opposition in the federal Parliament that perhaps they could look at following the same methodology. I hasten to add, in fairness, that the Prime Minister referred to members on his side of the house in that regard also. I am a supporter of the single desk; our government is a supporter of the single desk. We are because we went to the election with that policy, and we will remain supporters of the single desk while it is clear that it provides advantages to the Western Australian grains industry to deal with the two together and while it is clearly supported by grain producers, as it is. Recent events in York, Western Australia, at a meeting convened by the member for Pearce, Ms Moylan, and also at Warracknabeal, Victoria, made it very clear that farmers in both Western Australia and Victoria are very much pro single desk, and I think in Western Australia even more so than in the eastern states. Notwithstanding that, it seems that AWB has some problems. However, we will not actually know that until such time as the Cole commission has reported. However, what next regarding Iraq? I believe that is the key part of the member’s question. I think he basically asked whether I support the Grains Council of Australia’s four-sisters model. If he did not ask that, I can say that the four-sisters model and a number of other models have been brought forward - one promoted by Wilson Tuckey, the member for O’Connor, and another one that is based more directly on the GLA model, although the Tuckey model and the GLA model are very similar. Hon Anthony Fels : More specifically CBH in WA and - Hon KIM CHANCE : Co-operative Bulk Handling Ltd in Western Australia is part of the four-sisters model. Any of those models would work and, without giving a view about the model I prefer, any of those models would work functionally and efficiently. In response to Hon Anthony Fels’ precise question about whether CBH can carry out that function for the Iraqi market, yes it can. However, because we are dealing with a national issue, it is difficult to deal with the question of CBH in isolation of what can be done by the Australian Barley Board for South Australia and Victoria, and Graincorp for Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. They are three of the organisations that comprise the four-sisters model. The fourth sister is AWB International. In the event that AWBI is not able to carry on as international marketer in a single-desk fashion, the necessity of maintaining the three sisters is guided by the fact that those three organisations - Graincorp, ABB and CBH - are the only organisations currently available to run a grain pool. Farmers would immediately turn to whomever could offer a pool, because that would be the first response. In a discussion I had recently with Peter McGauran, the federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, we agreed that our area of greatest concern is not the long-term position of grain marketing but the intermediate term. What will happen if everything goes pear-shaped for AWB in the Cole royal commission and in subsequent events, if we will not reach a long-term solution until around 2010? How will we handle the interregnum? I think the four-sisters model makes sense in that regard. It is established to carry out that work. From the point of view of Western Australia and South Australia, the two states that are the main exporters, CBH and ABB - Hon Anthony Fels : Therefore, you would support CBH in its application. Hon KIM CHANCE : Absolutely. In circumstances in which there is no prospect of the AWBI single desk remaining, I would obviously support the CBH model. Hon Anthony Fels also asked how I can support the single desk when I was responsible for instituting the Grain Licensing Authority in Western Australia. I do not want to repeat the second reading speech of that debate, but essentially we brought forward the GLA model, which I am happy to say has been very successful, in light of our requirement to meet our obligations under national competition policy. The basics of the GLA model were designed in concert between me and Graeme Samuel, the then chairman of the National Competition Council. It has worked functionally. Indeed, I have suggested to Peter McGauran that he should consider one aspect of that model in the event that AWBI loses its single-desk capacity. That is being speculative; we have not reached that stage yet, and I will not make judgments about whether that will happen and whether it is desirable.
I am a supporter of the single desk; our government is a supporter of the single desk. We are because we went to the election with that policy, and we will remain supporters of the single desk while it is clear that it provides advantages to the Western Australian grains industry to deal with the two together and while it is clearly supported by grain producers, as it is. Recent events in York, Western Australia, at a meeting convened by the member for Pearce, Ms Moylan, and also at Warracknabeal, Victoria, made it very clear that farmers in both Western Australia and Victoria are very much pro single desk, and I think in Western Australia even more so than in the eastern states. Notwithstanding that, it seems that AWB has some problems. However, we will not actually know that until such time as the Cole commission has reported. However, what next regarding Iraq? I believe that is the key part of the member’s question. I think he basically asked whether I support the Grains Council of Australia’s four-sisters model. If he did not ask that, I can say that the four-sisters model and a number of other models have been brought forward - one promoted by Wilson Tuckey, the member for O’Connor, and another one that is based more directly on the GLA model, although the Tuckey model and the GLA model are very similar. Hon Anthony Fels : More specifically CBH in WA and - Hon KIM CHANCE : Co-operative Bulk Handling Ltd in Western Australia is part of the four-sisters model. Any of those models would work and, without giving a view about the model I prefer, any of those models would work functionally and efficiently. In response to Hon Anthony Fels’ precise question about whether CBH can carry out that function for the Iraqi market, yes it can. However, because we are dealing with a national issue, it is difficult to deal with the question of CBH in isolation of what can be done by the Australian Barley Board for South Australia and Victoria, and Graincorp for Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. They are three of the organisations that comprise the four-sisters model. The fourth sister is AWB International. In the event that AWBI is not able to carry on as international marketer in a single-desk fashion, the necessity of maintaining the three sisters is guided by the fact that those three organisations - Graincorp, ABB and CBH - are the only organisations currently available to run a grain pool. Farmers would immediately turn to whomever could offer a pool, because that would be the first response. In a discussion I had recently with Peter McGauran, the federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, we agreed that our area of greatest concern is not the long-term position of grain marketing but the intermediate term. What will happen if everything goes pear-shaped for AWB in the Cole royal commission and in subsequent events, if we will not reach a long-term solution until around 2010? How will we handle the interregnum? I think the four-sisters model makes sense in that regard. It is established to carry out that work. From the point of view of Western Australia and South Australia, the two states that are the main exporters, CBH and ABB - Hon Anthony Fels : Therefore, you would support CBH in its application. Hon KIM CHANCE : Absolutely. In circumstances in which there is no prospect of the AWBI single desk remaining, I would obviously support the CBH model. Hon Anthony Fels also asked how I can support the single desk when I was responsible for instituting the Grain Licensing Authority in Western Australia. I do not want to repeat the second reading speech of that debate, but essentially we brought forward the GLA model, which I am happy to say has been very successful, in light of our requirement to meet our obligations under national competition policy. The basics of the GLA model were designed in concert between me and Graeme Samuel, the then chairman of the National Competition Council. It has worked functionally. Indeed, I have suggested to Peter McGauran that he should consider one aspect of that model in the event that AWBI loses its single-desk capacity. That is being speculative; we have not reached that stage yet, and I will not make judgments about whether that will happen and whether it is desirable.
However, what next regarding Iraq? I believe that is the key part of the member’s question. I think he basically asked whether I support the Grains Council of Australia’s four-sisters model. If he did not ask that, I can say that the four-sisters model and a number of other models have been brought forward - one promoted by Wilson Tuckey, the member for O’Connor, and another one that is based more directly on the GLA model, although the Tuckey model and the GLA model are very similar. Hon Anthony Fels : More specifically CBH in WA and - Hon KIM CHANCE : Co-operative Bulk Handling Ltd in Western Australia is part of the four-sisters model. Any of those models would work and, without giving a view about the model I prefer, any of those models would work functionally and efficiently. In response to Hon Anthony Fels’ precise question about whether CBH can carry out that function for the Iraqi market, yes it can. However, because we are dealing with a national issue, it is difficult to deal with the question of CBH in isolation of what can be done by the Australian Barley Board for South Australia and Victoria, and Graincorp for Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. They are three of the organisations that comprise the four-sisters model. The fourth sister is AWB International. In the event that AWBI is not able to carry on as international marketer in a single-desk fashion, the necessity of maintaining the three sisters is guided by the fact that those three organisations - Graincorp, ABB and CBH - are the only organisations currently available to run a grain pool. Farmers would immediately turn to whomever could offer a pool, because that would be the first response. In a discussion I had recently with Peter McGauran, the federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, we agreed that our area of greatest concern is not the long-term position of grain marketing but the intermediate term. What will happen if everything goes pear-shaped for AWB in the Cole royal commission and in subsequent events, if we will not reach a long-term solution until around 2010? How will we handle the interregnum? I think the four-sisters model makes sense in that regard. It is established to carry out that work. From the point of view of Western Australia and South Australia, the two states that are the main exporters, CBH and ABB - Hon Anthony Fels : Therefore, you would support CBH in its application. Hon KIM CHANCE : Absolutely. In circumstances in which there is no prospect of the AWBI single desk remaining, I would obviously support the CBH model. Hon Anthony Fels also asked how I can support the single desk when I was responsible for instituting the Grain Licensing Authority in Western Australia. I do not want to repeat the second reading speech of that debate, but essentially we brought forward the GLA model, which I am happy to say has been very successful, in light of our requirement to meet our obligations under national competition policy. The basics of the GLA model were designed in concert between me and Graeme Samuel, the then chairman of the National Competition Council. It has worked functionally. Indeed, I have suggested to Peter McGauran that he should consider one aspect of that model in the event that AWBI loses its single-desk capacity. That is being speculative; we have not reached that stage yet, and I will not make judgments about whether that will happen and whether it is desirable.
