❓ Opposition questions the source of funding for the government's drought assistance package, specifically whether it's genuinely new money or a reallocation of existing funds. The Minister defends the funding as new, with a minor exception.
AnsweredQoN 322Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
There has been no notice of this question. I refer to the minister’s announcement yesterday of the Government’s drought assistance package. (1) How can the minister justify the statement that the $6.8 million is new money when funding for projects such as the Beacon north pipeline was announced by the previous Government, and the Goodlands tank pipeline and the George Road Westonia pipeline were announced soon after? (2) Will the minister confirm that the $1.5 million announced as part of the farm water grants scheme is in fact reinstated money? (3) Will money be available from the farm water grants scheme to ensure that stock moved from western agricultural areas will have sufficient stock water? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
(1) First, I can be very explicit in my assurance that the $6.8 million, perhaps absent the $300 000 that comes from the rural business trust fund, which could be argued to be money that was already in a fund for that purpose, is new money. The reason I can say that with absolute certainty is that earlier this week I signed the appropriation slip; therefore, I know that it comes direct from a new appropriation from consolidated funding. Hon Murray Criddle: The Beacon north pipeline is - Hon KIM CHANCE: No, I will get to that. I was so clear about that because the question had been raised previously by a farmer who said, if I have the words correctly, “I hope this is not repackaged money.” Therefore, I wanted to be very clear that at least $6.5 million of the $6.8 million is new money, for which a separate appropriation was made for the specific purpose of carrying out the scheme. Let us clear that up first. One could even argue that the $300 000 is new money but, to save argument, let us acknowledge that it has come from the trust fund. The public works brought forward are not part of the $6.8 million; and that is the answer to the member’s question. Hon Murray Criddle interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE: No. If the member has read that into what I have said, he has read it incorrectly. The $6.8 million is made up of a series of allocations for a series of specific purposes, all of which are costed. If each of those is added up, it comes to $6.8 million. We then go to the issue of bringing forward capital works, which are separate from, and over and above, the $6.8 million. The new funding issue relates to the application of the $6.8 million, which is stated clearly in the material the Government has released. We have brought forward capital works separately. The fact that we have mentioned bringing forward capital works clearly acknowledges that they are works that were already in the pipeline, and quite possibly had been inserted into the capital works budget by the previous Government. In fact, it is highly likely that that is the case. We have simply brought those forward. (2) The member asked whether the $1.5 million for the farm water grants scheme is reinstated money. The answer is no. The $1.5 million is a part of the appropriation of $6.8 million that I referred to signing off recently. Because it was an issue of the $6.8 million and a matter that required a separate appropriation, that is in itself proof that this is new money. As the honourable member would know, the farm water grants scheme is not administered by my portfolio. However, the farm water grants scheme was subject to a considerable backlog. Some 150 applications could not be funded with the available funding. As I understand it, the minister responsible for water resources has made statements to the effect that to try to fund as many of those applications as she could, she brought forward the second tranche of that money, but still had a backlog of 150 applications. For that reason, Cabinet thought it appropriate to take $1.5 million out of the $6.8 million new appropriation and apply it to that scheme. It is an existing scheme, but the $1.5 million is all new money. I say that without any equivocation at all. (3) Yes, the application of the farm water grants scheme will be able to accommodate the needs of stock that were moved from the western part of the State into the drought area, because the farm water grants scheme criteria are the same as they have always been. There has been no change to those criteria. The scheme itself has not been changed; we have simply provided additional funds. To the extent that that would have been possible under the scheme in the past - it is a scheme with which people are fairly familiar - it is still possible today. There has been no change as a result of the drought package. I hope that this does not happen to any great degree, because the Government’s hope is that not too many stock will be returned to drought areas before the end of the drought. We hope that farmers will be able to negotiate longer-term agistment arrangements in the western part of the State. Hon Murray Criddle: It is terribly expensive. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, I understand that, but it is important to avoid the restocking of the drought-affected area before the country is able to take livestock, because stock returning to stubbles or unstripped crops, where the yield might have been 0.2 of a hectare, particularly for lupin crops, would leave that country open to severe wind erosion, and we hope the farmers would not make that decision.
(1) How can the minister justify the statement that the $6.8 million is new money when funding for projects such as the Beacon north pipeline was announced by the previous Government, and the Goodlands tank pipeline and the George Road Westonia pipeline were announced soon after? (2) Will the minister confirm that the $1.5 million announced as part of the farm water grants scheme is in fact reinstated money? (3) Will money be available from the farm water grants scheme to ensure that stock moved from western agricultural areas will have sufficient stock water? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : (1) First, I can be very explicit in my assurance that the $6.8 million, perhaps absent the $300 000 that comes from the rural business trust fund, which could be argued to be money that was already in a fund for that purpose, is new money. The reason I can say that with absolute certainty is that earlier this week I signed the appropriation slip; therefore, I know that it comes direct from a new appropriation from consolidated funding. Hon Murray Criddle: The Beacon north pipeline is - Hon KIM CHANCE: No, I will get to that. I was so clear about that because the question had been raised previously by a farmer who said, if I have the words correctly, “I hope this is not repackaged money.” Therefore, I wanted to be very clear that at least $6.5 million of the $6.8 million is new money, for which a separate appropriation was made for the specific purpose of carrying out the scheme. Let us clear that up first. One could even argue that the $300 000 is new money but, to save argument, let us acknowledge that it has come from the trust fund. The public works brought forward are not part of the $6.8 million; and that is the answer to the member’s question. Hon Murray Criddle interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE: No. If the member has read that into what I have said, he has read it incorrectly. The $6.8 million is made up of a series of allocations for a series of specific purposes, all of which are costed. If each of those is added up, it comes to $6.8 million. We then go to the issue of bringing forward capital works, which are separate from, and over and above, the $6.8 million. The new funding issue relates to the application of the $6.8 million, which is stated clearly in the material the Government has released. We have brought forward capital works separately. The fact that we have mentioned bringing forward capital works clearly acknowledges that they are works that were already in the pipeline, and quite possibly had been inserted into the capital works budget by the previous Government. In fact, it is highly likely that that is the case. We have simply brought those forward. (2) The member asked whether the $1.5 million for the farm water grants scheme is reinstated money. The answer is no. The $1.5 million is a part of the appropriation of $6.8 million that I referred to signing off recently. Because it was an issue of the $6.8 million and a matter that required a separate appropriation, that is in itself proof that this is new money. As the honourable member would know, the farm water grants scheme is not administered by my portfolio. However, the farm water grants scheme was subject to a considerable backlog. Some 150 applications could not be funded with the available funding. As I understand it, the minister responsible for water resources has made statements to the effect that to try to fund as many of those applications as she could, she brought forward the second tranche of that money, but still had a backlog of 150 applications. For that reason, Cabinet thought it appropriate to take $1.5 million out of the $6.8 million new appropriation and apply it to that scheme. It is an existing scheme, but the $1.5 million is all new money. I say that without any equivocation at all. (3) Yes, the application of the farm water grants scheme will be able to accommodate the needs of stock that were moved from the western part of the State into the drought area, because the farm water grants scheme criteria are the same as they have always been. There has been no change to those criteria. The scheme itself has not been changed; we have simply provided additional funds. To the extent that that would have been possible under the scheme in the past - it is a scheme with which people are fairly familiar - it is still possible today. There has been no change as a result of the drought package. I hope that this does not happen to any great degree, because the Government’s hope is that not too many stock will be returned to drought areas before the end of the drought. We hope that farmers will be able to negotiate longer-term agistment arrangements in the western part of the State. Hon Murray Criddle: It is terribly expensive. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, I understand that, but it is important to avoid the restocking of the drought-affected area before the country is able to take livestock, because stock returning to stubbles or unstripped crops, where the yield might have been 0.2 of a hectare, particularly for lupin crops, would leave that country open to severe wind erosion, and we hope the farmers would not make that decision.
