❓ A WA parliamentary question addresses the potential impact of climate change on agricultural land viability, with the Minister providing data on projected wheat yield changes and tabling relevant reports. The Minister highlights genetic improvements offsetting rainfall losses.
AnsweredQoN 894Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
DROUGHT ASSISTANCE
I refer to federal and state drought assistance programs. (1) Has the government undertaken an assessment of how much agricultural land in Western Australia is likely to become unviable as a result of climate change? (2) If yes - (a) what are the conclusions from that assessment; and (b) will the minister table any report dealing with this issue? (3) If no to (1), why not? No notice was given of part (3). Hon KIM CHANCE
I refer to federal and state drought assistance programs. (1) Has the government undertaken an assessment of how much agricultural land in Western Australia is likely to become unviable as a result of climate change? (2) If yes - (a) what are the conclusions from that assessment; and (b) will the minister table any report dealing with this issue? (3) If no to (1), why not? No notice was given of part (3). Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
I thank Hon Paul Llewellyn for what is a very timely question, given what we have been discussing today. I thank him for giving notice of that part of the question for which he did give notice, which is the bulk of the question. (1) Assessing viability is a difficult matter as it depends on many factors, such as markets, which cannot be predicted over such long time frames. Assessments have, however, been done to estimate the effects on potential crop yields by 2050 if the projected rainfall and temperature changes occur. I think that is about as good a guide - when the member sees the information I think he will agree with me - as we will get. (2) (a) For wheat, the results were as follows: 58 per cent of the area was predicted to have no change - that is, plus or minus 10 per cent; 36 per cent was predicted to have a 10 to 20 per cent decrease in potential yield; three per cent was a 20 to 30 per cent decrease; and three per cent was a greater than 30 per cent decrease. The decreases were predicted to be greatest in the north-eastern wheatbelt. (b) The reports for wheat and barley will be tabled. This information is readily available in hard copy as Department of Agriculture and Food technical reports on its web site. Studies for lupins, canola and oats are also available, if required, and they show similar results. I did not have much time to review this document prior to providing this answer. What I think might be missing - a reading of the report will reveal this - is whether a factor of yield increase has been built into the results or whether the yield decrease that is shown assumes constant genetic capacity. At the moment we have increasing yields despite decreasing rainfall; that is, the rate of genetic improvement is exceeding the loss of rainfall as a percentage. Hon Paul Llewellyn : Are we marking time? Hon KIM CHANCE : We are doing better than marking time. We are actually moving ahead of that now. I do not know whether that is in the report. That is something that we need to be alert to as we read the report. However, our rate of genetic improvement is exceeding the losses that we would otherwise have experienced. (3) Not applicable. I table two resource management technical reports. [See paper 2133.]
(1) Has the government undertaken an assessment of how much agricultural land in Western Australia is likely to become unviable as a result of climate change? (2) If yes - (a) what are the conclusions from that assessment; and (b) will the minister table any report dealing with this issue? (3) If no to (1), why not? No notice was given of part (3). Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Paul Llewellyn for what is a very timely question, given what we have been discussing today. I thank him for giving notice of that part of the question for which he did give notice, which is the bulk of the question. (1) Assessing viability is a difficult matter as it depends on many factors, such as markets, which cannot be predicted over such long time frames. Assessments have, however, been done to estimate the effects on potential crop yields by 2050 if the projected rainfall and temperature changes occur. I think that is about as good a guide - when the member sees the information I think he will agree with me - as we will get. (2) (a) For wheat, the results were as follows: 58 per cent of the area was predicted to have no change - that is, plus or minus 10 per cent; 36 per cent was predicted to have a 10 to 20 per cent decrease in potential yield; three per cent was a 20 to 30 per cent decrease; and three per cent was a greater than 30 per cent decrease. The decreases were predicted to be greatest in the north-eastern wheatbelt. (b) The reports for wheat and barley will be tabled. This information is readily available in hard copy as Department of Agriculture and Food technical reports on its web site. Studies for lupins, canola and oats are also available, if required, and they show similar results. I did not have much time to review this document prior to providing this answer. What I think might be missing - a reading of the report will reveal this - is whether a factor of yield increase has been built into the results or whether the yield decrease that is shown assumes constant genetic capacity. At the moment we have increasing yields despite decreasing rainfall; that is, the rate of genetic improvement is exceeding the loss of rainfall as a percentage. Hon Paul Llewellyn : Are we marking time? Hon KIM CHANCE : We are doing better than marking time. We are actually moving ahead of that now. I do not know whether that is in the report. That is something that we need to be alert to as we read the report. However, our rate of genetic improvement is exceeding the losses that we would otherwise have experienced. (3) Not applicable. I table two resource management technical reports. [See paper 2133.]