Hon Anthony Fels : More specifically CBH in WA and - Hon KIM CHANCE : Co-operative Bulk Handling Ltd in Western Australia is part of the four-sisters model. Any of those models would work and, without giving a view about the model I prefer, any of those models would work functionally and efficiently. In response to Hon Anthony Fels’ precise question about whether CBH can carry out that function for the Iraqi market, yes it can. However, because we are dealing with a national issue, it is difficult to deal with the question of CBH in isolation of what can be done by the Australian Barley Board for South Australia and Victoria, and Graincorp for Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. They are three of the organisations that comprise the four-sisters model. The fourth sister is AWB International. In the event that AWBI is not able to carry on as international marketer in a single-desk fashion, the necessity of maintaining the three sisters is guided by the fact that those three organisations - Graincorp, ABB and CBH - are the only organisations currently available to run a grain pool. Farmers would immediately turn to whomever could offer a pool, because that would be the first response. In a discussion I had recently with Peter McGauran, the federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, we agreed that our area of greatest concern is not the long-term position of grain marketing but the intermediate term. What will happen if everything goes pear-shaped for AWB in the Cole royal commission and in subsequent events, if we will not reach a long-term solution until around 2010? How will we handle the interregnum? I think the four-sisters model makes sense in that regard. It is established to carry out that work. From the point of view of Western Australia and South Australia, the two states that are the main exporters, CBH and ABB - Hon Anthony Fels : Therefore, you would support CBH in its application. Hon KIM CHANCE : Absolutely. In circumstances in which there is no prospect of the AWBI single desk remaining, I would obviously support the CBH model. Hon Anthony Fels also asked how I can support the single desk when I was responsible for instituting the Grain Licensing Authority in Western Australia. I do not want to repeat the second reading speech of that debate, but essentially we brought forward the GLA model, which I am happy to say has been very successful, in light of our requirement to meet our obligations under national competition policy. The basics of the GLA model were designed in concert between me and Graeme Samuel, the then chairman of the National Competition Council. It has worked functionally. Indeed, I have suggested to Peter McGauran that he should consider one aspect of that model in the event that AWBI loses its single-desk capacity. That is being speculative; we have not reached that stage yet, and I will not make judgments about whether that will happen and whether it is desirable.
Hon KIM CHANCE : Co-operative Bulk Handling Ltd in Western Australia is part of the four-sisters model. Any of those models would work and, without giving a view about the model I prefer, any of those models would work functionally and efficiently. In response to Hon Anthony Fels’ precise question about whether CBH can carry out that function for the Iraqi market, yes it can. However, because we are dealing with a national issue, it is difficult to deal with the question of CBH in isolation of what can be done by the Australian Barley Board for South Australia and Victoria, and Graincorp for Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. They are three of the organisations that comprise the four-sisters model. The fourth sister is AWB International. In the event that AWBI is not able to carry on as international marketer in a single-desk fashion, the necessity of maintaining the three sisters is guided by the fact that those three organisations - Graincorp, ABB and CBH - are the only organisations currently available to run a grain pool. Farmers would immediately turn to whomever could offer a pool, because that would be the first response. In a discussion I had recently with Peter McGauran, the federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, we agreed that our area of greatest concern is not the long-term position of grain marketing but the intermediate term. What will happen if everything goes pear-shaped for AWB in the Cole royal commission and in subsequent events, if we will not reach a long-term solution until around 2010? How will we handle the interregnum? I think the four-sisters model makes sense in that regard. It is established to carry out that work. From the point of view of Western Australia and South Australia, the two states that are the main exporters, CBH and ABB - Hon Anthony Fels : Therefore, you would support CBH in its application. Hon KIM CHANCE : Absolutely. In circumstances in which there is no prospect of the AWBI single desk remaining, I would obviously support the CBH model. Hon Anthony Fels also asked how I can support the single desk when I was responsible for instituting the Grain Licensing Authority in Western Australia. I do not want to repeat the second reading speech of that debate, but essentially we brought forward the GLA model, which I am happy to say has been very successful, in light of our requirement to meet our obligations under national competition policy. The basics of the GLA model were designed in concert between me and Graeme Samuel, the then chairman of the National Competition Council. It has worked functionally. Indeed, I have suggested to Peter McGauran that he should consider one aspect of that model in the event that AWBI loses its single-desk capacity. That is being speculative; we have not reached that stage yet, and I will not make judgments about whether that will happen and whether it is desirable.
Hon Anthony Fels : Therefore, you would support CBH in its application. Hon KIM CHANCE : Absolutely. In circumstances in which there is no prospect of the AWBI single desk remaining, I would obviously support the CBH model. Hon Anthony Fels also asked how I can support the single desk when I was responsible for instituting the Grain Licensing Authority in Western Australia. I do not want to repeat the second reading speech of that debate, but essentially we brought forward the GLA model, which I am happy to say has been very successful, in light of our requirement to meet our obligations under national competition policy. The basics of the GLA model were designed in concert between me and Graeme Samuel, the then chairman of the National Competition Council. It has worked functionally. Indeed, I have suggested to Peter McGauran that he should consider one aspect of that model in the event that AWBI loses its single-desk capacity. That is being speculative; we have not reached that stage yet, and I will not make judgments about whether that will happen and whether it is desirable.
Hon KIM CHANCE : Absolutely. In circumstances in which there is no prospect of the AWBI single desk remaining, I would obviously support the CBH model. Hon Anthony Fels also asked how I can support the single desk when I was responsible for instituting the Grain Licensing Authority in Western Australia. I do not want to repeat the second reading speech of that debate, but essentially we brought forward the GLA model, which I am happy to say has been very successful, in light of our requirement to meet our obligations under national competition policy. The basics of the GLA model were designed in concert between me and Graeme Samuel, the then chairman of the National Competition Council. It has worked functionally. Indeed, I have suggested to Peter McGauran that he should consider one aspect of that model in the event that AWBI loses its single-desk capacity. That is being speculative; we have not reached that stage yet, and I will not make judgments about whether that will happen and whether it is desirable.