(2) Will the minister confirm that the $1.5 million announced as part of the farm water grants scheme is in fact reinstated money? (3) Will money be available from the farm water grants scheme to ensure that stock moved from western agricultural areas will have sufficient stock water? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : (1) First, I can be very explicit in my assurance that the $6.8 million, perhaps absent the $300 000 that comes from the rural business trust fund, which could be argued to be money that was already in a fund for that purpose, is new money. The reason I can say that with absolute certainty is that earlier this week I signed the appropriation slip; therefore, I know that it comes direct from a new appropriation from consolidated funding. Hon Murray Criddle: The Beacon north pipeline is - Hon KIM CHANCE: No, I will get to that. I was so clear about that because the question had been raised previously by a farmer who said, if I have the words correctly, “I hope this is not repackaged money.” Therefore, I wanted to be very clear that at least $6.5 million of the $6.8 million is new money, for which a separate appropriation was made for the specific purpose of carrying out the scheme. Let us clear that up first. One could even argue that the $300 000 is new money but, to save argument, let us acknowledge that it has come from the trust fund. The public works brought forward are not part of the $6.8 million; and that is the answer to the member’s question. Hon Murray Criddle interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE: No. If the member has read that into what I have said, he has read it incorrectly. The $6.8 million is made up of a series of allocations for a series of specific purposes, all of which are costed. If each of those is added up, it comes to $6.8 million. We then go to the issue of bringing forward capital works, which are separate from, and over and above, the $6.8 million. The new funding issue relates to the application of the $6.8 million, which is stated clearly in the material the Government has released. We have brought forward capital works separately. The fact that we have mentioned bringing forward capital works clearly acknowledges that they are works that were already in the pipeline, and quite possibly had been inserted into the capital works budget by the previous Government. In fact, it is highly likely that that is the case. We have simply brought those forward. (2) The member asked whether the $1.5 million for the farm water grants scheme is reinstated money. The answer is no. The $1.5 million is a part of the appropriation of $6.8 million that I referred to signing off recently. Because it was an issue of the $6.8 million and a matter that required a separate appropriation, that is in itself proof that this is new money. As the honourable member would know, the farm water grants scheme is not administered by my portfolio. However, the farm water grants scheme was subject to a considerable backlog. Some 150 applications could not be funded with the available funding. As I understand it, the minister responsible for water resources has made statements to the effect that to try to fund as many of those applications as she could, she brought forward the second tranche of that money, but still had a backlog of 150 applications. For that reason, Cabinet thought it appropriate to take $1.5 million out of the $6.8 million new appropriation and apply it to that scheme. It is an existing scheme, but the $1.5 million is all new money. I say that without any equivocation at all. (3) Yes, the application of the farm water grants scheme will be able to accommodate the needs of stock that were moved from the western part of the State into the drought area, because the farm water grants scheme criteria are the same as they have always been. There has been no change to those criteria. The scheme itself has not been changed; we have simply provided additional funds. To the extent that that would have been possible under the scheme in the past - it is a scheme with which people are fairly familiar - it is still possible today. There has been no change as a result of the drought package. I hope that this does not happen to any great degree, because the Government’s hope is that not too many stock will be returned to drought areas before the end of the drought. We hope that farmers will be able to negotiate longer-term agistment arrangements in the western part of the State. Hon Murray Criddle: It is terribly expensive. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, I understand that, but it is important to avoid the restocking of the drought-affected area before the country is able to take livestock, because stock returning to stubbles or unstripped crops, where the yield might have been 0.2 of a hectare, particularly for lupin crops, would leave that country open to severe wind erosion, and we hope the farmers would not make that decision.
(3) Will money be available from the farm water grants scheme to ensure that stock moved from western agricultural areas will have sufficient stock water? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : (1) First, I can be very explicit in my assurance that the $6.8 million, perhaps absent the $300 000 that comes from the rural business trust fund, which could be argued to be money that was already in a fund for that purpose, is new money. The reason I can say that with absolute certainty is that earlier this week I signed the appropriation slip; therefore, I know that it comes direct from a new appropriation from consolidated funding. Hon Murray Criddle: The Beacon north pipeline is - Hon KIM CHANCE: No, I will get to that. I was so clear about that because the question had been raised previously by a farmer who said, if I have the words correctly, “I hope this is not repackaged money.” Therefore, I wanted to be very clear that at least $6.5 million of the $6.8 million is new money, for which a separate appropriation was made for the specific purpose of carrying out the scheme. Let us clear that up first. One could even argue that the $300 000 is new money but, to save argument, let us acknowledge that it has come from the trust fund. The public works brought forward are not part of the $6.8 million; and that is the answer to the member’s question. Hon Murray Criddle interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE: No. If the member has read that into what I have said, he has read it incorrectly. The $6.8 million is made up of a series of allocations for a series of specific purposes, all of which are costed. If each of those is added up, it comes to $6.8 million. We then go to the issue of bringing forward capital works, which are separate from, and over and above, the $6.8 million. The new funding issue relates to the application of the $6.8 million, which is stated clearly in the material the Government has released. We have brought forward capital works separately. The fact that we have mentioned bringing forward capital works clearly acknowledges that they are works that were already in the pipeline, and quite possibly had been inserted into the capital works budget by the previous Government. In fact, it is highly likely that that is the case. We have simply brought those forward. (2) The member asked whether the $1.5 million for the farm water grants scheme is reinstated money. The answer is no. The $1.5 million is a part of the appropriation of $6.8 million that I referred to signing off recently. Because it was an issue of the $6.8 million and a matter that required a separate appropriation, that is in itself proof that this is new money. As the honourable member would know, the farm water grants scheme is not administered by my portfolio. However, the farm water grants scheme was subject to a considerable backlog. Some 150 applications could not be funded with the available funding. As I understand it, the minister responsible for water resources has made statements to the effect that to try to fund as many of those applications as she could, she brought forward the second tranche of that money, but still had a backlog of 150 applications. For that reason, Cabinet thought it appropriate to take $1.5 million out of the $6.8 million new appropriation and apply it to that scheme. It is an existing scheme, but the $1.5 million is all new money. I say that without any equivocation at all. (3) Yes, the application of the farm water grants scheme will be able to accommodate the needs of stock that were moved from the western part of the State into the drought area, because the farm water grants scheme criteria are the same as they have always been. There has been no change to those criteria. The scheme itself has not been changed; we have simply provided additional funds. To the extent that that would have been possible under the scheme in the past - it is a scheme with which people are fairly familiar - it is still possible today. There has been no change as a result of the drought package. I hope that this does not happen to any great degree, because the Government’s hope is that not too many stock will be returned to drought areas before the end of the drought. We hope that farmers will be able to negotiate longer-term agistment arrangements in the western part of the State. Hon Murray Criddle: It is terribly expensive. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, I understand that, but it is important to avoid the restocking of the drought-affected area before the country is able to take livestock, because stock returning to stubbles or unstripped crops, where the yield might have been 0.2 of a hectare, particularly for lupin crops, would leave that country open to severe wind erosion, and we hope the farmers would not make that decision.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied : (1) First, I can be very explicit in my assurance that the $6.8 million, perhaps absent the $300 000 that comes from the rural business trust fund, which could be argued to be money that was already in a fund for that purpose, is new money. The reason I can say that with absolute certainty is that earlier this week I signed the appropriation slip; therefore, I know that it comes direct from a new appropriation from consolidated funding. Hon Murray Criddle: The Beacon north pipeline is - Hon KIM CHANCE: No, I will get to that. I was so clear about that because the question had been raised previously by a farmer who said, if I have the words correctly, “I hope this is not repackaged money.” Therefore, I wanted to be very clear that at least $6.5 million of the $6.8 million is new money, for which a separate appropriation was made for the specific purpose of carrying out the scheme. Let us clear that up first. One could even argue that the $300 000 is new money but, to save argument, let us acknowledge that it has come from the trust fund. The public works brought forward are not part of the $6.8 million; and that is the answer to the member’s question. Hon Murray Criddle interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE: No. If the member has read that into what I have said, he has read it incorrectly. The $6.8 million is made up of a series of allocations for a series of specific purposes, all of which are costed. If each of those is added up, it comes to $6.8 million. We then go to the issue of bringing forward capital works, which are separate from, and over and above, the $6.8 million. The new funding issue relates to the application of the $6.8 million, which is stated clearly in the material the Government has released. We have brought forward capital works separately. The fact that we have mentioned bringing forward capital works clearly acknowledges that they are works that were already in the pipeline, and quite possibly had been inserted into the capital works budget by the previous Government. In fact, it is highly likely that that is the case. We have simply brought those forward. (2) The member asked whether the $1.5 million for the farm water grants scheme is reinstated money. The answer is no. The $1.5 million is a part of the appropriation of $6.8 million that I referred to signing off recently. Because it was an issue of the $6.8 million and a matter that required a separate appropriation, that is in itself proof that this is new money. As the honourable member would know, the farm water grants scheme is not administered by my portfolio. However, the farm water grants scheme was subject to a considerable backlog. Some 150 applications could not be funded with the available funding. As I understand it, the minister responsible for water resources has made statements to the effect that to try to fund as many of those applications as she could, she brought forward the second tranche of that money, but still had a backlog of 150 applications. For that reason, Cabinet thought it appropriate to take $1.5 million out of the $6.8 million new appropriation and apply it to that scheme. It is an existing scheme, but the $1.5 million is all new money. I say that without any equivocation at all. (3) Yes, the application of the farm water grants scheme will be able to accommodate the needs of stock that were moved from the western part of the State into the drought area, because the farm water grants scheme criteria are the same as they have always been. There has been no change to those criteria. The scheme itself has not been changed; we have simply provided additional funds. To the extent that that would have been possible under the scheme in the past - it is a scheme with which people are fairly familiar - it is still possible today. There has been no change as a result of the drought package. I hope that this does not happen to any great degree, because the Government’s hope is that not too many stock will be returned to drought areas before the end of the drought. We hope that farmers will be able to negotiate longer-term agistment arrangements in the western part of the State. Hon Murray Criddle: It is terribly expensive. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, I understand that, but it is important to avoid the restocking of the drought-affected area before the country is able to take livestock, because stock returning to stubbles or unstripped crops, where the yield might have been 0.2 of a hectare, particularly for lupin crops, would leave that country open to severe wind erosion, and we hope the farmers would not make that decision.