(2) If yes - (a) what are the conclusions from that assessment; and (b) will the minister table any report dealing with this issue? (3) If no to (1), why not? No notice was given of part (3). Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Paul Llewellyn for what is a very timely question, given what we have been discussing today. I thank him for giving notice of that part of the question for which he did give notice, which is the bulk of the question. (1) Assessing viability is a difficult matter as it depends on many factors, such as markets, which cannot be predicted over such long time frames. Assessments have, however, been done to estimate the effects on potential crop yields by 2050 if the projected rainfall and temperature changes occur. I think that is about as good a guide - when the member sees the information I think he will agree with me - as we will get. (2) (a) For wheat, the results were as follows: 58 per cent of the area was predicted to have no change - that is, plus or minus 10 per cent; 36 per cent was predicted to have a 10 to 20 per cent decrease in potential yield; three per cent was a 20 to 30 per cent decrease; and three per cent was a greater than 30 per cent decrease. The decreases were predicted to be greatest in the north-eastern wheatbelt. (b) The reports for wheat and barley will be tabled. This information is readily available in hard copy as Department of Agriculture and Food technical reports on its web site. Studies for lupins, canola and oats are also available, if required, and they show similar results. I did not have much time to review this document prior to providing this answer. What I think might be missing - a reading of the report will reveal this - is whether a factor of yield increase has been built into the results or whether the yield decrease that is shown assumes constant genetic capacity. At the moment we have increasing yields despite decreasing rainfall; that is, the rate of genetic improvement is exceeding the loss of rainfall as a percentage. Hon Paul Llewellyn : Are we marking time? Hon KIM CHANCE : We are doing better than marking time. We are actually moving ahead of that now. I do not know whether that is in the report. That is something that we need to be alert to as we read the report. However, our rate of genetic improvement is exceeding the losses that we would otherwise have experienced. (3) Not applicable. I table two resource management technical reports. [See paper 2133.]
(a) what are the conclusions from that assessment; and (b) will the minister table any report dealing with this issue? (3) If no to (1), why not? No notice was given of part (3). Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Paul Llewellyn for what is a very timely question, given what we have been discussing today. I thank him for giving notice of that part of the question for which he did give notice, which is the bulk of the question. (1) Assessing viability is a difficult matter as it depends on many factors, such as markets, which cannot be predicted over such long time frames. Assessments have, however, been done to estimate the effects on potential crop yields by 2050 if the projected rainfall and temperature changes occur. I think that is about as good a guide - when the member sees the information I think he will agree with me - as we will get. (2) (a) For wheat, the results were as follows: 58 per cent of the area was predicted to have no change - that is, plus or minus 10 per cent; 36 per cent was predicted to have a 10 to 20 per cent decrease in potential yield; three per cent was a 20 to 30 per cent decrease; and three per cent was a greater than 30 per cent decrease. The decreases were predicted to be greatest in the north-eastern wheatbelt. (b) The reports for wheat and barley will be tabled. This information is readily available in hard copy as Department of Agriculture and Food technical reports on its web site. Studies for lupins, canola and oats are also available, if required, and they show similar results. I did not have much time to review this document prior to providing this answer. What I think might be missing - a reading of the report will reveal this - is whether a factor of yield increase has been built into the results or whether the yield decrease that is shown assumes constant genetic capacity. At the moment we have increasing yields despite decreasing rainfall; that is, the rate of genetic improvement is exceeding the loss of rainfall as a percentage. Hon Paul Llewellyn : Are we marking time? Hon KIM CHANCE : We are doing better than marking time. We are actually moving ahead of that now. I do not know whether that is in the report. That is something that we need to be alert to as we read the report. However, our rate of genetic improvement is exceeding the losses that we would otherwise have experienced. (3) Not applicable. I table two resource management technical reports. [See paper 2133.]
(b) will the minister table any report dealing with this issue? (3) If no to (1), why not? No notice was given of part (3). Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Paul Llewellyn for what is a very timely question, given what we have been discussing today. I thank him for giving notice of that part of the question for which he did give notice, which is the bulk of the question. (1) Assessing viability is a difficult matter as it depends on many factors, such as markets, which cannot be predicted over such long time frames. Assessments have, however, been done to estimate the effects on potential crop yields by 2050 if the projected rainfall and temperature changes occur. I think that is about as good a guide - when the member sees the information I think he will agree with me - as we will get. (2) (a) For wheat, the results were as follows: 58 per cent of the area was predicted to have no change - that is, plus or minus 10 per cent; 36 per cent was predicted to have a 10 to 20 per cent decrease in potential yield; three per cent was a 20 to 30 per cent decrease; and three per cent was a greater than 30 per cent decrease. The decreases were predicted to be greatest in the north-eastern wheatbelt. (b) The reports for wheat and barley will be tabled. This information is readily available in hard copy as Department of Agriculture and Food technical reports on its web site. Studies for lupins, canola and oats are also available, if required, and they show similar results. I did not have much time to review this document prior to providing this answer. What I think might be missing - a reading of the report will reveal this - is whether a factor of yield increase has been built into the results or whether the yield decrease that is shown assumes constant genetic capacity. At the moment we have increasing yields despite decreasing rainfall; that is, the rate of genetic improvement is exceeding the loss of rainfall as a percentage. Hon Paul Llewellyn : Are we marking time? Hon KIM CHANCE : We are doing better than marking time. We are actually moving ahead of that now. I do not know whether that is in the report. That is something that we need to be alert to as we read the report. However, our rate of genetic improvement is exceeding the losses that we would otherwise have experienced. (3) Not applicable. I table two resource management technical reports. [See paper 2133.]