(1) Now that trade sanctions against AWB Ltd are no longer hypothetical but an unfortunate reality, does the minister have any policy to deal with sanctions against AWB on behalf of Western Australian wheat growers? (2) Given that the minister supported AWB, will he now look at alternatives to AWB being the sole supplier of wheat under the single desk, particularly from WA? (3) Given that the Wheat Export Authority is responsible for the single desk and that the minister fully supports the single desk, will he now support any future applications by Co-operative Bulk Handling Ltd to export wheat under licence from the Wheat Export Authority, similar to the Grain Licensing Authority? (4) How can the minister support a single desk wheat pool, yet allow the Grain Licensing Authority to issue export permits in WA for barley, lupins and oats that are not enforceable and without any real penalty for non-use? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: A four-part question without notice. Let me have a go at that one. (1)-(4) I still support AWB, and I will remain a supporter of AWB until such time as there is conclusive evidence that I should not support it. None of us will have access to that conclusive evidence until the Cole royal commission has reported, and I refuse point-blank to comment on issues coming out of the Cole royal commission until such time as the Cole commission has reported. I think it is a gross discourtesy indeed - I do not refer to the honourable member but to members of the media and others who have seen fit to comment - for people to make comments and judgments on evidence delivered to the Cole royal commission without, in fairness, there being the opportunity for rebuttal or clarification of that evidence. Hon Norman Moore : That didn’t worry some of your colleagues in the previous Cole royal commission. Hon KIM CHANCE : Probably not, but I am not guided by anyone else’s actions. I was asked a question and I am answering that question. Indeed, it is an answer that the Prime Minister saw fit to quote in the House of Representatives recently when he suggested to my colleagues in the opposition in the federal Parliament that perhaps they could look at following the same methodology. I hasten to add, in fairness, that the Prime Minister referred to members on his side of the house in that regard also. I am a supporter of the single desk; our government is a supporter of the single desk. We are because we went to the election with that policy, and we will remain supporters of the single desk while it is clear that it provides advantages to the Western Australian grains industry to deal with the two together and while it is clearly supported by grain producers, as it is. Recent events in York, Western Australia, at a meeting convened by the member for Pearce, Ms Moylan, and also at Warracknabeal, Victoria, made it very clear that farmers in both Western Australia and Victoria are very much pro single desk, and I think in Western Australia even more so than in the eastern states. Notwithstanding that, it seems that AWB has some problems. However, we will not actually know that until such time as the Cole commission has reported. However, what next regarding Iraq? I believe that is the key part of the member’s question. I think he basically asked whether I support the Grains Council of Australia’s four-sisters model. If he did not ask that, I can say that the four-sisters model and a number of other models have been brought forward - one promoted by Wilson Tuckey, the member for O’Connor, and another one that is based more directly on the GLA model, although the Tuckey model and the GLA model are very similar. Hon Anthony Fels : More specifically CBH in WA and - Hon KIM CHANCE : Co-operative Bulk Handling Ltd in Western Australia is part of the four-sisters model. Any of those models would work and, without giving a view about the model I prefer, any of those models would work functionally and efficiently. In response to Hon Anthony Fels’ precise question about whether CBH can carry out that function for the Iraqi market, yes it can. However, because we are dealing with a national issue, it is difficult to deal with the question of CBH in isolation of what can be done by the Australian Barley Board for South Australia and Victoria, and Graincorp for Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. They are three of the organisations that comprise the four-sisters model. The fourth sister is AWB International. In the event that AWBI is not able to carry on as international marketer in a single-desk fashion, the necessity of maintaining the three sisters is guided by the fact that those three organisations - Graincorp, ABB and CBH - are the only organisations currently available to run a grain pool. Farmers would immediately turn to whomever could offer a pool, because that would be the first response. In a discussion I had recently with Peter McGauran, the federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, we agreed that our area of greatest concern is not the long-term position of grain marketing but the intermediate term. What will happen if everything goes pear-shaped for AWB in the Cole royal commission and in subsequent events, if we will not reach a long-term solution until around 2010? How will we handle the interregnum? I think the four-sisters model makes sense in that regard. It is established to carry out that work. From the point of view of Western Australia and South Australia, the two states that are the main exporters, CBH and ABB - Hon Anthony Fels : Therefore, you would support CBH in its application. Hon KIM CHANCE : Absolutely. In circumstances in which there is no prospect of the AWBI single desk remaining, I would obviously support the CBH model. Hon Anthony Fels also asked how I can support the single desk when I was responsible for instituting the Grain Licensing Authority in Western Australia. I do not want to repeat the second reading speech of that debate, but essentially we brought forward the GLA model, which I am happy to say has been very successful, in light of our requirement to meet our obligations under national competition policy. The basics of the GLA model were designed in concert between me and Graeme Samuel, the then chairman of the National Competition Council. It has worked functionally. Indeed, I have suggested to Peter McGauran that he should consider one aspect of that model in the event that AWBI loses its single-desk capacity. That is being speculative; we have not reached that stage yet, and I will not make judgments about whether that will happen and whether it is desirable.
(2) Given that the minister supported AWB, will he now look at alternatives to AWB being the sole supplier of wheat under the single desk, particularly from WA? (3) Given that the Wheat Export Authority is responsible for the single desk and that the minister fully supports the single desk, will he now support any future applications by Co-operative Bulk Handling Ltd to export wheat under licence from the Wheat Export Authority, similar to the Grain Licensing Authority? (4) How can the minister support a single desk wheat pool, yet allow the Grain Licensing Authority to issue export permits in WA for barley, lupins and oats that are not enforceable and without any real penalty for non-use? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: A four-part question without notice. Let me have a go at that one. (1)-(4) I still support AWB, and I will remain a supporter of AWB until such time as there is conclusive evidence that I should not support it. None of us will have access to that conclusive evidence until the Cole royal commission has reported, and I refuse point-blank to comment on issues coming out of the Cole royal commission until such time as the Cole commission has reported. I think it is a gross discourtesy indeed - I do not refer to the honourable member but to members of the media and others who have seen fit to comment - for people to make comments and judgments on evidence delivered to the Cole royal commission without, in fairness, there being the opportunity for rebuttal or clarification of that evidence. Hon Norman Moore : That didn’t worry some of your colleagues in the previous Cole royal commission. Hon KIM CHANCE : Probably not, but I am not guided by anyone else’s actions. I was asked a question and I am answering that question. Indeed, it is an answer that the Prime Minister saw fit to quote in the House of Representatives recently when he suggested to my colleagues in the opposition in the federal Parliament that perhaps they could look at following the same methodology. I hasten to add, in fairness, that the Prime Minister referred to members on his side of the house in that regard also. I am a supporter of the single desk; our government is a supporter of the single desk. We are because we went to the election with that policy, and we will remain supporters of the single desk while it is clear that it provides advantages to the Western Australian grains industry to deal with the two together and while it is clearly supported by grain producers, as it is. Recent events in York, Western Australia, at a meeting convened by the member for Pearce, Ms Moylan, and also at Warracknabeal, Victoria, made it very clear that farmers in both Western Australia and Victoria are very much pro single desk, and I think in Western Australia even more so than in the eastern states. Notwithstanding that, it seems that AWB has some problems. However, we will not actually know that until such time as the Cole commission has reported. However, what next regarding Iraq? I believe that is the key part of the member’s question. I think he basically asked whether I support the Grains Council of Australia’s four-sisters model. If he did not ask that, I can say that the four-sisters model and a number of other models have been brought forward - one promoted by Wilson Tuckey, the member for O’Connor, and another one that is based more directly on the GLA model, although the Tuckey model and the GLA model are very similar. Hon Anthony Fels : More specifically CBH in WA and - Hon KIM CHANCE : Co-operative Bulk Handling Ltd in Western Australia is part of the four-sisters model. Any of those models would work and, without giving a view about the model I prefer, any of those models would work functionally and efficiently. In response to Hon Anthony Fels’ precise question about whether CBH can carry out that function for the Iraqi market, yes it can. However, because we are dealing with a national issue, it is difficult to deal with the question of CBH in isolation of what can be done by the Australian Barley Board for South Australia and Victoria, and Graincorp for Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. They are three of the organisations that comprise the four-sisters model. The fourth sister is AWB International. In the event that AWBI is not able to carry on as international marketer in a single-desk fashion, the necessity of maintaining the three sisters is guided by the fact that those three organisations - Graincorp, ABB and CBH - are the only organisations currently available to run a grain pool. Farmers would immediately turn to whomever could offer a pool, because that would be the first response. In a discussion I had recently with Peter McGauran, the federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, we agreed that our area of greatest concern is not the long-term position of grain marketing but the intermediate term. What will happen if everything goes pear-shaped for AWB in the Cole royal commission and in subsequent events, if we will not reach a long-term solution until around 2010? How will we handle the interregnum? I think the four-sisters model makes sense in that regard. It is established to carry out that work. From the point of view of Western Australia and South Australia, the two states that are the main exporters, CBH and ABB - Hon Anthony Fels : Therefore, you would support CBH in its application. Hon KIM CHANCE : Absolutely. In circumstances in which there is no prospect of the AWBI single desk remaining, I would obviously support the CBH model. Hon Anthony Fels also asked how I can support the single desk when I was responsible for instituting the Grain Licensing Authority in Western Australia. I do not want to repeat the second reading speech of that debate, but essentially we brought forward the GLA model, which I am happy to say has been very successful, in light of our requirement to meet our obligations under national competition policy. The basics of the GLA model were designed in concert between me and Graeme Samuel, the then chairman of the National Competition Council. It has worked functionally. Indeed, I have suggested to Peter McGauran that he should consider one aspect of that model in the event that AWBI loses its single-desk capacity. That is being speculative; we have not reached that stage yet, and I will not make judgments about whether that will happen and whether it is desirable.