(1) First, I can be very explicit in my assurance that the $6.8 million, perhaps absent the $300 000 that comes from the rural business trust fund, which could be argued to be money that was already in a fund for that purpose, is new money. The reason I can say that with absolute certainty is that earlier this week I signed the appropriation slip; therefore, I know that it comes direct from a new appropriation from consolidated funding. Hon Murray Criddle: The Beacon north pipeline is - Hon KIM CHANCE: No, I will get to that. I was so clear about that because the question had been raised previously by a farmer who said, if I have the words correctly, “I hope this is not repackaged money.” Therefore, I wanted to be very clear that at least $6.5 million of the $6.8 million is new money, for which a separate appropriation was made for the specific purpose of carrying out the scheme. Let us clear that up first. One could even argue that the $300 000 is new money but, to save argument, let us acknowledge that it has come from the trust fund. The public works brought forward are not part of the $6.8 million; and that is the answer to the member’s question. Hon Murray Criddle interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE: No. If the member has read that into what I have said, he has read it incorrectly. The $6.8 million is made up of a series of allocations for a series of specific purposes, all of which are costed. If each of those is added up, it comes to $6.8 million. We then go to the issue of bringing forward capital works, which are separate from, and over and above, the $6.8 million. The new funding issue relates to the application of the $6.8 million, which is stated clearly in the material the Government has released. We have brought forward capital works separately. The fact that we have mentioned bringing forward capital works clearly acknowledges that they are works that were already in the pipeline, and quite possibly had been inserted into the capital works budget by the previous Government. In fact, it is highly likely that that is the case. We have simply brought those forward. (2) The member asked whether the $1.5 million for the farm water grants scheme is reinstated money. The answer is no. The $1.5 million is a part of the appropriation of $6.8 million that I referred to signing off recently. Because it was an issue of the $6.8 million and a matter that required a separate appropriation, that is in itself proof that this is new money. As the honourable member would know, the farm water grants scheme is not administered by my portfolio. However, the farm water grants scheme was subject to a considerable backlog. Some 150 applications could not be funded with the available funding. As I understand it, the minister responsible for water resources has made statements to the effect that to try to fund as many of those applications as she could, she brought forward the second tranche of that money, but still had a backlog of 150 applications. For that reason, Cabinet thought it appropriate to take $1.5 million out of the $6.8 million new appropriation and apply it to that scheme. It is an existing scheme, but the $1.5 million is all new money. I say that without any equivocation at all. (3) Yes, the application of the farm water grants scheme will be able to accommodate the needs of stock that were moved from the western part of the State into the drought area, because the farm water grants scheme criteria are the same as they have always been. There has been no change to those criteria. The scheme itself has not been changed; we have simply provided additional funds. To the extent that that would have been possible under the scheme in the past - it is a scheme with which people are fairly familiar - it is still possible today. There has been no change as a result of the drought package. I hope that this does not happen to any great degree, because the Government’s hope is that not too many stock will be returned to drought areas before the end of the drought. We hope that farmers will be able to negotiate longer-term agistment arrangements in the western part of the State. Hon Murray Criddle: It is terribly expensive. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, I understand that, but it is important to avoid the restocking of the drought-affected area before the country is able to take livestock, because stock returning to stubbles or unstripped crops, where the yield might have been 0.2 of a hectare, particularly for lupin crops, would leave that country open to severe wind erosion, and we hope the farmers would not make that decision.
Hon Murray Criddle: The Beacon north pipeline is - Hon KIM CHANCE: No, I will get to that. I was so clear about that because the question had been raised previously by a farmer who said, if I have the words correctly, “I hope this is not repackaged money.” Therefore, I wanted to be very clear that at least $6.5 million of the $6.8 million is new money, for which a separate appropriation was made for the specific purpose of carrying out the scheme. Let us clear that up first. One could even argue that the $300 000 is new money but, to save argument, let us acknowledge that it has come from the trust fund. The public works brought forward are not part of the $6.8 million; and that is the answer to the member’s question. Hon Murray Criddle interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE: No. If the member has read that into what I have said, he has read it incorrectly. The $6.8 million is made up of a series of allocations for a series of specific purposes, all of which are costed. If each of those is added up, it comes to $6.8 million. We then go to the issue of bringing forward capital works, which are separate from, and over and above, the $6.8 million. The new funding issue relates to the application of the $6.8 million, which is stated clearly in the material the Government has released. We have brought forward capital works separately. The fact that we have mentioned bringing forward capital works clearly acknowledges that they are works that were already in the pipeline, and quite possibly had been inserted into the capital works budget by the previous Government. In fact, it is highly likely that that is the case. We have simply brought those forward. (2) The member asked whether the $1.5 million for the farm water grants scheme is reinstated money. The answer is no. The $1.5 million is a part of the appropriation of $6.8 million that I referred to signing off recently. Because it was an issue of the $6.8 million and a matter that required a separate appropriation, that is in itself proof that this is new money. As the honourable member would know, the farm water grants scheme is not administered by my portfolio. However, the farm water grants scheme was subject to a considerable backlog. Some 150 applications could not be funded with the available funding. As I understand it, the minister responsible for water resources has made statements to the effect that to try to fund as many of those applications as she could, she brought forward the second tranche of that money, but still had a backlog of 150 applications. For that reason, Cabinet thought it appropriate to take $1.5 million out of the $6.8 million new appropriation and apply it to that scheme. It is an existing scheme, but the $1.5 million is all new money. I say that without any equivocation at all. (3) Yes, the application of the farm water grants scheme will be able to accommodate the needs of stock that were moved from the western part of the State into the drought area, because the farm water grants scheme criteria are the same as they have always been. There has been no change to those criteria. The scheme itself has not been changed; we have simply provided additional funds. To the extent that that would have been possible under the scheme in the past - it is a scheme with which people are fairly familiar - it is still possible today. There has been no change as a result of the drought package. I hope that this does not happen to any great degree, because the Government’s hope is that not too many stock will be returned to drought areas before the end of the drought. We hope that farmers will be able to negotiate longer-term agistment arrangements in the western part of the State. Hon Murray Criddle: It is terribly expensive. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, I understand that, but it is important to avoid the restocking of the drought-affected area before the country is able to take livestock, because stock returning to stubbles or unstripped crops, where the yield might have been 0.2 of a hectare, particularly for lupin crops, would leave that country open to severe wind erosion, and we hope the farmers would not make that decision.
Hon KIM CHANCE: No, I will get to that. I was so clear about that because the question had been raised previously by a farmer who said, if I have the words correctly, “I hope this is not repackaged money.” Therefore, I wanted to be very clear that at least $6.5 million of the $6.8 million is new money, for which a separate appropriation was made for the specific purpose of carrying out the scheme. Let us clear that up first. One could even argue that the $300 000 is new money but, to save argument, let us acknowledge that it has come from the trust fund. The public works brought forward are not part of the $6.8 million; and that is the answer to the member’s question. Hon Murray Criddle interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE: No. If the member has read that into what I have said, he has read it incorrectly. The $6.8 million is made up of a series of allocations for a series of specific purposes, all of which are costed. If each of those is added up, it comes to $6.8 million. We then go to the issue of bringing forward capital works, which are separate from, and over and above, the $6.8 million. The new funding issue relates to the application of the $6.8 million, which is stated clearly in the material the Government has released. We have brought forward capital works separately. The fact that we have mentioned bringing forward capital works clearly acknowledges that they are works that were already in the pipeline, and quite possibly had been inserted into the capital works budget by the previous Government. In fact, it is highly likely that that is the case. We have simply brought those forward. (2) The member asked whether the $1.5 million for the farm water grants scheme is reinstated money. The answer is no. The $1.5 million is a part of the appropriation of $6.8 million that I referred to signing off recently. Because it was an issue of the $6.8 million and a matter that required a separate appropriation, that is in itself proof that this is new money. As the honourable member would know, the farm water grants scheme is not administered by my portfolio. However, the farm water grants scheme was subject to a considerable backlog. Some 150 applications could not be funded with the available funding. As I understand it, the minister responsible for water resources has made statements to the effect that to try to fund as many of those applications as she could, she brought forward the second tranche of that money, but still had a backlog of 150 applications. For that reason, Cabinet thought it appropriate to take $1.5 million out of the $6.8 million new appropriation and apply it to that scheme. It is an existing scheme, but the $1.5 million is all new money. I say that without any equivocation at all. (3) Yes, the application of the farm water grants scheme will be able to accommodate the needs of stock that were moved from the western part of the State into the drought area, because the farm water grants scheme criteria are the same as they have always been. There has been no change to those criteria. The scheme itself has not been changed; we have simply provided additional funds. To the extent that that would have been possible under the scheme in the past - it is a scheme with which people are fairly familiar - it is still possible today. There has been no change as a result of the drought package. I hope that this does not happen to any great degree, because the Government’s hope is that not too many stock will be returned to drought areas before the end of the drought. We hope that farmers will be able to negotiate longer-term agistment arrangements in the western part of the State. Hon Murray Criddle: It is terribly expensive. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, I understand that, but it is important to avoid the restocking of the drought-affected area before the country is able to take livestock, because stock returning to stubbles or unstripped crops, where the yield might have been 0.2 of a hectare, particularly for lupin crops, would leave that country open to severe wind erosion, and we hope the farmers would not make that decision.