(3) If no to (1), why not? No notice was given of part (3). Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Paul Llewellyn for what is a very timely question, given what we have been discussing today. I thank him for giving notice of that part of the question for which he did give notice, which is the bulk of the question. (1) Assessing viability is a difficult matter as it depends on many factors, such as markets, which cannot be predicted over such long time frames. Assessments have, however, been done to estimate the effects on potential crop yields by 2050 if the projected rainfall and temperature changes occur. I think that is about as good a guide - when the member sees the information I think he will agree with me - as we will get. (2) (a) For wheat, the results were as follows: 58 per cent of the area was predicted to have no change - that is, plus or minus 10 per cent; 36 per cent was predicted to have a 10 to 20 per cent decrease in potential yield; three per cent was a 20 to 30 per cent decrease; and three per cent was a greater than 30 per cent decrease. The decreases were predicted to be greatest in the north-eastern wheatbelt. (b) The reports for wheat and barley will be tabled. This information is readily available in hard copy as Department of Agriculture and Food technical reports on its web site. Studies for lupins, canola and oats are also available, if required, and they show similar results. I did not have much time to review this document prior to providing this answer. What I think might be missing - a reading of the report will reveal this - is whether a factor of yield increase has been built into the results or whether the yield decrease that is shown assumes constant genetic capacity. At the moment we have increasing yields despite decreasing rainfall; that is, the rate of genetic improvement is exceeding the loss of rainfall as a percentage. Hon Paul Llewellyn : Are we marking time? Hon KIM CHANCE : We are doing better than marking time. We are actually moving ahead of that now. I do not know whether that is in the report. That is something that we need to be alert to as we read the report. However, our rate of genetic improvement is exceeding the losses that we would otherwise have experienced. (3) Not applicable. I table two resource management technical reports. [See paper 2133.]
No notice was given of part (3). Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Paul Llewellyn for what is a very timely question, given what we have been discussing today. I thank him for giving notice of that part of the question for which he did give notice, which is the bulk of the question. (1) Assessing viability is a difficult matter as it depends on many factors, such as markets, which cannot be predicted over such long time frames. Assessments have, however, been done to estimate the effects on potential crop yields by 2050 if the projected rainfall and temperature changes occur. I think that is about as good a guide - when the member sees the information I think he will agree with me - as we will get. (2) (a) For wheat, the results were as follows: 58 per cent of the area was predicted to have no change - that is, plus or minus 10 per cent; 36 per cent was predicted to have a 10 to 20 per cent decrease in potential yield; three per cent was a 20 to 30 per cent decrease; and three per cent was a greater than 30 per cent decrease. The decreases were predicted to be greatest in the north-eastern wheatbelt. (b) The reports for wheat and barley will be tabled. This information is readily available in hard copy as Department of Agriculture and Food technical reports on its web site. Studies for lupins, canola and oats are also available, if required, and they show similar results. I did not have much time to review this document prior to providing this answer. What I think might be missing - a reading of the report will reveal this - is whether a factor of yield increase has been built into the results or whether the yield decrease that is shown assumes constant genetic capacity. At the moment we have increasing yields despite decreasing rainfall; that is, the rate of genetic improvement is exceeding the loss of rainfall as a percentage. Hon Paul Llewellyn : Are we marking time? Hon KIM CHANCE : We are doing better than marking time. We are actually moving ahead of that now. I do not know whether that is in the report. That is something that we need to be alert to as we read the report. However, our rate of genetic improvement is exceeding the losses that we would otherwise have experienced. (3) Not applicable. I table two resource management technical reports. [See paper 2133.]
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Paul Llewellyn for what is a very timely question, given what we have been discussing today. I thank him for giving notice of that part of the question for which he did give notice, which is the bulk of the question. (1) Assessing viability is a difficult matter as it depends on many factors, such as markets, which cannot be predicted over such long time frames. Assessments have, however, been done to estimate the effects on potential crop yields by 2050 if the projected rainfall and temperature changes occur. I think that is about as good a guide - when the member sees the information I think he will agree with me - as we will get. (2) (a) For wheat, the results were as follows: 58 per cent of the area was predicted to have no change - that is, plus or minus 10 per cent; 36 per cent was predicted to have a 10 to 20 per cent decrease in potential yield; three per cent was a 20 to 30 per cent decrease; and three per cent was a greater than 30 per cent decrease. The decreases were predicted to be greatest in the north-eastern wheatbelt. (b) The reports for wheat and barley will be tabled. This information is readily available in hard copy as Department of Agriculture and Food technical reports on its web site. Studies for lupins, canola and oats are also available, if required, and they show similar results. I did not have much time to review this document prior to providing this answer. What I think might be missing - a reading of the report will reveal this - is whether a factor of yield increase has been built into the results or whether the yield decrease that is shown assumes constant genetic capacity. At the moment we have increasing yields despite decreasing rainfall; that is, the rate of genetic improvement is exceeding the loss of rainfall as a percentage. Hon Paul Llewellyn : Are we marking time? Hon KIM CHANCE : We are doing better than marking time. We are actually moving ahead of that now. I do not know whether that is in the report. That is something that we need to be alert to as we read the report. However, our rate of genetic improvement is exceeding the losses that we would otherwise have experienced. (3) Not applicable. I table two resource management technical reports. [See paper 2133.]