(3) Given that the Wheat Export Authority is responsible for the single desk and that the minister fully supports the single desk, will he now support any future applications by Co-operative Bulk Handling Ltd to export wheat under licence from the Wheat Export Authority, similar to the Grain Licensing Authority? (4) How can the minister support a single desk wheat pool, yet allow the Grain Licensing Authority to issue export permits in WA for barley, lupins and oats that are not enforceable and without any real penalty for non-use? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: A four-part question without notice. Let me have a go at that one. (1)-(4) I still support AWB, and I will remain a supporter of AWB until such time as there is conclusive evidence that I should not support it. None of us will have access to that conclusive evidence until the Cole royal commission has reported, and I refuse point-blank to comment on issues coming out of the Cole royal commission until such time as the Cole commission has reported. I think it is a gross discourtesy indeed - I do not refer to the honourable member but to members of the media and others who have seen fit to comment - for people to make comments and judgments on evidence delivered to the Cole royal commission without, in fairness, there being the opportunity for rebuttal or clarification of that evidence. Hon Norman Moore : That didn’t worry some of your colleagues in the previous Cole royal commission. Hon KIM CHANCE : Probably not, but I am not guided by anyone else’s actions. I was asked a question and I am answering that question. Indeed, it is an answer that the Prime Minister saw fit to quote in the House of Representatives recently when he suggested to my colleagues in the opposition in the federal Parliament that perhaps they could look at following the same methodology. I hasten to add, in fairness, that the Prime Minister referred to members on his side of the house in that regard also. I am a supporter of the single desk; our government is a supporter of the single desk. We are because we went to the election with that policy, and we will remain supporters of the single desk while it is clear that it provides advantages to the Western Australian grains industry to deal with the two together and while it is clearly supported by grain producers, as it is. Recent events in York, Western Australia, at a meeting convened by the member for Pearce, Ms Moylan, and also at Warracknabeal, Victoria, made it very clear that farmers in both Western Australia and Victoria are very much pro single desk, and I think in Western Australia even more so than in the eastern states. Notwithstanding that, it seems that AWB has some problems. However, we will not actually know that until such time as the Cole commission has reported. However, what next regarding Iraq? I believe that is the key part of the member’s question. I think he basically asked whether I support the Grains Council of Australia’s four-sisters model. If he did not ask that, I can say that the four-sisters model and a number of other models have been brought forward - one promoted by Wilson Tuckey, the member for O’Connor, and another one that is based more directly on the GLA model, although the Tuckey model and the GLA model are very similar. Hon Anthony Fels : More specifically CBH in WA and - Hon KIM CHANCE : Co-operative Bulk Handling Ltd in Western Australia is part of the four-sisters model. Any of those models would work and, without giving a view about the model I prefer, any of those models would work functionally and efficiently. In response to Hon Anthony Fels’ precise question about whether CBH can carry out that function for the Iraqi market, yes it can. However, because we are dealing with a national issue, it is difficult to deal with the question of CBH in isolation of what can be done by the Australian Barley Board for South Australia and Victoria, and Graincorp for Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. They are three of the organisations that comprise the four-sisters model. The fourth sister is AWB International. In the event that AWBI is not able to carry on as international marketer in a single-desk fashion, the necessity of maintaining the three sisters is guided by the fact that those three organisations - Graincorp, ABB and CBH - are the only organisations currently available to run a grain pool. Farmers would immediately turn to whomever could offer a pool, because that would be the first response. In a discussion I had recently with Peter McGauran, the federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, we agreed that our area of greatest concern is not the long-term position of grain marketing but the intermediate term. What will happen if everything goes pear-shaped for AWB in the Cole royal commission and in subsequent events, if we will not reach a long-term solution until around 2010? How will we handle the interregnum? I think the four-sisters model makes sense in that regard. It is established to carry out that work. From the point of view of Western Australia and South Australia, the two states that are the main exporters, CBH and ABB - Hon Anthony Fels : Therefore, you would support CBH in its application. Hon KIM CHANCE : Absolutely. In circumstances in which there is no prospect of the AWBI single desk remaining, I would obviously support the CBH model. Hon Anthony Fels also asked how I can support the single desk when I was responsible for instituting the Grain Licensing Authority in Western Australia. I do not want to repeat the second reading speech of that debate, but essentially we brought forward the GLA model, which I am happy to say has been very successful, in light of our requirement to meet our obligations under national competition policy. The basics of the GLA model were designed in concert between me and Graeme Samuel, the then chairman of the National Competition Council. It has worked functionally. Indeed, I have suggested to Peter McGauran that he should consider one aspect of that model in the event that AWBI loses its single-desk capacity. That is being speculative; we have not reached that stage yet, and I will not make judgments about whether that will happen and whether it is desirable.
(4) How can the minister support a single desk wheat pool, yet allow the Grain Licensing Authority to issue export permits in WA for barley, lupins and oats that are not enforceable and without any real penalty for non-use? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: A four-part question without notice. Let me have a go at that one. (1)-(4) I still support AWB, and I will remain a supporter of AWB until such time as there is conclusive evidence that I should not support it. None of us will have access to that conclusive evidence until the Cole royal commission has reported, and I refuse point-blank to comment on issues coming out of the Cole royal commission until such time as the Cole commission has reported. I think it is a gross discourtesy indeed - I do not refer to the honourable member but to members of the media and others who have seen fit to comment - for people to make comments and judgments on evidence delivered to the Cole royal commission without, in fairness, there being the opportunity for rebuttal or clarification of that evidence. Hon Norman Moore : That didn’t worry some of your colleagues in the previous Cole royal commission. Hon KIM CHANCE : Probably not, but I am not guided by anyone else’s actions. I was asked a question and I am answering that question. Indeed, it is an answer that the Prime Minister saw fit to quote in the House of Representatives recently when he suggested to my colleagues in the opposition in the federal Parliament that perhaps they could look at following the same methodology. I hasten to add, in fairness, that the Prime Minister referred to members on his side of the house in that regard also. I am a supporter of the single desk; our government is a supporter of the single desk. We are because we went to the election with that policy, and we will remain supporters of the single desk while it is clear that it provides advantages to the Western Australian grains industry to deal with the two together and while it is clearly supported by grain producers, as it is. Recent events in York, Western Australia, at a meeting convened by the member for Pearce, Ms Moylan, and also at Warracknabeal, Victoria, made it very clear that farmers in both Western Australia and Victoria are very much pro single desk, and I think in Western Australia even more so than in the eastern states. Notwithstanding that, it seems that AWB has some problems. However, we will not actually know that until such time as the Cole commission has reported. However, what next regarding Iraq? I believe that is the key part of the member’s question. I think he basically asked whether I support the Grains Council of Australia’s four-sisters model. If he did not ask that, I can say that the four-sisters model and a number of other models have been brought forward - one promoted by Wilson Tuckey, the member for O’Connor, and another one that is based more directly on the GLA model, although the Tuckey model and the GLA model are very similar. Hon Anthony Fels : More specifically CBH in WA and - Hon KIM CHANCE : Co-operative Bulk Handling Ltd in Western Australia is part of the four-sisters model. Any of those models would work and, without giving a view about the model I prefer, any of those models would work functionally and efficiently. In response to Hon Anthony Fels’ precise question about whether CBH can carry out that function for the Iraqi market, yes it can. However, because we are dealing with a national issue, it is difficult to deal with the question of CBH in isolation of what can be done by the Australian Barley Board for South Australia and Victoria, and Graincorp for Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. They are three of the organisations that comprise the four-sisters model. The fourth sister is AWB International. In the event that AWBI is not able to carry on as international marketer in a single-desk fashion, the necessity of maintaining the three sisters is guided by the fact that those three organisations - Graincorp, ABB and CBH - are the only organisations currently available to run a grain pool. Farmers would immediately turn to whomever could offer a pool, because that would be the first response. In a discussion I had recently with Peter McGauran, the federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, we agreed that our area of greatest concern is not the long-term position of grain marketing but the intermediate term. What will happen if everything goes pear-shaped for AWB in the Cole royal commission and in subsequent events, if we will not reach a long-term solution until around 2010? How will we handle the interregnum? I think the four-sisters model makes sense in that regard. It is established to carry out that work. From the point of view of Western Australia and South Australia, the two states that are the main exporters, CBH and ABB - Hon Anthony Fels : Therefore, you would support CBH in its application. Hon KIM CHANCE : Absolutely. In circumstances in which there is no prospect of the AWBI single desk remaining, I would obviously support the CBH model. Hon Anthony Fels also asked how I can support the single desk when I was responsible for instituting the Grain Licensing Authority in Western Australia. I do not want to repeat the second reading speech of that debate, but essentially we brought forward the GLA model, which I am happy to say has been very successful, in light of our requirement to meet our obligations under national competition policy. The basics of the GLA model were designed in concert between me and Graeme Samuel, the then chairman of the National Competition Council. It has worked functionally. Indeed, I have suggested to Peter McGauran that he should consider one aspect of that model in the event that AWBI loses its single-desk capacity. That is being speculative; we have not reached that stage yet, and I will not make judgments about whether that will happen and whether it is desirable.