The public works brought forward are not part of the $6.8 million; and that is the answer to the member’s question. Hon Murray Criddle interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE: No. If the member has read that into what I have said, he has read it incorrectly. The $6.8 million is made up of a series of allocations for a series of specific purposes, all of which are costed. If each of those is added up, it comes to $6.8 million. We then go to the issue of bringing forward capital works, which are separate from, and over and above, the $6.8 million. The new funding issue relates to the application of the $6.8 million, which is stated clearly in the material the Government has released. We have brought forward capital works separately. The fact that we have mentioned bringing forward capital works clearly acknowledges that they are works that were already in the pipeline, and quite possibly had been inserted into the capital works budget by the previous Government. In fact, it is highly likely that that is the case. We have simply brought those forward. (2) The member asked whether the $1.5 million for the farm water grants scheme is reinstated money. The answer is no. The $1.5 million is a part of the appropriation of $6.8 million that I referred to signing off recently. Because it was an issue of the $6.8 million and a matter that required a separate appropriation, that is in itself proof that this is new money. As the honourable member would know, the farm water grants scheme is not administered by my portfolio. However, the farm water grants scheme was subject to a considerable backlog. Some 150 applications could not be funded with the available funding. As I understand it, the minister responsible for water resources has made statements to the effect that to try to fund as many of those applications as she could, she brought forward the second tranche of that money, but still had a backlog of 150 applications. For that reason, Cabinet thought it appropriate to take $1.5 million out of the $6.8 million new appropriation and apply it to that scheme. It is an existing scheme, but the $1.5 million is all new money. I say that without any equivocation at all. (3) Yes, the application of the farm water grants scheme will be able to accommodate the needs of stock that were moved from the western part of the State into the drought area, because the farm water grants scheme criteria are the same as they have always been. There has been no change to those criteria. The scheme itself has not been changed; we have simply provided additional funds. To the extent that that would have been possible under the scheme in the past - it is a scheme with which people are fairly familiar - it is still possible today. There has been no change as a result of the drought package. I hope that this does not happen to any great degree, because the Government’s hope is that not too many stock will be returned to drought areas before the end of the drought. We hope that farmers will be able to negotiate longer-term agistment arrangements in the western part of the State. Hon Murray Criddle: It is terribly expensive. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, I understand that, but it is important to avoid the restocking of the drought-affected area before the country is able to take livestock, because stock returning to stubbles or unstripped crops, where the yield might have been 0.2 of a hectare, particularly for lupin crops, would leave that country open to severe wind erosion, and we hope the farmers would not make that decision.
Hon Murray Criddle interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE: No. If the member has read that into what I have said, he has read it incorrectly. The $6.8 million is made up of a series of allocations for a series of specific purposes, all of which are costed. If each of those is added up, it comes to $6.8 million. We then go to the issue of bringing forward capital works, which are separate from, and over and above, the $6.8 million. The new funding issue relates to the application of the $6.8 million, which is stated clearly in the material the Government has released. We have brought forward capital works separately. The fact that we have mentioned bringing forward capital works clearly acknowledges that they are works that were already in the pipeline, and quite possibly had been inserted into the capital works budget by the previous Government. In fact, it is highly likely that that is the case. We have simply brought those forward. (2) The member asked whether the $1.5 million for the farm water grants scheme is reinstated money. The answer is no. The $1.5 million is a part of the appropriation of $6.8 million that I referred to signing off recently. Because it was an issue of the $6.8 million and a matter that required a separate appropriation, that is in itself proof that this is new money. As the honourable member would know, the farm water grants scheme is not administered by my portfolio. However, the farm water grants scheme was subject to a considerable backlog. Some 150 applications could not be funded with the available funding. As I understand it, the minister responsible for water resources has made statements to the effect that to try to fund as many of those applications as she could, she brought forward the second tranche of that money, but still had a backlog of 150 applications. For that reason, Cabinet thought it appropriate to take $1.5 million out of the $6.8 million new appropriation and apply it to that scheme. It is an existing scheme, but the $1.5 million is all new money. I say that without any equivocation at all. (3) Yes, the application of the farm water grants scheme will be able to accommodate the needs of stock that were moved from the western part of the State into the drought area, because the farm water grants scheme criteria are the same as they have always been. There has been no change to those criteria. The scheme itself has not been changed; we have simply provided additional funds. To the extent that that would have been possible under the scheme in the past - it is a scheme with which people are fairly familiar - it is still possible today. There has been no change as a result of the drought package. I hope that this does not happen to any great degree, because the Government’s hope is that not too many stock will be returned to drought areas before the end of the drought. We hope that farmers will be able to negotiate longer-term agistment arrangements in the western part of the State. Hon Murray Criddle: It is terribly expensive. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, I understand that, but it is important to avoid the restocking of the drought-affected area before the country is able to take livestock, because stock returning to stubbles or unstripped crops, where the yield might have been 0.2 of a hectare, particularly for lupin crops, would leave that country open to severe wind erosion, and we hope the farmers would not make that decision.
Hon KIM CHANCE: No. If the member has read that into what I have said, he has read it incorrectly. The $6.8 million is made up of a series of allocations for a series of specific purposes, all of which are costed. If each of those is added up, it comes to $6.8 million. We then go to the issue of bringing forward capital works, which are separate from, and over and above, the $6.8 million. The new funding issue relates to the application of the $6.8 million, which is stated clearly in the material the Government has released. We have brought forward capital works separately. The fact that we have mentioned bringing forward capital works clearly acknowledges that they are works that were already in the pipeline, and quite possibly had been inserted into the capital works budget by the previous Government. In fact, it is highly likely that that is the case. We have simply brought those forward. (2) The member asked whether the $1.5 million for the farm water grants scheme is reinstated money. The answer is no. The $1.5 million is a part of the appropriation of $6.8 million that I referred to signing off recently. Because it was an issue of the $6.8 million and a matter that required a separate appropriation, that is in itself proof that this is new money. As the honourable member would know, the farm water grants scheme is not administered by my portfolio. However, the farm water grants scheme was subject to a considerable backlog. Some 150 applications could not be funded with the available funding. As I understand it, the minister responsible for water resources has made statements to the effect that to try to fund as many of those applications as she could, she brought forward the second tranche of that money, but still had a backlog of 150 applications. For that reason, Cabinet thought it appropriate to take $1.5 million out of the $6.8 million new appropriation and apply it to that scheme. It is an existing scheme, but the $1.5 million is all new money. I say that without any equivocation at all. (3) Yes, the application of the farm water grants scheme will be able to accommodate the needs of stock that were moved from the western part of the State into the drought area, because the farm water grants scheme criteria are the same as they have always been. There has been no change to those criteria. The scheme itself has not been changed; we have simply provided additional funds. To the extent that that would have been possible under the scheme in the past - it is a scheme with which people are fairly familiar - it is still possible today. There has been no change as a result of the drought package. I hope that this does not happen to any great degree, because the Government’s hope is that not too many stock will be returned to drought areas before the end of the drought. We hope that farmers will be able to negotiate longer-term agistment arrangements in the western part of the State. Hon Murray Criddle: It is terribly expensive. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, I understand that, but it is important to avoid the restocking of the drought-affected area before the country is able to take livestock, because stock returning to stubbles or unstripped crops, where the yield might have been 0.2 of a hectare, particularly for lupin crops, would leave that country open to severe wind erosion, and we hope the farmers would not make that decision.
(2) The member asked whether the $1.5 million for the farm water grants scheme is reinstated money. The answer is no. The $1.5 million is a part of the appropriation of $6.8 million that I referred to signing off recently. Because it was an issue of the $6.8 million and a matter that required a separate appropriation, that is in itself proof that this is new money. As the honourable member would know, the farm water grants scheme is not administered by my portfolio. However, the farm water grants scheme was subject to a considerable backlog. Some 150 applications could not be funded with the available funding. As I understand it, the minister responsible for water resources has made statements to the effect that to try to fund as many of those applications as she could, she brought forward the second tranche of that money, but still had a backlog of 150 applications. For that reason, Cabinet thought it appropriate to take $1.5 million out of the $6.8 million new appropriation and apply it to that scheme. It is an existing scheme, but the $1.5 million is all new money. I say that without any equivocation at all. (3) Yes, the application of the farm water grants scheme will be able to accommodate the needs of stock that were moved from the western part of the State into the drought area, because the farm water grants scheme criteria are the same as they have always been. There has been no change to those criteria. The scheme itself has not been changed; we have simply provided additional funds. To the extent that that would have been possible under the scheme in the past - it is a scheme with which people are fairly familiar - it is still possible today. There has been no change as a result of the drought package. I hope that this does not happen to any great degree, because the Government’s hope is that not too many stock will be returned to drought areas before the end of the drought. We hope that farmers will be able to negotiate longer-term agistment arrangements in the western part of the State. Hon Murray Criddle: It is terribly expensive. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, I understand that, but it is important to avoid the restocking of the drought-affected area before the country is able to take livestock, because stock returning to stubbles or unstripped crops, where the yield might have been 0.2 of a hectare, particularly for lupin crops, would leave that country open to severe wind erosion, and we hope the farmers would not make that decision.