I thank Hon Paul Llewellyn for what is a very timely question, given what we have been discussing today. I thank him for giving notice of that part of the question for which he did give notice, which is the bulk of the question. (1) Assessing viability is a difficult matter as it depends on many factors, such as markets, which cannot be predicted over such long time frames. Assessments have, however, been done to estimate the effects on potential crop yields by 2050 if the projected rainfall and temperature changes occur. I think that is about as good a guide - when the member sees the information I think he will agree with me - as we will get. (2) (a) For wheat, the results were as follows: 58 per cent of the area was predicted to have no change - that is, plus or minus 10 per cent; 36 per cent was predicted to have a 10 to 20 per cent decrease in potential yield; three per cent was a 20 to 30 per cent decrease; and three per cent was a greater than 30 per cent decrease. The decreases were predicted to be greatest in the north-eastern wheatbelt. (b) The reports for wheat and barley will be tabled. This information is readily available in hard copy as Department of Agriculture and Food technical reports on its web site. Studies for lupins, canola and oats are also available, if required, and they show similar results. I did not have much time to review this document prior to providing this answer. What I think might be missing - a reading of the report will reveal this - is whether a factor of yield increase has been built into the results or whether the yield decrease that is shown assumes constant genetic capacity. At the moment we have increasing yields despite decreasing rainfall; that is, the rate of genetic improvement is exceeding the loss of rainfall as a percentage. Hon Paul Llewellyn : Are we marking time? Hon KIM CHANCE : We are doing better than marking time. We are actually moving ahead of that now. I do not know whether that is in the report. That is something that we need to be alert to as we read the report. However, our rate of genetic improvement is exceeding the losses that we would otherwise have experienced. (3) Not applicable. I table two resource management technical reports. [See paper 2133.]
(1) Assessing viability is a difficult matter as it depends on many factors, such as markets, which cannot be predicted over such long time frames. Assessments have, however, been done to estimate the effects on potential crop yields by 2050 if the projected rainfall and temperature changes occur. I think that is about as good a guide - when the member sees the information I think he will agree with me - as we will get. (2) (a) For wheat, the results were as follows: 58 per cent of the area was predicted to have no change - that is, plus or minus 10 per cent; 36 per cent was predicted to have a 10 to 20 per cent decrease in potential yield; three per cent was a 20 to 30 per cent decrease; and three per cent was a greater than 30 per cent decrease. The decreases were predicted to be greatest in the north-eastern wheatbelt. (b) The reports for wheat and barley will be tabled. This information is readily available in hard copy as Department of Agriculture and Food technical reports on its web site. Studies for lupins, canola and oats are also available, if required, and they show similar results. I did not have much time to review this document prior to providing this answer. What I think might be missing - a reading of the report will reveal this - is whether a factor of yield increase has been built into the results or whether the yield decrease that is shown assumes constant genetic capacity. At the moment we have increasing yields despite decreasing rainfall; that is, the rate of genetic improvement is exceeding the loss of rainfall as a percentage. Hon Paul Llewellyn : Are we marking time? Hon KIM CHANCE : We are doing better than marking time. We are actually moving ahead of that now. I do not know whether that is in the report. That is something that we need to be alert to as we read the report. However, our rate of genetic improvement is exceeding the losses that we would otherwise have experienced. (3) Not applicable. I table two resource management technical reports. [See paper 2133.]
(2) (a) For wheat, the results were as follows: 58 per cent of the area was predicted to have no change - that is, plus or minus 10 per cent; 36 per cent was predicted to have a 10 to 20 per cent decrease in potential yield; three per cent was a 20 to 30 per cent decrease; and three per cent was a greater than 30 per cent decrease. The decreases were predicted to be greatest in the north-eastern wheatbelt. (b) The reports for wheat and barley will be tabled. This information is readily available in hard copy as Department of Agriculture and Food technical reports on its web site. Studies for lupins, canola and oats are also available, if required, and they show similar results. I did not have much time to review this document prior to providing this answer. What I think might be missing - a reading of the report will reveal this - is whether a factor of yield increase has been built into the results or whether the yield decrease that is shown assumes constant genetic capacity. At the moment we have increasing yields despite decreasing rainfall; that is, the rate of genetic improvement is exceeding the loss of rainfall as a percentage. Hon Paul Llewellyn : Are we marking time? Hon KIM CHANCE : We are doing better than marking time. We are actually moving ahead of that now. I do not know whether that is in the report. That is something that we need to be alert to as we read the report. However, our rate of genetic improvement is exceeding the losses that we would otherwise have experienced. (3) Not applicable. I table two resource management technical reports. [See paper 2133.]
(b) The reports for wheat and barley will be tabled. This information is readily available in hard copy as Department of Agriculture and Food technical reports on its web site. Studies for lupins, canola and oats are also available, if required, and they show similar results. I did not have much time to review this document prior to providing this answer. What I think might be missing - a reading of the report will reveal this - is whether a factor of yield increase has been built into the results or whether the yield decrease that is shown assumes constant genetic capacity. At the moment we have increasing yields despite decreasing rainfall; that is, the rate of genetic improvement is exceeding the loss of rainfall as a percentage. Hon Paul Llewellyn : Are we marking time? Hon KIM CHANCE : We are doing better than marking time. We are actually moving ahead of that now. I do not know whether that is in the report. That is something that we need to be alert to as we read the report. However, our rate of genetic improvement is exceeding the losses that we would otherwise have experienced. (3) Not applicable. I table two resource management technical reports. [See paper 2133.]