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: A four-part question without notice. Let me have a go at that one. (1)-(4) I still support AWB, and I will remain a supporter of AWB until such time as there is conclusive evidence that I should not support it. None of us will have access to that conclusive evidence until the Cole royal commission has reported, and I refuse point-blank to comment on issues coming out of the Cole royal commission until such time as the Cole commission has reported. I think it is a gross discourtesy indeed - I do not refer to the honourable member but to members of the media and others who have seen fit to comment - for people to make comments and judgments on evidence delivered to the Cole royal commission without, in fairness, there being the opportunity for rebuttal or clarification of that evidence. Hon Norman Moore : That didn’t worry some of your colleagues in the previous Cole royal commission. Hon KIM CHANCE : Probably not, but I am not guided by anyone else’s actions. I was asked a question and I am answering that question. Indeed, it is an answer that the Prime Minister saw fit to quote in the House of Representatives recently when he suggested to my colleagues in the opposition in the federal Parliament that perhaps they could look at following the same methodology. I hasten to add, in fairness, that the Prime Minister referred to members on his side of the house in that regard also. I am a supporter of the single desk; our government is a supporter of the single desk. We are because we went to the election with that policy, and we will remain supporters of the single desk while it is clear that it provides advantages to the Western Australian grains industry to deal with the two together and while it is clearly supported by grain producers, as it is. Recent events in York, Western Australia, at a meeting convened by the member for Pearce, Ms Moylan, and also at Warracknabeal, Victoria, made it very clear that farmers in both Western Australia and Victoria are very much pro single desk, and I think in Western Australia even more so than in the eastern states. Notwithstanding that, it seems that AWB has some problems. However, we will not actually know that until such time as the Cole commission has reported. However, what next regarding Iraq? I believe that is the key part of the member’s question. I think he basically asked whether I support the Grains Council of Australia’s four-sisters model. If he did not ask that, I can say that the four-sisters model and a number of other models have been brought forward - one promoted by Wilson Tuckey, the member for O’Connor, and another one that is based more directly on the GLA model, although the Tuckey model and the GLA model are very similar. Hon Anthony Fels : More specifically CBH in WA and - Hon KIM CHANCE : Co-operative Bulk Handling Ltd in Western Australia is part of the four-sisters model. Any of those models would work and, without giving a view about the model I prefer, any of those models would work functionally and efficiently. In response to Hon Anthony Fels’ precise question about whether CBH can carry out that function for the Iraqi market, yes it can. However, because we are dealing with a national issue, it is difficult to deal with the question of CBH in isolation of what can be done by the Australian Barley Board for South Australia and Victoria, and Graincorp for Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. They are three of the organisations that comprise the four-sisters model. The fourth sister is AWB International. In the event that AWBI is not able to carry on as international marketer in a single-desk fashion, the necessity of maintaining the three sisters is guided by the fact that those three organisations - Graincorp, ABB and CBH - are the only organisations currently available to run a grain pool. Farmers would immediately turn to whomever could offer a pool, because that would be the first response. In a discussion I had recently with Peter McGauran, the federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, we agreed that our area of greatest concern is not the long-term position of grain marketing but the intermediate term. What will happen if everything goes pear-shaped for AWB in the Cole royal commission and in subsequent events, if we will not reach a long-term solution until around 2010? How will we handle the interregnum? I think the four-sisters model makes sense in that regard. It is established to carry out that work. From the point of view of Western Australia and South Australia, the two states that are the main exporters, CBH and ABB - Hon Anthony Fels : Therefore, you would support CBH in its application. Hon KIM CHANCE : Absolutely. In circumstances in which there is no prospect of the AWBI single desk remaining, I would obviously support the CBH model. Hon Anthony Fels also asked how I can support the single desk when I was responsible for instituting the Grain Licensing Authority in Western Australia. I do not want to repeat the second reading speech of that debate, but essentially we brought forward the GLA model, which I am happy to say has been very successful, in light of our requirement to meet our obligations under national competition policy. The basics of the GLA model were designed in concert between me and Graeme Samuel, the then chairman of the National Competition Council. It has worked functionally. Indeed, I have suggested to Peter McGauran that he should consider one aspect of that model in the event that AWBI loses its single-desk capacity. That is being speculative; we have not reached that stage yet, and I will not make judgments about whether that will happen and whether it is desirable.
A four-part question without notice. Let me have a go at that one. (1)-(4) I still support AWB, and I will remain a supporter of AWB until such time as there is conclusive evidence that I should not support it. None of us will have access to that conclusive evidence until the Cole royal commission has reported, and I refuse point-blank to comment on issues coming out of the Cole royal commission until such time as the Cole commission has reported. I think it is a gross discourtesy indeed - I do not refer to the honourable member but to members of the media and others who have seen fit to comment - for people to make comments and judgments on evidence delivered to the Cole royal commission without, in fairness, there being the opportunity for rebuttal or clarification of that evidence. Hon Norman Moore : That didn’t worry some of your colleagues in the previous Cole royal commission. Hon KIM CHANCE : Probably not, but I am not guided by anyone else’s actions. I was asked a question and I am answering that question. Indeed, it is an answer that the Prime Minister saw fit to quote in the House of Representatives recently when he suggested to my colleagues in the opposition in the federal Parliament that perhaps they could look at following the same methodology. I hasten to add, in fairness, that the Prime Minister referred to members on his side of the house in that regard also. I am a supporter of the single desk; our government is a supporter of the single desk. We are because we went to the election with that policy, and we will remain supporters of the single desk while it is clear that it provides advantages to the Western Australian grains industry to deal with the two together and while it is clearly supported by grain producers, as it is. Recent events in York, Western Australia, at a meeting convened by the member for Pearce, Ms Moylan, and also at Warracknabeal, Victoria, made it very clear that farmers in both Western Australia and Victoria are very much pro single desk, and I think in Western Australia even more so than in the eastern states. Notwithstanding that, it seems that AWB has some problems. However, we will not actually know that until such time as the Cole commission has reported. However, what next regarding Iraq? I believe that is the key part of the member’s question. I think he basically asked whether I support the Grains Council of Australia’s four-sisters model. If he did not ask that, I can say that the four-sisters model and a number of other models have been brought forward - one promoted by Wilson Tuckey, the member for O’Connor, and another one that is based more directly on the GLA model, although the Tuckey model and the GLA model are very similar. Hon Anthony Fels : More specifically CBH in WA and - Hon KIM CHANCE : Co-operative Bulk Handling Ltd in Western Australia is part of the four-sisters model. Any of those models would work and, without giving a view about the model I prefer, any of those models would work functionally and efficiently. In response to Hon Anthony Fels’ precise question about whether CBH can carry out that function for the Iraqi market, yes it can. However, because we are dealing with a national issue, it is difficult to deal with the question of CBH in isolation of what can be done by the Australian Barley Board for South Australia and Victoria, and Graincorp for Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. They are three of the organisations that comprise the four-sisters model. The fourth sister is AWB International. In the event that AWBI is not able to carry on as international marketer in a single-desk fashion, the necessity of maintaining the three sisters is guided by the fact that those three organisations - Graincorp, ABB and CBH - are the only organisations currently available to run a grain pool. Farmers would immediately turn to whomever could offer a pool, because that would be the first response. In a discussion I had recently with Peter McGauran, the federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, we agreed that our area of greatest concern is not the long-term position of grain marketing but the intermediate term. What will happen if everything goes pear-shaped for AWB in the Cole royal commission and in subsequent events, if we will not reach a long-term solution until around 2010? How will we handle the interregnum? I think the four-sisters model makes sense in that regard. It is established to carry out that work. From the point of view of Western Australia and South Australia, the two states that are the main exporters, CBH and ABB - Hon Anthony Fels : Therefore, you would support CBH in its application. Hon KIM CHANCE : Absolutely. In circumstances in which there is no prospect of the AWBI single desk remaining, I would obviously support the CBH model. Hon Anthony Fels also asked how I can support the single desk when I was responsible for instituting the Grain Licensing Authority in Western Australia. I do not want to repeat the second reading speech of that debate, but essentially we brought forward the GLA model, which I am happy to say has been very successful, in light of our requirement to meet our obligations under national competition policy. The basics of the GLA model were designed in concert between me and Graeme Samuel, the then chairman of the National Competition Council. It has worked functionally. Indeed, I have suggested to Peter McGauran that he should consider one aspect of that model in the event that AWBI loses its single-desk capacity. That is being speculative; we have not reached that stage yet, and I will not make judgments about whether that will happen and whether it is desirable.