(3) Yes, the application of the farm water grants scheme will be able to accommodate the needs of stock that were moved from the western part of the State into the drought area, because the farm water grants scheme criteria are the same as they have always been. There has been no change to those criteria. The scheme itself has not been changed; we have simply provided additional funds. To the extent that that would have been possible under the scheme in the past - it is a scheme with which people are fairly familiar - it is still possible today. There has been no change as a result of the drought package. I hope that this does not happen to any great degree, because the Government’s hope is that not too many stock will be returned to drought areas before the end of the drought. We hope that farmers will be able to negotiate longer-term agistment arrangements in the western part of the State. Hon Murray Criddle: It is terribly expensive. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, I understand that, but it is important to avoid the restocking of the drought-affected area before the country is able to take livestock, because stock returning to stubbles or unstripped crops, where the yield might have been 0.2 of a hectare, particularly for lupin crops, would leave that country open to severe wind erosion, and we hope the farmers would not make that decision.
Hon Murray Criddle: It is terribly expensive. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, I understand that, but it is important to avoid the restocking of the drought-affected area before the country is able to take livestock, because stock returning to stubbles or unstripped crops, where the yield might have been 0.2 of a hectare, particularly for lupin crops, would leave that country open to severe wind erosion, and we hope the farmers would not make that decision.
Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, I understand that, but it is important to avoid the restocking of the drought-affected area before the country is able to take livestock, because stock returning to stubbles or unstripped crops, where the yield might have been 0.2 of a hectare, particularly for lupin crops, would leave that country open to severe wind erosion, and we hope the farmers would not make that decision.
(1) How can the minister justify the statement that the $6.8 million is new money when funding for projects such as the Beacon north pipeline was announced by the previous Government, and the Goodlands tank pipeline and the George Road Westonia pipeline were announced soon after? (2) Will the minister confirm that the $1.5 million announced as part of the farm water grants scheme is in fact reinstated money? (3) Will money be available from the farm water grants scheme to ensure that stock moved from western agricultural areas will have sufficient stock water? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : (1) First, I can be very explicit in my assurance that the $6.8 million, perhaps absent the $300 000 that comes from the rural business trust fund, which could be argued to be money that was already in a fund for that purpose, is new money. The reason I can say that with absolute certainty is that earlier this week I signed the appropriation slip; therefore, I know that it comes direct from a new appropriation from consolidated funding. Hon Murray Criddle: The Beacon north pipeline is - Hon KIM CHANCE: No, I will get to that. I was so clear about that because the question had been raised previously by a farmer who said, if I have the words correctly, “I hope this is not repackaged money.” Therefore, I wanted to be very clear that at least $6.5 million of the $6.8 million is new money, for which a separate appropriation was made for the specific purpose of carrying out the scheme. Let us clear that up first. One could even argue that the $300 000 is new money but, to save argument, let us acknowledge that it has come from the trust fund. The public works brought forward are not part of the $6.8 million; and that is the answer to the member’s question. Hon Murray Criddle interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE: No. If the member has read that into what I have said, he has read it incorrectly. The $6.8 million is made up of a series of allocations for a series of specific purposes, all of which are costed. If each of those is added up, it comes to $6.8 million. We then go to the issue of bringing forward capital works, which are separate from, and over and above, the $6.8 million. The new funding issue relates to the application of the $6.8 million, which is stated clearly in the material the Government has released. We have brought forward capital works separately. The fact that we have mentioned bringing forward capital works clearly acknowledges that they are works that were already in the pipeline, and quite possibly had been inserted into the capital works budget by the previous Government. In fact, it is highly likely that that is the case. We have simply brought those forward. (2) The member asked whether the $1.5 million for the farm water grants scheme is reinstated money. The answer is no. The $1.5 million is a part of the appropriation of $6.8 million that I referred to signing off recently. Because it was an issue of the $6.8 million and a matter that required a separate appropriation, that is in itself proof that this is new money. As the honourable member would know, the farm water grants scheme is not administered by my portfolio. However, the farm water grants scheme was subject to a considerable backlog. Some 150 applications could not be funded with the available funding. As I understand it, the minister responsible for water resources has made statements to the effect that to try to fund as many of those applications as she could, she brought forward the second tranche of that money, but still had a backlog of 150 applications. For that reason, Cabinet thought it appropriate to take $1.5 million out of the $6.8 million new appropriation and apply it to that scheme. It is an existing scheme, but the $1.5 million is all new money. I say that without any equivocation at all. (3) Yes, the application of the farm water grants scheme will be able to accommodate the needs of stock that were moved from the western part of the State into the drought area, because the farm water grants scheme criteria are the same as they have always been. There has been no change to those criteria. The scheme itself has not been changed; we have simply provided additional funds. To the extent that that would have been possible under the scheme in the past - it is a scheme with which people are fairly familiar - it is still possible today. There has been no change as a result of the drought package. I hope that this does not happen to any great degree, because the Government’s hope is that not too many stock will be returned to drought areas before the end of the drought. We hope that farmers will be able to negotiate longer-term agistment arrangements in the western part of the State. Hon Murray Criddle: It is terribly expensive. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, I understand that, but it is important to avoid the restocking of the drought-affected area before the country is able to take livestock, because stock returning to stubbles or unstripped crops, where the yield might have been 0.2 of a hectare, particularly for lupin crops, would leave that country open to severe wind erosion, and we hope the farmers would not make that decision.
(2) Will the minister confirm that the $1.5 million announced as part of the farm water grants scheme is in fact reinstated money? (3) Will money be available from the farm water grants scheme to ensure that stock moved from western agricultural areas will have sufficient stock water? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : (1) First, I can be very explicit in my assurance that the $6.8 million, perhaps absent the $300 000 that comes from the rural business trust fund, which could be argued to be money that was already in a fund for that purpose, is new money. The reason I can say that with absolute certainty is that earlier this week I signed the appropriation slip; therefore, I know that it comes direct from a new appropriation from consolidated funding. Hon Murray Criddle: The Beacon north pipeline is - Hon KIM CHANCE: No, I will get to that. I was so clear about that because the question had been raised previously by a farmer who said, if I have the words correctly, “I hope this is not repackaged money.” Therefore, I wanted to be very clear that at least $6.5 million of the $6.8 million is new money, for which a separate appropriation was made for the specific purpose of carrying out the scheme. Let us clear that up first. One could even argue that the $300 000 is new money but, to save argument, let us acknowledge that it has come from the trust fund. The public works brought forward are not part of the $6.8 million; and that is the answer to the member’s question. Hon Murray Criddle interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE: No. If the member has read that into what I have said, he has read it incorrectly. The $6.8 million is made up of a series of allocations for a series of specific purposes, all of which are costed. If each of those is added up, it comes to $6.8 million. We then go to the issue of bringing forward capital works, which are separate from, and over and above, the $6.8 million. The new funding issue relates to the application of the $6.8 million, which is stated clearly in the material the Government has released. We have brought forward capital works separately. The fact that we have mentioned bringing forward capital works clearly acknowledges that they are works that were already in the pipeline, and quite possibly had been inserted into the capital works budget by the previous Government. In fact, it is highly likely that that is the case. We have simply brought those forward. (2) The member asked whether the $1.5 million for the farm water grants scheme is reinstated money. The answer is no. The $1.5 million is a part of the appropriation of $6.8 million that I referred to signing off recently. Because it was an issue of the $6.8 million and a matter that required a separate appropriation, that is in itself proof that this is new money. As the honourable member would know, the farm water grants scheme is not administered by my portfolio. However, the farm water grants scheme was subject to a considerable backlog. Some 150 applications could not be funded with the available funding. As I understand it, the minister responsible for water resources has made statements to the effect that to try to fund as many of those applications as she could, she brought forward the second tranche of that money, but still had a backlog of 150 applications. For that reason, Cabinet thought it appropriate to take $1.5 million out of the $6.8 million new appropriation and apply it to that scheme. It is an existing scheme, but the $1.5 million is all new money. I say that without any equivocation at all. (3) Yes, the application of the farm water grants scheme will be able to accommodate the needs of stock that were moved from the western part of the State into the drought area, because the farm water grants scheme criteria are the same as they have always been. There has been no change to those criteria. The scheme itself has not been changed; we have simply provided additional funds. To the extent that that would have been possible under the scheme in the past - it is a scheme with which people are fairly familiar - it is still possible today. There has been no change as a result of the drought package. I hope that this does not happen to any great degree, because the Government’s hope is that not too many stock will be returned to drought areas before the end of the drought. We hope that farmers will be able to negotiate longer-term agistment arrangements in the western part of the State. Hon Murray Criddle: It is terribly expensive. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, I understand that, but it is important to avoid the restocking of the drought-affected area before the country is able to take livestock, because stock returning to stubbles or unstripped crops, where the yield might have been 0.2 of a hectare, particularly for lupin crops, would leave that country open to severe wind erosion, and we hope the farmers would not make that decision.