I did not have much time to review this document prior to providing this answer. What I think might be missing - a reading of the report will reveal this - is whether a factor of yield increase has been built into the results or whether the yield decrease that is shown assumes constant genetic capacity. At the moment we have increasing yields despite decreasing rainfall; that is, the rate of genetic improvement is exceeding the loss of rainfall as a percentage. Hon Paul Llewellyn : Are we marking time? Hon KIM CHANCE : We are doing better than marking time. We are actually moving ahead of that now. I do not know whether that is in the report. That is something that we need to be alert to as we read the report. However, our rate of genetic improvement is exceeding the losses that we would otherwise have experienced. (3) Not applicable. I table two resource management technical reports. [See paper 2133.]
Hon Paul Llewellyn : Are we marking time? Hon KIM CHANCE : We are doing better than marking time. We are actually moving ahead of that now. I do not know whether that is in the report. That is something that we need to be alert to as we read the report. However, our rate of genetic improvement is exceeding the losses that we would otherwise have experienced. (3) Not applicable. I table two resource management technical reports. [See paper 2133.]
Hon KIM CHANCE : We are doing better than marking time. We are actually moving ahead of that now. I do not know whether that is in the report. That is something that we need to be alert to as we read the report. However, our rate of genetic improvement is exceeding the losses that we would otherwise have experienced. (3) Not applicable. I table two resource management technical reports. [See paper 2133.]
(3) Not applicable. I table two resource management technical reports. [See paper 2133.]
I table two resource management technical reports. [See paper 2133.]
[See paper 2133.]
(1) Has the government undertaken an assessment of how much agricultural land in Western Australia is likely to become unviable as a result of climate change? (2) If yes - (a) what are the conclusions from that assessment; and (b) will the minister table any report dealing with this issue? (3) If no to (1), why not? No notice was given of part (3). Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Paul Llewellyn for what is a very timely question, given what we have been discussing today. I thank him for giving notice of that part of the question for which he did give notice, which is the bulk of the question. (1) Assessing viability is a difficult matter as it depends on many factors, such as markets, which cannot be predicted over such long time frames. Assessments have, however, been done to estimate the effects on potential crop yields by 2050 if the projected rainfall and temperature changes occur. I think that is about as good a guide - when the member sees the information I think he will agree with me - as we will get. (2) (a) For wheat, the results were as follows: 58 per cent of the area was predicted to have no change - that is, plus or minus 10 per cent; 36 per cent was predicted to have a 10 to 20 per cent decrease in potential yield; three per cent was a 20 to 30 per cent decrease; and three per cent was a greater than 30 per cent decrease. The decreases were predicted to be greatest in the north-eastern wheatbelt. (b) The reports for wheat and barley will be tabled. This information is readily available in hard copy as Department of Agriculture and Food technical reports on its web site. Studies for lupins, canola and oats are also available, if required, and they show similar results. I did not have much time to review this document prior to providing this answer. What I think might be missing - a reading of the report will reveal this - is whether a factor of yield increase has been built into the results or whether the yield decrease that is shown assumes constant genetic capacity. At the moment we have increasing yields despite decreasing rainfall; that is, the rate of genetic improvement is exceeding the loss of rainfall as a percentage. Hon Paul Llewellyn : Are we marking time? Hon KIM CHANCE : We are doing better than marking time. We are actually moving ahead of that now. I do not know whether that is in the report. That is something that we need to be alert to as we read the report. However, our rate of genetic improvement is exceeding the losses that we would otherwise have experienced. (3) Not applicable. I table two resource management technical reports. [See paper 2133.]
(2) If yes - (a) what are the conclusions from that assessment; and (b) will the minister table any report dealing with this issue? (3) If no to (1), why not? No notice was given of part (3). Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Paul Llewellyn for what is a very timely question, given what we have been discussing today. I thank him for giving notice of that part of the question for which he did give notice, which is the bulk of the question. (1) Assessing viability is a difficult matter as it depends on many factors, such as markets, which cannot be predicted over such long time frames. Assessments have, however, been done to estimate the effects on potential crop yields by 2050 if the projected rainfall and temperature changes occur. I think that is about as good a guide - when the member sees the information I think he will agree with me - as we will get. (2) (a) For wheat, the results were as follows: 58 per cent of the area was predicted to have no change - that is, plus or minus 10 per cent; 36 per cent was predicted to have a 10 to 20 per cent decrease in potential yield; three per cent was a 20 to 30 per cent decrease; and three per cent was a greater than 30 per cent decrease. The decreases were predicted to be greatest in the north-eastern wheatbelt. (b) The reports for wheat and barley will be tabled. This information is readily available in hard copy as Department of Agriculture and Food technical reports on its web site. Studies for lupins, canola and oats are also available, if required, and they show similar results. I did not have much time to review this document prior to providing this answer. What I think might be missing - a reading of the report will reveal this - is whether a factor of yield increase has been built into the results or whether the yield decrease that is shown assumes constant genetic capacity. At the moment we have increasing yields despite decreasing rainfall; that is, the rate of genetic improvement is exceeding the loss of rainfall as a percentage. Hon Paul Llewellyn : Are we marking time? Hon KIM CHANCE : We are doing better than marking time. We are actually moving ahead of that now. I do not know whether that is in the report. That is something that we need to be alert to as we read the report. However, our rate of genetic improvement is exceeding the losses that we would otherwise have experienced. (3) Not applicable. I table two resource management technical reports. [See paper 2133.]