(1)-(4) I still support AWB, and I will remain a supporter of AWB until such time as there is conclusive evidence that I should not support it. None of us will have access to that conclusive evidence until the Cole royal commission has reported, and I refuse point-blank to comment on issues coming out of the Cole royal commission until such time as the Cole commission has reported. I think it is a gross discourtesy indeed - I do not refer to the honourable member but to members of the media and others who have seen fit to comment - for people to make comments and judgments on evidence delivered to the Cole royal commission without, in fairness, there being the opportunity for rebuttal or clarification of that evidence. Hon Norman Moore : That didn’t worry some of your colleagues in the previous Cole royal commission. Hon KIM CHANCE : Probably not, but I am not guided by anyone else’s actions. I was asked a question and I am answering that question. Indeed, it is an answer that the Prime Minister saw fit to quote in the House of Representatives recently when he suggested to my colleagues in the opposition in the federal Parliament that perhaps they could look at following the same methodology. I hasten to add, in fairness, that the Prime Minister referred to members on his side of the house in that regard also. I am a supporter of the single desk; our government is a supporter of the single desk. We are because we went to the election with that policy, and we will remain supporters of the single desk while it is clear that it provides advantages to the Western Australian grains industry to deal with the two together and while it is clearly supported by grain producers, as it is. Recent events in York, Western Australia, at a meeting convened by the member for Pearce, Ms Moylan, and also at Warracknabeal, Victoria, made it very clear that farmers in both Western Australia and Victoria are very much pro single desk, and I think in Western Australia even more so than in the eastern states. Notwithstanding that, it seems that AWB has some problems. However, we will not actually know that until such time as the Cole commission has reported. However, what next regarding Iraq? I believe that is the key part of the member’s question. I think he basically asked whether I support the Grains Council of Australia’s four-sisters model. If he did not ask that, I can say that the four-sisters model and a number of other models have been brought forward - one promoted by Wilson Tuckey, the member for O’Connor, and another one that is based more directly on the GLA model, although the Tuckey model and the GLA model are very similar. Hon Anthony Fels : More specifically CBH in WA and - Hon KIM CHANCE : Co-operative Bulk Handling Ltd in Western Australia is part of the four-sisters model. Any of those models would work and, without giving a view about the model I prefer, any of those models would work functionally and efficiently. In response to Hon Anthony Fels’ precise question about whether CBH can carry out that function for the Iraqi market, yes it can. However, because we are dealing with a national issue, it is difficult to deal with the question of CBH in isolation of what can be done by the Australian Barley Board for South Australia and Victoria, and Graincorp for Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. They are three of the organisations that comprise the four-sisters model. The fourth sister is AWB International. In the event that AWBI is not able to carry on as international marketer in a single-desk fashion, the necessity of maintaining the three sisters is guided by the fact that those three organisations - Graincorp, ABB and CBH - are the only organisations currently available to run a grain pool. Farmers would immediately turn to whomever could offer a pool, because that would be the first response. In a discussion I had recently with Peter McGauran, the federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, we agreed that our area of greatest concern is not the long-term position of grain marketing but the intermediate term. What will happen if everything goes pear-shaped for AWB in the Cole royal commission and in subsequent events, if we will not reach a long-term solution until around 2010? How will we handle the interregnum? I think the four-sisters model makes sense in that regard. It is established to carry out that work. From the point of view of Western Australia and South Australia, the two states that are the main exporters, CBH and ABB - Hon Anthony Fels : Therefore, you would support CBH in its application. Hon KIM CHANCE : Absolutely. In circumstances in which there is no prospect of the AWBI single desk remaining, I would obviously support the CBH model. Hon Anthony Fels also asked how I can support the single desk when I was responsible for instituting the Grain Licensing Authority in Western Australia. I do not want to repeat the second reading speech of that debate, but essentially we brought forward the GLA model, which I am happy to say has been very successful, in light of our requirement to meet our obligations under national competition policy. The basics of the GLA model were designed in concert between me and Graeme Samuel, the then chairman of the National Competition Council. It has worked functionally. Indeed, I have suggested to Peter McGauran that he should consider one aspect of that model in the event that AWBI loses its single-desk capacity. That is being speculative; we have not reached that stage yet, and I will not make judgments about whether that will happen and whether it is desirable.
Hon Norman Moore : That didn’t worry some of your colleagues in the previous Cole royal commission. Hon KIM CHANCE : Probably not, but I am not guided by anyone else’s actions. I was asked a question and I am answering that question. Indeed, it is an answer that the Prime Minister saw fit to quote in the House of Representatives recently when he suggested to my colleagues in the opposition in the federal Parliament that perhaps they could look at following the same methodology. I hasten to add, in fairness, that the Prime Minister referred to members on his side of the house in that regard also. I am a supporter of the single desk; our government is a supporter of the single desk. We are because we went to the election with that policy, and we will remain supporters of the single desk while it is clear that it provides advantages to the Western Australian grains industry to deal with the two together and while it is clearly supported by grain producers, as it is. Recent events in York, Western Australia, at a meeting convened by the member for Pearce, Ms Moylan, and also at Warracknabeal, Victoria, made it very clear that farmers in both Western Australia and Victoria are very much pro single desk, and I think in Western Australia even more so than in the eastern states. Notwithstanding that, it seems that AWB has some problems. However, we will not actually know that until such time as the Cole commission has reported. However, what next regarding Iraq? I believe that is the key part of the member’s question. I think he basically asked whether I support the Grains Council of Australia’s four-sisters model. If he did not ask that, I can say that the four-sisters model and a number of other models have been brought forward - one promoted by Wilson Tuckey, the member for O’Connor, and another one that is based more directly on the GLA model, although the Tuckey model and the GLA model are very similar. Hon Anthony Fels : More specifically CBH in WA and - Hon KIM CHANCE : Co-operative Bulk Handling Ltd in Western Australia is part of the four-sisters model. Any of those models would work and, without giving a view about the model I prefer, any of those models would work functionally and efficiently. In response to Hon Anthony Fels’ precise question about whether CBH can carry out that function for the Iraqi market, yes it can. However, because we are dealing with a national issue, it is difficult to deal with the question of CBH in isolation of what can be done by the Australian Barley Board for South Australia and Victoria, and Graincorp for Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. They are three of the organisations that comprise the four-sisters model. The fourth sister is AWB International. In the event that AWBI is not able to carry on as international marketer in a single-desk fashion, the necessity of maintaining the three sisters is guided by the fact that those three organisations - Graincorp, ABB and CBH - are the only organisations currently available to run a grain pool. Farmers would immediately turn to whomever could offer a pool, because that would be the first response. In a discussion I had recently with Peter McGauran, the federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, we agreed that our area of greatest concern is not the long-term position of grain marketing but the intermediate term. What will happen if everything goes pear-shaped for AWB in the Cole royal commission and in subsequent events, if we will not reach a long-term solution until around 2010? How will we handle the interregnum? I think the four-sisters model makes sense in that regard. It is established to carry out that work. From the point of view of Western Australia and South Australia, the two states that are the main exporters, CBH and ABB - Hon Anthony Fels : Therefore, you would support CBH in its application. Hon KIM CHANCE : Absolutely. In circumstances in which there is no prospect of the AWBI single desk remaining, I would obviously support the CBH model. Hon Anthony Fels also asked how I can support the single desk when I was responsible for instituting the Grain Licensing Authority in Western Australia. I do not want to repeat the second reading speech of that debate, but essentially we brought forward the GLA model, which I am happy to say has been very successful, in light of our requirement to meet our obligations under national competition policy. The basics of the GLA model were designed in concert between me and Graeme Samuel, the then chairman of the National Competition Council. It has worked functionally. Indeed, I have suggested to Peter McGauran that he should consider one aspect of that model in the event that AWBI loses its single-desk capacity. That is being speculative; we have not reached that stage yet, and I will not make judgments about whether that will happen and whether it is desirable.