(3) Will money be available from the farm water grants scheme to ensure that stock moved from western agricultural areas will have sufficient stock water? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : (1) First, I can be very explicit in my assurance that the $6.8 million, perhaps absent the $300 000 that comes from the rural business trust fund, which could be argued to be money that was already in a fund for that purpose, is new money. The reason I can say that with absolute certainty is that earlier this week I signed the appropriation slip; therefore, I know that it comes direct from a new appropriation from consolidated funding. Hon Murray Criddle: The Beacon north pipeline is - Hon KIM CHANCE: No, I will get to that. I was so clear about that because the question had been raised previously by a farmer who said, if I have the words correctly, “I hope this is not repackaged money.” Therefore, I wanted to be very clear that at least $6.5 million of the $6.8 million is new money, for which a separate appropriation was made for the specific purpose of carrying out the scheme. Let us clear that up first. One could even argue that the $300 000 is new money but, to save argument, let us acknowledge that it has come from the trust fund. The public works brought forward are not part of the $6.8 million; and that is the answer to the member’s question. Hon Murray Criddle interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE: No. If the member has read that into what I have said, he has read it incorrectly. The $6.8 million is made up of a series of allocations for a series of specific purposes, all of which are costed. If each of those is added up, it comes to $6.8 million. We then go to the issue of bringing forward capital works, which are separate from, and over and above, the $6.8 million. The new funding issue relates to the application of the $6.8 million, which is stated clearly in the material the Government has released. We have brought forward capital works separately. The fact that we have mentioned bringing forward capital works clearly acknowledges that they are works that were already in the pipeline, and quite possibly had been inserted into the capital works budget by the previous Government. In fact, it is highly likely that that is the case. We have simply brought those forward. (2) The member asked whether the $1.5 million for the farm water grants scheme is reinstated money. The answer is no. The $1.5 million is a part of the appropriation of $6.8 million that I referred to signing off recently. Because it was an issue of the $6.8 million and a matter that required a separate appropriation, that is in itself proof that this is new money. As the honourable member would know, the farm water grants scheme is not administered by my portfolio. However, the farm water grants scheme was subject to a considerable backlog. Some 150 applications could not be funded with the available funding. As I understand it, the minister responsible for water resources has made statements to the effect that to try to fund as many of those applications as she could, she brought forward the second tranche of that money, but still had a backlog of 150 applications. For that reason, Cabinet thought it appropriate to take $1.5 million out of the $6.8 million new appropriation and apply it to that scheme. It is an existing scheme, but the $1.5 million is all new money. I say that without any equivocation at all. (3) Yes, the application of the farm water grants scheme will be able to accommodate the needs of stock that were moved from the western part of the State into the drought area, because the farm water grants scheme criteria are the same as they have always been. There has been no change to those criteria. The scheme itself has not been changed; we have simply provided additional funds. To the extent that that would have been possible under the scheme in the past - it is a scheme with which people are fairly familiar - it is still possible today. There has been no change as a result of the drought package. I hope that this does not happen to any great degree, because the Government’s hope is that not too many stock will be returned to drought areas before the end of the drought. We hope that farmers will be able to negotiate longer-term agistment arrangements in the western part of the State. Hon Murray Criddle: It is terribly expensive. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, I understand that, but it is important to avoid the restocking of the drought-affected area before the country is able to take livestock, because stock returning to stubbles or unstripped crops, where the yield might have been 0.2 of a hectare, particularly for lupin crops, would leave that country open to severe wind erosion, and we hope the farmers would not make that decision.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied : (1) First, I can be very explicit in my assurance that the $6.8 million, perhaps absent the $300 000 that comes from the rural business trust fund, which could be argued to be money that was already in a fund for that purpose, is new money. The reason I can say that with absolute certainty is that earlier this week I signed the appropriation slip; therefore, I know that it comes direct from a new appropriation from consolidated funding. Hon Murray Criddle: The Beacon north pipeline is - Hon KIM CHANCE: No, I will get to that. I was so clear about that because the question had been raised previously by a farmer who said, if I have the words correctly, “I hope this is not repackaged money.” Therefore, I wanted to be very clear that at least $6.5 million of the $6.8 million is new money, for which a separate appropriation was made for the specific purpose of carrying out the scheme. Let us clear that up first. One could even argue that the $300 000 is new money but, to save argument, let us acknowledge that it has come from the trust fund. The public works brought forward are not part of the $6.8 million; and that is the answer to the member’s question. Hon Murray Criddle interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE: No. If the member has read that into what I have said, he has read it incorrectly. The $6.8 million is made up of a series of allocations for a series of specific purposes, all of which are costed. If each of those is added up, it comes to $6.8 million. We then go to the issue of bringing forward capital works, which are separate from, and over and above, the $6.8 million. The new funding issue relates to the application of the $6.8 million, which is stated clearly in the material the Government has released. We have brought forward capital works separately. The fact that we have mentioned bringing forward capital works clearly acknowledges that they are works that were already in the pipeline, and quite possibly had been inserted into the capital works budget by the previous Government. In fact, it is highly likely that that is the case. We have simply brought those forward. (2) The member asked whether the $1.5 million for the farm water grants scheme is reinstated money. The answer is no. The $1.5 million is a part of the appropriation of $6.8 million that I referred to signing off recently. Because it was an issue of the $6.8 million and a matter that required a separate appropriation, that is in itself proof that this is new money. As the honourable member would know, the farm water grants scheme is not administered by my portfolio. However, the farm water grants scheme was subject to a considerable backlog. Some 150 applications could not be funded with the available funding. As I understand it, the minister responsible for water resources has made statements to the effect that to try to fund as many of those applications as she could, she brought forward the second tranche of that money, but still had a backlog of 150 applications. For that reason, Cabinet thought it appropriate to take $1.5 million out of the $6.8 million new appropriation and apply it to that scheme. It is an existing scheme, but the $1.5 million is all new money. I say that without any equivocation at all. (3) Yes, the application of the farm water grants scheme will be able to accommodate the needs of stock that were moved from the western part of the State into the drought area, because the farm water grants scheme criteria are the same as they have always been. There has been no change to those criteria. The scheme itself has not been changed; we have simply provided additional funds. To the extent that that would have been possible under the scheme in the past - it is a scheme with which people are fairly familiar - it is still possible today. There has been no change as a result of the drought package. I hope that this does not happen to any great degree, because the Government’s hope is that not too many stock will be returned to drought areas before the end of the drought. We hope that farmers will be able to negotiate longer-term agistment arrangements in the western part of the State. Hon Murray Criddle: It is terribly expensive. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, I understand that, but it is important to avoid the restocking of the drought-affected area before the country is able to take livestock, because stock returning to stubbles or unstripped crops, where the yield might have been 0.2 of a hectare, particularly for lupin crops, would leave that country open to severe wind erosion, and we hope the farmers would not make that decision.
(1) First, I can be very explicit in my assurance that the $6.8 million, perhaps absent the $300 000 that comes from the rural business trust fund, which could be argued to be money that was already in a fund for that purpose, is new money. The reason I can say that with absolute certainty is that earlier this week I signed the appropriation slip; therefore, I know that it comes direct from a new appropriation from consolidated funding. Hon Murray Criddle: The Beacon north pipeline is - Hon KIM CHANCE: No, I will get to that. I was so clear about that because the question had been raised previously by a farmer who said, if I have the words correctly, “I hope this is not repackaged money.” Therefore, I wanted to be very clear that at least $6.5 million of the $6.8 million is new money, for which a separate appropriation was made for the specific purpose of carrying out the scheme. Let us clear that up first. One could even argue that the $300 000 is new money but, to save argument, let us acknowledge that it has come from the trust fund. The public works brought forward are not part of the $6.8 million; and that is the answer to the member’s question. Hon Murray Criddle interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE: No. If the member has read that into what I have said, he has read it incorrectly. The $6.8 million is made up of a series of allocations for a series of specific purposes, all of which are costed. If each of those is added up, it comes to $6.8 million. We then go to the issue of bringing forward capital works, which are separate from, and over and above, the $6.8 million. The new funding issue relates to the application of the $6.8 million, which is stated clearly in the material the Government has released. We have brought forward capital works separately. The fact that we have mentioned bringing forward capital works clearly acknowledges that they are works that were already in the pipeline, and quite possibly had been inserted into the capital works budget by the previous Government. In fact, it is highly likely that that is the case. We have simply brought those forward. (2) The member asked whether the $1.5 million for the farm water grants scheme is reinstated money. The answer is no. The $1.5 million is a part of the appropriation of $6.8 million that I referred to signing off recently. Because it was an issue of the $6.8 million and a matter that required a separate appropriation, that is in itself proof that this is new money. As the honourable member would know, the farm water grants scheme is not administered by my portfolio. However, the farm water grants scheme was subject to a considerable backlog. Some 150 applications could not be funded with the available funding. As I understand it, the minister responsible for water resources has made statements to the effect that to try to fund as many of those applications as she could, she brought forward the second tranche of that money, but still had a backlog of 150 applications. For that reason, Cabinet thought it appropriate to take $1.5 million out of the $6.8 million new appropriation and apply it to that scheme. It is an existing scheme, but the $1.5 million is all new money. I say that without any equivocation at all. (3) Yes, the application of the farm water grants scheme will be able to accommodate the needs of stock that were moved from the western part of the State into the drought area, because the farm water grants scheme criteria are the same as they have always been. There has been no change to those criteria. The scheme itself has not been changed; we have simply provided additional funds. To the extent that that would have been possible under the scheme in the past - it is a scheme with which people are fairly familiar - it is still possible today. There has been no change as a result of the drought package. I hope that this does not happen to any great degree, because the Government’s hope is that not too many stock will be returned to drought areas before the end of the drought. We hope that farmers will be able to negotiate longer-term agistment arrangements in the western part of the State. Hon Murray Criddle: It is terribly expensive. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, I understand that, but it is important to avoid the restocking of the drought-affected area before the country is able to take livestock, because stock returning to stubbles or unstripped crops, where the yield might have been 0.2 of a hectare, particularly for lupin crops, would leave that country open to severe wind erosion, and we hope the farmers would not make that decision.