(a) what are the conclusions from that assessment; and (b) will the minister table any report dealing with this issue? (3) If no to (1), why not? No notice was given of part (3). Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Paul Llewellyn for what is a very timely question, given what we have been discussing today. I thank him for giving notice of that part of the question for which he did give notice, which is the bulk of the question. (1) Assessing viability is a difficult matter as it depends on many factors, such as markets, which cannot be predicted over such long time frames. Assessments have, however, been done to estimate the effects on potential crop yields by 2050 if the projected rainfall and temperature changes occur. I think that is about as good a guide - when the member sees the information I think he will agree with me - as we will get. (2) (a) For wheat, the results were as follows: 58 per cent of the area was predicted to have no change - that is, plus or minus 10 per cent; 36 per cent was predicted to have a 10 to 20 per cent decrease in potential yield; three per cent was a 20 to 30 per cent decrease; and three per cent was a greater than 30 per cent decrease. The decreases were predicted to be greatest in the north-eastern wheatbelt. (b) The reports for wheat and barley will be tabled. This information is readily available in hard copy as Department of Agriculture and Food technical reports on its web site. Studies for lupins, canola and oats are also available, if required, and they show similar results. I did not have much time to review this document prior to providing this answer. What I think might be missing - a reading of the report will reveal this - is whether a factor of yield increase has been built into the results or whether the yield decrease that is shown assumes constant genetic capacity. At the moment we have increasing yields despite decreasing rainfall; that is, the rate of genetic improvement is exceeding the loss of rainfall as a percentage. Hon Paul Llewellyn : Are we marking time? Hon KIM CHANCE : We are doing better than marking time. We are actually moving ahead of that now. I do not know whether that is in the report. That is something that we need to be alert to as we read the report. However, our rate of genetic improvement is exceeding the losses that we would otherwise have experienced. (3) Not applicable. I table two resource management technical reports. [See paper 2133.]
(b) will the minister table any report dealing with this issue? (3) If no to (1), why not? No notice was given of part (3). Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Paul Llewellyn for what is a very timely question, given what we have been discussing today. I thank him for giving notice of that part of the question for which he did give notice, which is the bulk of the question. (1) Assessing viability is a difficult matter as it depends on many factors, such as markets, which cannot be predicted over such long time frames. Assessments have, however, been done to estimate the effects on potential crop yields by 2050 if the projected rainfall and temperature changes occur. I think that is about as good a guide - when the member sees the information I think he will agree with me - as we will get. (2) (a) For wheat, the results were as follows: 58 per cent of the area was predicted to have no change - that is, plus or minus 10 per cent; 36 per cent was predicted to have a 10 to 20 per cent decrease in potential yield; three per cent was a 20 to 30 per cent decrease; and three per cent was a greater than 30 per cent decrease. The decreases were predicted to be greatest in the north-eastern wheatbelt. (b) The reports for wheat and barley will be tabled. This information is readily available in hard copy as Department of Agriculture and Food technical reports on its web site. Studies for lupins, canola and oats are also available, if required, and they show similar results. I did not have much time to review this document prior to providing this answer. What I think might be missing - a reading of the report will reveal this - is whether a factor of yield increase has been built into the results or whether the yield decrease that is shown assumes constant genetic capacity. At the moment we have increasing yields despite decreasing rainfall; that is, the rate of genetic improvement is exceeding the loss of rainfall as a percentage. Hon Paul Llewellyn : Are we marking time? Hon KIM CHANCE : We are doing better than marking time. We are actually moving ahead of that now. I do not know whether that is in the report. That is something that we need to be alert to as we read the report. However, our rate of genetic improvement is exceeding the losses that we would otherwise have experienced. (3) Not applicable. I table two resource management technical reports. [See paper 2133.]
(3) If no to (1), why not? No notice was given of part (3). Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Paul Llewellyn for what is a very timely question, given what we have been discussing today. I thank him for giving notice of that part of the question for which he did give notice, which is the bulk of the question. (1) Assessing viability is a difficult matter as it depends on many factors, such as markets, which cannot be predicted over such long time frames. Assessments have, however, been done to estimate the effects on potential crop yields by 2050 if the projected rainfall and temperature changes occur. I think that is about as good a guide - when the member sees the information I think he will agree with me - as we will get. (2) (a) For wheat, the results were as follows: 58 per cent of the area was predicted to have no change - that is, plus or minus 10 per cent; 36 per cent was predicted to have a 10 to 20 per cent decrease in potential yield; three per cent was a 20 to 30 per cent decrease; and three per cent was a greater than 30 per cent decrease. The decreases were predicted to be greatest in the north-eastern wheatbelt. (b) The reports for wheat and barley will be tabled. This information is readily available in hard copy as Department of Agriculture and Food technical reports on its web site. Studies for lupins, canola and oats are also available, if required, and they show similar results. I did not have much time to review this document prior to providing this answer. What I think might be missing - a reading of the report will reveal this - is whether a factor of yield increase has been built into the results or whether the yield decrease that is shown assumes constant genetic capacity. At the moment we have increasing yields despite decreasing rainfall; that is, the rate of genetic improvement is exceeding the loss of rainfall as a percentage. Hon Paul Llewellyn : Are we marking time? Hon KIM CHANCE : We are doing better than marking time. We are actually moving ahead of that now. I do not know whether that is in the report. That is something that we need to be alert to as we read the report. However, our rate of genetic improvement is exceeding the losses that we would otherwise have experienced. (3) Not applicable. I table two resource management technical reports. [See paper 2133.]