Hon KIM CHANCE : Probably not, but I am not guided by anyone else’s actions. I was asked a question and I am answering that question. Indeed, it is an answer that the Prime Minister saw fit to quote in the House of Representatives recently when he suggested to my colleagues in the opposition in the federal Parliament that perhaps they could look at following the same methodology. I hasten to add, in fairness, that the Prime Minister referred to members on his side of the house in that regard also. I am a supporter of the single desk; our government is a supporter of the single desk. We are because we went to the election with that policy, and we will remain supporters of the single desk while it is clear that it provides advantages to the Western Australian grains industry to deal with the two together and while it is clearly supported by grain producers, as it is. Recent events in York, Western Australia, at a meeting convened by the member for Pearce, Ms Moylan, and also at Warracknabeal, Victoria, made it very clear that farmers in both Western Australia and Victoria are very much pro single desk, and I think in Western Australia even more so than in the eastern states. Notwithstanding that, it seems that AWB has some problems. However, we will not actually know that until such time as the Cole commission has reported. However, what next regarding Iraq? I believe that is the key part of the member’s question. I think he basically asked whether I support the Grains Council of Australia’s four-sisters model. If he did not ask that, I can say that the four-sisters model and a number of other models have been brought forward - one promoted by Wilson Tuckey, the member for O’Connor, and another one that is based more directly on the GLA model, although the Tuckey model and the GLA model are very similar. Hon Anthony Fels : More specifically CBH in WA and - Hon KIM CHANCE : Co-operative Bulk Handling Ltd in Western Australia is part of the four-sisters model. Any of those models would work and, without giving a view about the model I prefer, any of those models would work functionally and efficiently. In response to Hon Anthony Fels’ precise question about whether CBH can carry out that function for the Iraqi market, yes it can. However, because we are dealing with a national issue, it is difficult to deal with the question of CBH in isolation of what can be done by the Australian Barley Board for South Australia and Victoria, and Graincorp for Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. They are three of the organisations that comprise the four-sisters model. The fourth sister is AWB International. In the event that AWBI is not able to carry on as international marketer in a single-desk fashion, the necessity of maintaining the three sisters is guided by the fact that those three organisations - Graincorp, ABB and CBH - are the only organisations currently available to run a grain pool. Farmers would immediately turn to whomever could offer a pool, because that would be the first response. In a discussion I had recently with Peter McGauran, the federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, we agreed that our area of greatest concern is not the long-term position of grain marketing but the intermediate term. What will happen if everything goes pear-shaped for AWB in the Cole royal commission and in subsequent events, if we will not reach a long-term solution until around 2010? How will we handle the interregnum? I think the four-sisters model makes sense in that regard. It is established to carry out that work. From the point of view of Western Australia and South Australia, the two states that are the main exporters, CBH and ABB - Hon Anthony Fels : Therefore, you would support CBH in its application. Hon KIM CHANCE : Absolutely. In circumstances in which there is no prospect of the AWBI single desk remaining, I would obviously support the CBH model. Hon Anthony Fels also asked how I can support the single desk when I was responsible for instituting the Grain Licensing Authority in Western Australia. I do not want to repeat the second reading speech of that debate, but essentially we brought forward the GLA model, which I am happy to say has been very successful, in light of our requirement to meet our obligations under national competition policy. The basics of the GLA model were designed in concert between me and Graeme Samuel, the then chairman of the National Competition Council. It has worked functionally. Indeed, I have suggested to Peter McGauran that he should consider one aspect of that model in the event that AWBI loses its single-desk capacity. That is being speculative; we have not reached that stage yet, and I will not make judgments about whether that will happen and whether it is desirable.
I am a supporter of the single desk; our government is a supporter of the single desk. We are because we went to the election with that policy, and we will remain supporters of the single desk while it is clear that it provides advantages to the Western Australian grains industry to deal with the two together and while it is clearly supported by grain producers, as it is. Recent events in York, Western Australia, at a meeting convened by the member for Pearce, Ms Moylan, and also at Warracknabeal, Victoria, made it very clear that farmers in both Western Australia and Victoria are very much pro single desk, and I think in Western Australia even more so than in the eastern states. Notwithstanding that, it seems that AWB has some problems. However, we will not actually know that until such time as the Cole commission has reported. However, what next regarding Iraq? I believe that is the key part of the member’s question. I think he basically asked whether I support the Grains Council of Australia’s four-sisters model. If he did not ask that, I can say that the four-sisters model and a number of other models have been brought forward - one promoted by Wilson Tuckey, the member for O’Connor, and another one that is based more directly on the GLA model, although the Tuckey model and the GLA model are very similar. Hon Anthony Fels : More specifically CBH in WA and - Hon KIM CHANCE : Co-operative Bulk Handling Ltd in Western Australia is part of the four-sisters model. Any of those models would work and, without giving a view about the model I prefer, any of those models would work functionally and efficiently. In response to Hon Anthony Fels’ precise question about whether CBH can carry out that function for the Iraqi market, yes it can. However, because we are dealing with a national issue, it is difficult to deal with the question of CBH in isolation of what can be done by the Australian Barley Board for South Australia and Victoria, and Graincorp for Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. They are three of the organisations that comprise the four-sisters model. The fourth sister is AWB International. In the event that AWBI is not able to carry on as international marketer in a single-desk fashion, the necessity of maintaining the three sisters is guided by the fact that those three organisations - Graincorp, ABB and CBH - are the only organisations currently available to run a grain pool. Farmers would immediately turn to whomever could offer a pool, because that would be the first response. In a discussion I had recently with Peter McGauran, the federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, we agreed that our area of greatest concern is not the long-term position of grain marketing but the intermediate term. What will happen if everything goes pear-shaped for AWB in the Cole royal commission and in subsequent events, if we will not reach a long-term solution until around 2010? How will we handle the interregnum? I think the four-sisters model makes sense in that regard. It is established to carry out that work. From the point of view of Western Australia and South Australia, the two states that are the main exporters, CBH and ABB - Hon Anthony Fels : Therefore, you would support CBH in its application. Hon KIM CHANCE : Absolutely. In circumstances in which there is no prospect of the AWBI single desk remaining, I would obviously support the CBH model. Hon Anthony Fels also asked how I can support the single desk when I was responsible for instituting the Grain Licensing Authority in Western Australia. I do not want to repeat the second reading speech of that debate, but essentially we brought forward the GLA model, which I am happy to say has been very successful, in light of our requirement to meet our obligations under national competition policy. The basics of the GLA model were designed in concert between me and Graeme Samuel, the then chairman of the National Competition Council. It has worked functionally. Indeed, I have suggested to Peter McGauran that he should consider one aspect of that model in the event that AWBI loses its single-desk capacity. That is being speculative; we have not reached that stage yet, and I will not make judgments about whether that will happen and whether it is desirable.