Hon Murray Criddle: The Beacon north pipeline is - Hon KIM CHANCE: No, I will get to that. I was so clear about that because the question had been raised previously by a farmer who said, if I have the words correctly, “I hope this is not repackaged money.” Therefore, I wanted to be very clear that at least $6.5 million of the $6.8 million is new money, for which a separate appropriation was made for the specific purpose of carrying out the scheme. Let us clear that up first. One could even argue that the $300 000 is new money but, to save argument, let us acknowledge that it has come from the trust fund. The public works brought forward are not part of the $6.8 million; and that is the answer to the member’s question. Hon Murray Criddle interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE: No. If the member has read that into what I have said, he has read it incorrectly. The $6.8 million is made up of a series of allocations for a series of specific purposes, all of which are costed. If each of those is added up, it comes to $6.8 million. We then go to the issue of bringing forward capital works, which are separate from, and over and above, the $6.8 million. The new funding issue relates to the application of the $6.8 million, which is stated clearly in the material the Government has released. We have brought forward capital works separately. The fact that we have mentioned bringing forward capital works clearly acknowledges that they are works that were already in the pipeline, and quite possibly had been inserted into the capital works budget by the previous Government. In fact, it is highly likely that that is the case. We have simply brought those forward. (2) The member asked whether the $1.5 million for the farm water grants scheme is reinstated money. The answer is no. The $1.5 million is a part of the appropriation of $6.8 million that I referred to signing off recently. Because it was an issue of the $6.8 million and a matter that required a separate appropriation, that is in itself proof that this is new money. As the honourable member would know, the farm water grants scheme is not administered by my portfolio. However, the farm water grants scheme was subject to a considerable backlog. Some 150 applications could not be funded with the available funding. As I understand it, the minister responsible for water resources has made statements to the effect that to try to fund as many of those applications as she could, she brought forward the second tranche of that money, but still had a backlog of 150 applications. For that reason, Cabinet thought it appropriate to take $1.5 million out of the $6.8 million new appropriation and apply it to that scheme. It is an existing scheme, but the $1.5 million is all new money. I say that without any equivocation at all. (3) Yes, the application of the farm water grants scheme will be able to accommodate the needs of stock that were moved from the western part of the State into the drought area, because the farm water grants scheme criteria are the same as they have always been. There has been no change to those criteria. The scheme itself has not been changed; we have simply provided additional funds. To the extent that that would have been possible under the scheme in the past - it is a scheme with which people are fairly familiar - it is still possible today. There has been no change as a result of the drought package. I hope that this does not happen to any great degree, because the Government’s hope is that not too many stock will be returned to drought areas before the end of the drought. We hope that farmers will be able to negotiate longer-term agistment arrangements in the western part of the State. Hon Murray Criddle: It is terribly expensive. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, I understand that, but it is important to avoid the restocking of the drought-affected area before the country is able to take livestock, because stock returning to stubbles or unstripped crops, where the yield might have been 0.2 of a hectare, particularly for lupin crops, would leave that country open to severe wind erosion, and we hope the farmers would not make that decision.
Hon KIM CHANCE: No, I will get to that. I was so clear about that because the question had been raised previously by a farmer who said, if I have the words correctly, “I hope this is not repackaged money.” Therefore, I wanted to be very clear that at least $6.5 million of the $6.8 million is new money, for which a separate appropriation was made for the specific purpose of carrying out the scheme. Let us clear that up first. One could even argue that the $300 000 is new money but, to save argument, let us acknowledge that it has come from the trust fund. The public works brought forward are not part of the $6.8 million; and that is the answer to the member’s question. Hon Murray Criddle interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE: No. If the member has read that into what I have said, he has read it incorrectly. The $6.8 million is made up of a series of allocations for a series of specific purposes, all of which are costed. If each of those is added up, it comes to $6.8 million. We then go to the issue of bringing forward capital works, which are separate from, and over and above, the $6.8 million. The new funding issue relates to the application of the $6.8 million, which is stated clearly in the material the Government has released. We have brought forward capital works separately. The fact that we have mentioned bringing forward capital works clearly acknowledges that they are works that were already in the pipeline, and quite possibly had been inserted into the capital works budget by the previous Government. In fact, it is highly likely that that is the case. We have simply brought those forward. (2) The member asked whether the $1.5 million for the farm water grants scheme is reinstated money. The answer is no. The $1.5 million is a part of the appropriation of $6.8 million that I referred to signing off recently. Because it was an issue of the $6.8 million and a matter that required a separate appropriation, that is in itself proof that this is new money. As the honourable member would know, the farm water grants scheme is not administered by my portfolio. However, the farm water grants scheme was subject to a considerable backlog. Some 150 applications could not be funded with the available funding. As I understand it, the minister responsible for water resources has made statements to the effect that to try to fund as many of those applications as she could, she brought forward the second tranche of that money, but still had a backlog of 150 applications. For that reason, Cabinet thought it appropriate to take $1.5 million out of the $6.8 million new appropriation and apply it to that scheme. It is an existing scheme, but the $1.5 million is all new money. I say that without any equivocation at all. (3) Yes, the application of the farm water grants scheme will be able to accommodate the needs of stock that were moved from the western part of the State into the drought area, because the farm water grants scheme criteria are the same as they have always been. There has been no change to those criteria. The scheme itself has not been changed; we have simply provided additional funds. To the extent that that would have been possible under the scheme in the past - it is a scheme with which people are fairly familiar - it is still possible today. There has been no change as a result of the drought package. I hope that this does not happen to any great degree, because the Government’s hope is that not too many stock will be returned to drought areas before the end of the drought. We hope that farmers will be able to negotiate longer-term agistment arrangements in the western part of the State. Hon Murray Criddle: It is terribly expensive. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, I understand that, but it is important to avoid the restocking of the drought-affected area before the country is able to take livestock, because stock returning to stubbles or unstripped crops, where the yield might have been 0.2 of a hectare, particularly for lupin crops, would leave that country open to severe wind erosion, and we hope the farmers would not make that decision.
The public works brought forward are not part of the $6.8 million; and that is the answer to the member’s question. Hon Murray Criddle interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE: No. If the member has read that into what I have said, he has read it incorrectly. The $6.8 million is made up of a series of allocations for a series of specific purposes, all of which are costed. If each of those is added up, it comes to $6.8 million. We then go to the issue of bringing forward capital works, which are separate from, and over and above, the $6.8 million. The new funding issue relates to the application of the $6.8 million, which is stated clearly in the material the Government has released. We have brought forward capital works separately. The fact that we have mentioned bringing forward capital works clearly acknowledges that they are works that were already in the pipeline, and quite possibly had been inserted into the capital works budget by the previous Government. In fact, it is highly likely that that is the case. We have simply brought those forward. (2) The member asked whether the $1.5 million for the farm water grants scheme is reinstated money. The answer is no. The $1.5 million is a part of the appropriation of $6.8 million that I referred to signing off recently. Because it was an issue of the $6.8 million and a matter that required a separate appropriation, that is in itself proof that this is new money. As the honourable member would know, the farm water grants scheme is not administered by my portfolio. However, the farm water grants scheme was subject to a considerable backlog. Some 150 applications could not be funded with the available funding. As I understand it, the minister responsible for water resources has made statements to the effect that to try to fund as many of those applications as she could, she brought forward the second tranche of that money, but still had a backlog of 150 applications. For that reason, Cabinet thought it appropriate to take $1.5 million out of the $6.8 million new appropriation and apply it to that scheme. It is an existing scheme, but the $1.5 million is all new money. I say that without any equivocation at all. (3) Yes, the application of the farm water grants scheme will be able to accommodate the needs of stock that were moved from the western part of the State into the drought area, because the farm water grants scheme criteria are the same as they have always been. There has been no change to those criteria. The scheme itself has not been changed; we have simply provided additional funds. To the extent that that would have been possible under the scheme in the past - it is a scheme with which people are fairly familiar - it is still possible today. There has been no change as a result of the drought package. I hope that this does not happen to any great degree, because the Government’s hope is that not too many stock will be returned to drought areas before the end of the drought. We hope that farmers will be able to negotiate longer-term agistment arrangements in the western part of the State. Hon Murray Criddle: It is terribly expensive. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, I understand that, but it is important to avoid the restocking of the drought-affected area before the country is able to take livestock, because stock returning to stubbles or unstripped crops, where the yield might have been 0.2 of a hectare, particularly for lupin crops, would leave that country open to severe wind erosion, and we hope the farmers would not make that decision.