No notice was given of part (3). Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Paul Llewellyn for what is a very timely question, given what we have been discussing today. I thank him for giving notice of that part of the question for which he did give notice, which is the bulk of the question. (1) Assessing viability is a difficult matter as it depends on many factors, such as markets, which cannot be predicted over such long time frames. Assessments have, however, been done to estimate the effects on potential crop yields by 2050 if the projected rainfall and temperature changes occur. I think that is about as good a guide - when the member sees the information I think he will agree with me - as we will get. (2) (a) For wheat, the results were as follows: 58 per cent of the area was predicted to have no change - that is, plus or minus 10 per cent; 36 per cent was predicted to have a 10 to 20 per cent decrease in potential yield; three per cent was a 20 to 30 per cent decrease; and three per cent was a greater than 30 per cent decrease. The decreases were predicted to be greatest in the north-eastern wheatbelt. (b) The reports for wheat and barley will be tabled. This information is readily available in hard copy as Department of Agriculture and Food technical reports on its web site. Studies for lupins, canola and oats are also available, if required, and they show similar results. I did not have much time to review this document prior to providing this answer. What I think might be missing - a reading of the report will reveal this - is whether a factor of yield increase has been built into the results or whether the yield decrease that is shown assumes constant genetic capacity. At the moment we have increasing yields despite decreasing rainfall; that is, the rate of genetic improvement is exceeding the loss of rainfall as a percentage. Hon Paul Llewellyn : Are we marking time? Hon KIM CHANCE : We are doing better than marking time. We are actually moving ahead of that now. I do not know whether that is in the report. That is something that we need to be alert to as we read the report. However, our rate of genetic improvement is exceeding the losses that we would otherwise have experienced. (3) Not applicable. I table two resource management technical reports. [See paper 2133.]
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Paul Llewellyn for what is a very timely question, given what we have been discussing today. I thank him for giving notice of that part of the question for which he did give notice, which is the bulk of the question. (1) Assessing viability is a difficult matter as it depends on many factors, such as markets, which cannot be predicted over such long time frames. Assessments have, however, been done to estimate the effects on potential crop yields by 2050 if the projected rainfall and temperature changes occur. I think that is about as good a guide - when the member sees the information I think he will agree with me - as we will get. (2) (a) For wheat, the results were as follows: 58 per cent of the area was predicted to have no change - that is, plus or minus 10 per cent; 36 per cent was predicted to have a 10 to 20 per cent decrease in potential yield; three per cent was a 20 to 30 per cent decrease; and three per cent was a greater than 30 per cent decrease. The decreases were predicted to be greatest in the north-eastern wheatbelt. (b) The reports for wheat and barley will be tabled. This information is readily available in hard copy as Department of Agriculture and Food technical reports on its web site. Studies for lupins, canola and oats are also available, if required, and they show similar results. I did not have much time to review this document prior to providing this answer. What I think might be missing - a reading of the report will reveal this - is whether a factor of yield increase has been built into the results or whether the yield decrease that is shown assumes constant genetic capacity. At the moment we have increasing yields despite decreasing rainfall; that is, the rate of genetic improvement is exceeding the loss of rainfall as a percentage. Hon Paul Llewellyn : Are we marking time? Hon KIM CHANCE : We are doing better than marking time. We are actually moving ahead of that now. I do not know whether that is in the report. That is something that we need to be alert to as we read the report. However, our rate of genetic improvement is exceeding the losses that we would otherwise have experienced. (3) Not applicable. I table two resource management technical reports. [See paper 2133.]
I thank Hon Paul Llewellyn for what is a very timely question, given what we have been discussing today. I thank him for giving notice of that part of the question for which he did give notice, which is the bulk of the question. (1) Assessing viability is a difficult matter as it depends on many factors, such as markets, which cannot be predicted over such long time frames. Assessments have, however, been done to estimate the effects on potential crop yields by 2050 if the projected rainfall and temperature changes occur. I think that is about as good a guide - when the member sees the information I think he will agree with me - as we will get. (2) (a) For wheat, the results were as follows: 58 per cent of the area was predicted to have no change - that is, plus or minus 10 per cent; 36 per cent was predicted to have a 10 to 20 per cent decrease in potential yield; three per cent was a 20 to 30 per cent decrease; and three per cent was a greater than 30 per cent decrease. The decreases were predicted to be greatest in the north-eastern wheatbelt. (b) The reports for wheat and barley will be tabled. This information is readily available in hard copy as Department of Agriculture and Food technical reports on its web site. Studies for lupins, canola and oats are also available, if required, and they show similar results. I did not have much time to review this document prior to providing this answer. What I think might be missing - a reading of the report will reveal this - is whether a factor of yield increase has been built into the results or whether the yield decrease that is shown assumes constant genetic capacity. At the moment we have increasing yields despite decreasing rainfall; that is, the rate of genetic improvement is exceeding the loss of rainfall as a percentage. Hon Paul Llewellyn : Are we marking time? Hon KIM CHANCE : We are doing better than marking time. We are actually moving ahead of that now. I do not know whether that is in the report. That is something that we need to be alert to as we read the report. However, our rate of genetic improvement is exceeding the losses that we would otherwise have experienced. (3) Not applicable. I table two resource management technical reports. [See paper 2133.]