However, what next regarding Iraq? I believe that is the key part of the member’s question. I think he basically asked whether I support the Grains Council of Australia’s four-sisters model. If he did not ask that, I can say that the four-sisters model and a number of other models have been brought forward - one promoted by Wilson Tuckey, the member for O’Connor, and another one that is based more directly on the GLA model, although the Tuckey model and the GLA model are very similar. Hon Anthony Fels : More specifically CBH in WA and - Hon KIM CHANCE : Co-operative Bulk Handling Ltd in Western Australia is part of the four-sisters model. Any of those models would work and, without giving a view about the model I prefer, any of those models would work functionally and efficiently. In response to Hon Anthony Fels’ precise question about whether CBH can carry out that function for the Iraqi market, yes it can. However, because we are dealing with a national issue, it is difficult to deal with the question of CBH in isolation of what can be done by the Australian Barley Board for South Australia and Victoria, and Graincorp for Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. They are three of the organisations that comprise the four-sisters model. The fourth sister is AWB International. In the event that AWBI is not able to carry on as international marketer in a single-desk fashion, the necessity of maintaining the three sisters is guided by the fact that those three organisations - Graincorp, ABB and CBH - are the only organisations currently available to run a grain pool. Farmers would immediately turn to whomever could offer a pool, because that would be the first response. In a discussion I had recently with Peter McGauran, the federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, we agreed that our area of greatest concern is not the long-term position of grain marketing but the intermediate term. What will happen if everything goes pear-shaped for AWB in the Cole royal commission and in subsequent events, if we will not reach a long-term solution until around 2010? How will we handle the interregnum? I think the four-sisters model makes sense in that regard. It is established to carry out that work. From the point of view of Western Australia and South Australia, the two states that are the main exporters, CBH and ABB - Hon Anthony Fels : Therefore, you would support CBH in its application. Hon KIM CHANCE : Absolutely. In circumstances in which there is no prospect of the AWBI single desk remaining, I would obviously support the CBH model. Hon Anthony Fels also asked how I can support the single desk when I was responsible for instituting the Grain Licensing Authority in Western Australia. I do not want to repeat the second reading speech of that debate, but essentially we brought forward the GLA model, which I am happy to say has been very successful, in light of our requirement to meet our obligations under national competition policy. The basics of the GLA model were designed in concert between me and Graeme Samuel, the then chairman of the National Competition Council. It has worked functionally. Indeed, I have suggested to Peter McGauran that he should consider one aspect of that model in the event that AWBI loses its single-desk capacity. That is being speculative; we have not reached that stage yet, and I will not make judgments about whether that will happen and whether it is desirable.
Hon Anthony Fels : More specifically CBH in WA and - Hon KIM CHANCE : Co-operative Bulk Handling Ltd in Western Australia is part of the four-sisters model. Any of those models would work and, without giving a view about the model I prefer, any of those models would work functionally and efficiently. In response to Hon Anthony Fels’ precise question about whether CBH can carry out that function for the Iraqi market, yes it can. However, because we are dealing with a national issue, it is difficult to deal with the question of CBH in isolation of what can be done by the Australian Barley Board for South Australia and Victoria, and Graincorp for Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. They are three of the organisations that comprise the four-sisters model. The fourth sister is AWB International. In the event that AWBI is not able to carry on as international marketer in a single-desk fashion, the necessity of maintaining the three sisters is guided by the fact that those three organisations - Graincorp, ABB and CBH - are the only organisations currently available to run a grain pool. Farmers would immediately turn to whomever could offer a pool, because that would be the first response. In a discussion I had recently with Peter McGauran, the federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, we agreed that our area of greatest concern is not the long-term position of grain marketing but the intermediate term. What will happen if everything goes pear-shaped for AWB in the Cole royal commission and in subsequent events, if we will not reach a long-term solution until around 2010? How will we handle the interregnum? I think the four-sisters model makes sense in that regard. It is established to carry out that work. From the point of view of Western Australia and South Australia, the two states that are the main exporters, CBH and ABB - Hon Anthony Fels : Therefore, you would support CBH in its application. Hon KIM CHANCE : Absolutely. In circumstances in which there is no prospect of the AWBI single desk remaining, I would obviously support the CBH model. Hon Anthony Fels also asked how I can support the single desk when I was responsible for instituting the Grain Licensing Authority in Western Australia. I do not want to repeat the second reading speech of that debate, but essentially we brought forward the GLA model, which I am happy to say has been very successful, in light of our requirement to meet our obligations under national competition policy. The basics of the GLA model were designed in concert between me and Graeme Samuel, the then chairman of the National Competition Council. It has worked functionally. Indeed, I have suggested to Peter McGauran that he should consider one aspect of that model in the event that AWBI loses its single-desk capacity. That is being speculative; we have not reached that stage yet, and I will not make judgments about whether that will happen and whether it is desirable.
Hon KIM CHANCE : Co-operative Bulk Handling Ltd in Western Australia is part of the four-sisters model. Any of those models would work and, without giving a view about the model I prefer, any of those models would work functionally and efficiently. In response to Hon Anthony Fels’ precise question about whether CBH can carry out that function for the Iraqi market, yes it can. However, because we are dealing with a national issue, it is difficult to deal with the question of CBH in isolation of what can be done by the Australian Barley Board for South Australia and Victoria, and Graincorp for Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. They are three of the organisations that comprise the four-sisters model. The fourth sister is AWB International. In the event that AWBI is not able to carry on as international marketer in a single-desk fashion, the necessity of maintaining the three sisters is guided by the fact that those three organisations - Graincorp, ABB and CBH - are the only organisations currently available to run a grain pool. Farmers would immediately turn to whomever could offer a pool, because that would be the first response. In a discussion I had recently with Peter McGauran, the federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, we agreed that our area of greatest concern is not the long-term position of grain marketing but the intermediate term. What will happen if everything goes pear-shaped for AWB in the Cole royal commission and in subsequent events, if we will not reach a long-term solution until around 2010? How will we handle the interregnum? I think the four-sisters model makes sense in that regard. It is established to carry out that work. From the point of view of Western Australia and South Australia, the two states that are the main exporters, CBH and ABB - Hon Anthony Fels : Therefore, you would support CBH in its application. Hon KIM CHANCE : Absolutely. In circumstances in which there is no prospect of the AWBI single desk remaining, I would obviously support the CBH model. Hon Anthony Fels also asked how I can support the single desk when I was responsible for instituting the Grain Licensing Authority in Western Australia. I do not want to repeat the second reading speech of that debate, but essentially we brought forward the GLA model, which I am happy to say has been very successful, in light of our requirement to meet our obligations under national competition policy. The basics of the GLA model were designed in concert between me and Graeme Samuel, the then chairman of the National Competition Council. It has worked functionally. Indeed, I have suggested to Peter McGauran that he should consider one aspect of that model in the event that AWBI loses its single-desk capacity. That is being speculative; we have not reached that stage yet, and I will not make judgments about whether that will happen and whether it is desirable.
Hon Anthony Fels : Therefore, you would support CBH in its application. Hon KIM CHANCE : Absolutely. In circumstances in which there is no prospect of the AWBI single desk remaining, I would obviously support the CBH model. Hon Anthony Fels also asked how I can support the single desk when I was responsible for instituting the Grain Licensing Authority in Western Australia. I do not want to repeat the second reading speech of that debate, but essentially we brought forward the GLA model, which I am happy to say has been very successful, in light of our requirement to meet our obligations under national competition policy. The basics of the GLA model were designed in concert between me and Graeme Samuel, the then chairman of the National Competition Council. It has worked functionally. Indeed, I have suggested to Peter McGauran that he should consider one aspect of that model in the event that AWBI loses its single-desk capacity. That is being speculative; we have not reached that stage yet, and I will not make judgments about whether that will happen and whether it is desirable.
Hon KIM CHANCE : Absolutely. In circumstances in which there is no prospect of the AWBI single desk remaining, I would obviously support the CBH model. Hon Anthony Fels also asked how I can support the single desk when I was responsible for instituting the Grain Licensing Authority in Western Australia. I do not want to repeat the second reading speech of that debate, but essentially we brought forward the GLA model, which I am happy to say has been very successful, in light of our requirement to meet our obligations under national competition policy. The basics of the GLA model were designed in concert between me and Graeme Samuel, the then chairman of the National Competition Council. It has worked functionally. Indeed, I have suggested to Peter McGauran that he should consider one aspect of that model in the event that AWBI loses its single-desk capacity. That is being speculative; we have not reached that stage yet, and I will not make judgments about whether that will happen and whether it is desirable.
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.