Hon Murray Criddle interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE: No. If the member has read that into what I have said, he has read it incorrectly. The $6.8 million is made up of a series of allocations for a series of specific purposes, all of which are costed. If each of those is added up, it comes to $6.8 million. We then go to the issue of bringing forward capital works, which are separate from, and over and above, the $6.8 million. The new funding issue relates to the application of the $6.8 million, which is stated clearly in the material the Government has released. We have brought forward capital works separately. The fact that we have mentioned bringing forward capital works clearly acknowledges that they are works that were already in the pipeline, and quite possibly had been inserted into the capital works budget by the previous Government. In fact, it is highly likely that that is the case. We have simply brought those forward. (2) The member asked whether the $1.5 million for the farm water grants scheme is reinstated money. The answer is no. The $1.5 million is a part of the appropriation of $6.8 million that I referred to signing off recently. Because it was an issue of the $6.8 million and a matter that required a separate appropriation, that is in itself proof that this is new money. As the honourable member would know, the farm water grants scheme is not administered by my portfolio. However, the farm water grants scheme was subject to a considerable backlog. Some 150 applications could not be funded with the available funding. As I understand it, the minister responsible for water resources has made statements to the effect that to try to fund as many of those applications as she could, she brought forward the second tranche of that money, but still had a backlog of 150 applications. For that reason, Cabinet thought it appropriate to take $1.5 million out of the $6.8 million new appropriation and apply it to that scheme. It is an existing scheme, but the $1.5 million is all new money. I say that without any equivocation at all. (3) Yes, the application of the farm water grants scheme will be able to accommodate the needs of stock that were moved from the western part of the State into the drought area, because the farm water grants scheme criteria are the same as they have always been. There has been no change to those criteria. The scheme itself has not been changed; we have simply provided additional funds. To the extent that that would have been possible under the scheme in the past - it is a scheme with which people are fairly familiar - it is still possible today. There has been no change as a result of the drought package. I hope that this does not happen to any great degree, because the Government’s hope is that not too many stock will be returned to drought areas before the end of the drought. We hope that farmers will be able to negotiate longer-term agistment arrangements in the western part of the State. Hon Murray Criddle: It is terribly expensive. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, I understand that, but it is important to avoid the restocking of the drought-affected area before the country is able to take livestock, because stock returning to stubbles or unstripped crops, where the yield might have been 0.2 of a hectare, particularly for lupin crops, would leave that country open to severe wind erosion, and we hope the farmers would not make that decision.
Hon KIM CHANCE: No. If the member has read that into what I have said, he has read it incorrectly. The $6.8 million is made up of a series of allocations for a series of specific purposes, all of which are costed. If each of those is added up, it comes to $6.8 million. We then go to the issue of bringing forward capital works, which are separate from, and over and above, the $6.8 million. The new funding issue relates to the application of the $6.8 million, which is stated clearly in the material the Government has released. We have brought forward capital works separately. The fact that we have mentioned bringing forward capital works clearly acknowledges that they are works that were already in the pipeline, and quite possibly had been inserted into the capital works budget by the previous Government. In fact, it is highly likely that that is the case. We have simply brought those forward. (2) The member asked whether the $1.5 million for the farm water grants scheme is reinstated money. The answer is no. The $1.5 million is a part of the appropriation of $6.8 million that I referred to signing off recently. Because it was an issue of the $6.8 million and a matter that required a separate appropriation, that is in itself proof that this is new money. As the honourable member would know, the farm water grants scheme is not administered by my portfolio. However, the farm water grants scheme was subject to a considerable backlog. Some 150 applications could not be funded with the available funding. As I understand it, the minister responsible for water resources has made statements to the effect that to try to fund as many of those applications as she could, she brought forward the second tranche of that money, but still had a backlog of 150 applications. For that reason, Cabinet thought it appropriate to take $1.5 million out of the $6.8 million new appropriation and apply it to that scheme. It is an existing scheme, but the $1.5 million is all new money. I say that without any equivocation at all. (3) Yes, the application of the farm water grants scheme will be able to accommodate the needs of stock that were moved from the western part of the State into the drought area, because the farm water grants scheme criteria are the same as they have always been. There has been no change to those criteria. The scheme itself has not been changed; we have simply provided additional funds. To the extent that that would have been possible under the scheme in the past - it is a scheme with which people are fairly familiar - it is still possible today. There has been no change as a result of the drought package. I hope that this does not happen to any great degree, because the Government’s hope is that not too many stock will be returned to drought areas before the end of the drought. We hope that farmers will be able to negotiate longer-term agistment arrangements in the western part of the State. Hon Murray Criddle: It is terribly expensive. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, I understand that, but it is important to avoid the restocking of the drought-affected area before the country is able to take livestock, because stock returning to stubbles or unstripped crops, where the yield might have been 0.2 of a hectare, particularly for lupin crops, would leave that country open to severe wind erosion, and we hope the farmers would not make that decision.
(2) The member asked whether the $1.5 million for the farm water grants scheme is reinstated money. The answer is no. The $1.5 million is a part of the appropriation of $6.8 million that I referred to signing off recently. Because it was an issue of the $6.8 million and a matter that required a separate appropriation, that is in itself proof that this is new money. As the honourable member would know, the farm water grants scheme is not administered by my portfolio. However, the farm water grants scheme was subject to a considerable backlog. Some 150 applications could not be funded with the available funding. As I understand it, the minister responsible for water resources has made statements to the effect that to try to fund as many of those applications as she could, she brought forward the second tranche of that money, but still had a backlog of 150 applications. For that reason, Cabinet thought it appropriate to take $1.5 million out of the $6.8 million new appropriation and apply it to that scheme. It is an existing scheme, but the $1.5 million is all new money. I say that without any equivocation at all. (3) Yes, the application of the farm water grants scheme will be able to accommodate the needs of stock that were moved from the western part of the State into the drought area, because the farm water grants scheme criteria are the same as they have always been. There has been no change to those criteria. The scheme itself has not been changed; we have simply provided additional funds. To the extent that that would have been possible under the scheme in the past - it is a scheme with which people are fairly familiar - it is still possible today. There has been no change as a result of the drought package. I hope that this does not happen to any great degree, because the Government’s hope is that not too many stock will be returned to drought areas before the end of the drought. We hope that farmers will be able to negotiate longer-term agistment arrangements in the western part of the State. Hon Murray Criddle: It is terribly expensive. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, I understand that, but it is important to avoid the restocking of the drought-affected area before the country is able to take livestock, because stock returning to stubbles or unstripped crops, where the yield might have been 0.2 of a hectare, particularly for lupin crops, would leave that country open to severe wind erosion, and we hope the farmers would not make that decision.
(3) Yes, the application of the farm water grants scheme will be able to accommodate the needs of stock that were moved from the western part of the State into the drought area, because the farm water grants scheme criteria are the same as they have always been. There has been no change to those criteria. The scheme itself has not been changed; we have simply provided additional funds. To the extent that that would have been possible under the scheme in the past - it is a scheme with which people are fairly familiar - it is still possible today. There has been no change as a result of the drought package. I hope that this does not happen to any great degree, because the Government’s hope is that not too many stock will be returned to drought areas before the end of the drought. We hope that farmers will be able to negotiate longer-term agistment arrangements in the western part of the State. Hon Murray Criddle: It is terribly expensive. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, I understand that, but it is important to avoid the restocking of the drought-affected area before the country is able to take livestock, because stock returning to stubbles or unstripped crops, where the yield might have been 0.2 of a hectare, particularly for lupin crops, would leave that country open to severe wind erosion, and we hope the farmers would not make that decision.
Hon Murray Criddle: It is terribly expensive. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, I understand that, but it is important to avoid the restocking of the drought-affected area before the country is able to take livestock, because stock returning to stubbles or unstripped crops, where the yield might have been 0.2 of a hectare, particularly for lupin crops, would leave that country open to severe wind erosion, and we hope the farmers would not make that decision.
Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, I understand that, but it is important to avoid the restocking of the drought-affected area before the country is able to take livestock, because stock returning to stubbles or unstripped crops, where the yield might have been 0.2 of a hectare, particularly for lupin crops, would leave that country open to severe wind erosion, and we hope the farmers would not make that decision.
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.