(1) Assessing viability is a difficult matter as it depends on many factors, such as markets, which cannot be predicted over such long time frames. Assessments have, however, been done to estimate the effects on potential crop yields by 2050 if the projected rainfall and temperature changes occur. I think that is about as good a guide - when the member sees the information I think he will agree with me - as we will get. (2) (a) For wheat, the results were as follows: 58 per cent of the area was predicted to have no change - that is, plus or minus 10 per cent; 36 per cent was predicted to have a 10 to 20 per cent decrease in potential yield; three per cent was a 20 to 30 per cent decrease; and three per cent was a greater than 30 per cent decrease. The decreases were predicted to be greatest in the north-eastern wheatbelt. (b) The reports for wheat and barley will be tabled. This information is readily available in hard copy as Department of Agriculture and Food technical reports on its web site. Studies for lupins, canola and oats are also available, if required, and they show similar results. I did not have much time to review this document prior to providing this answer. What I think might be missing - a reading of the report will reveal this - is whether a factor of yield increase has been built into the results or whether the yield decrease that is shown assumes constant genetic capacity. At the moment we have increasing yields despite decreasing rainfall; that is, the rate of genetic improvement is exceeding the loss of rainfall as a percentage. Hon Paul Llewellyn : Are we marking time? Hon KIM CHANCE : We are doing better than marking time. We are actually moving ahead of that now. I do not know whether that is in the report. That is something that we need to be alert to as we read the report. However, our rate of genetic improvement is exceeding the losses that we would otherwise have experienced. (3) Not applicable. I table two resource management technical reports. [See paper 2133.]
(2) (a) For wheat, the results were as follows: 58 per cent of the area was predicted to have no change - that is, plus or minus 10 per cent; 36 per cent was predicted to have a 10 to 20 per cent decrease in potential yield; three per cent was a 20 to 30 per cent decrease; and three per cent was a greater than 30 per cent decrease. The decreases were predicted to be greatest in the north-eastern wheatbelt. (b) The reports for wheat and barley will be tabled. This information is readily available in hard copy as Department of Agriculture and Food technical reports on its web site. Studies for lupins, canola and oats are also available, if required, and they show similar results. I did not have much time to review this document prior to providing this answer. What I think might be missing - a reading of the report will reveal this - is whether a factor of yield increase has been built into the results or whether the yield decrease that is shown assumes constant genetic capacity. At the moment we have increasing yields despite decreasing rainfall; that is, the rate of genetic improvement is exceeding the loss of rainfall as a percentage. Hon Paul Llewellyn : Are we marking time? Hon KIM CHANCE : We are doing better than marking time. We are actually moving ahead of that now. I do not know whether that is in the report. That is something that we need to be alert to as we read the report. However, our rate of genetic improvement is exceeding the losses that we would otherwise have experienced. (3) Not applicable. I table two resource management technical reports. [See paper 2133.]
(b) The reports for wheat and barley will be tabled. This information is readily available in hard copy as Department of Agriculture and Food technical reports on its web site. Studies for lupins, canola and oats are also available, if required, and they show similar results. I did not have much time to review this document prior to providing this answer. What I think might be missing - a reading of the report will reveal this - is whether a factor of yield increase has been built into the results or whether the yield decrease that is shown assumes constant genetic capacity. At the moment we have increasing yields despite decreasing rainfall; that is, the rate of genetic improvement is exceeding the loss of rainfall as a percentage. Hon Paul Llewellyn : Are we marking time? Hon KIM CHANCE : We are doing better than marking time. We are actually moving ahead of that now. I do not know whether that is in the report. That is something that we need to be alert to as we read the report. However, our rate of genetic improvement is exceeding the losses that we would otherwise have experienced. (3) Not applicable. I table two resource management technical reports. [See paper 2133.]
I did not have much time to review this document prior to providing this answer. What I think might be missing - a reading of the report will reveal this - is whether a factor of yield increase has been built into the results or whether the yield decrease that is shown assumes constant genetic capacity. At the moment we have increasing yields despite decreasing rainfall; that is, the rate of genetic improvement is exceeding the loss of rainfall as a percentage. Hon Paul Llewellyn : Are we marking time? Hon KIM CHANCE : We are doing better than marking time. We are actually moving ahead of that now. I do not know whether that is in the report. That is something that we need to be alert to as we read the report. However, our rate of genetic improvement is exceeding the losses that we would otherwise have experienced. (3) Not applicable. I table two resource management technical reports. [See paper 2133.]
Hon Paul Llewellyn : Are we marking time? Hon KIM CHANCE : We are doing better than marking time. We are actually moving ahead of that now. I do not know whether that is in the report. That is something that we need to be alert to as we read the report. However, our rate of genetic improvement is exceeding the losses that we would otherwise have experienced. (3) Not applicable. I table two resource management technical reports. [See paper 2133.]
Hon KIM CHANCE : We are doing better than marking time. We are actually moving ahead of that now. I do not know whether that is in the report. That is something that we need to be alert to as we read the report. However, our rate of genetic improvement is exceeding the losses that we would otherwise have experienced. (3) Not applicable. I table two resource management technical reports. [See paper 2133.]
(3) Not applicable. I table two resource management technical reports. [See paper 2133.]
I table two resource management technical reports. [See paper 2133.]
[See paper 2133.]
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.