❓ Hon. Peter Foss questions the Minister for Forestry and Fisheries about the financial impact of forestry decisions, including revenue loss and the cost of assistance packages for affected workers and businesses. The Minister provides figures and outlines the government's approach to supporting the industry transition.
AnsweredQoN 56Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
(1) Has the minister calculated the effect on state revenues of his Government’s decisions on forestry? I refer not only to old-growth forests but also to the locking up of regrowth forests in national parks. (2) Has he calculated the cost of packages necessary to assist people affected by his Government’s decisions on forestry? (3) Is the assistance being contemplated merely to assist people to depart from the industry or is some more positive assistance contemplated? (4) Where will the money come from to pay for these packages? (5) Has the minister progressed from his earlier answer to the timber industry that he did not have the faintest idea? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
I know I should not answer a question with a question, but did I really say that? Hon Peter Foss: You did. Hon KIM CHANCE: I am pleased to provide an answer to that question, of which I did not receive any notice. (1)-(2) The effect on state revenue has been calculated. It could have been calculated in a number of ways. In gross terms the loss of stumpage could be calculated at about $12.5 million a year. Over a four-year program it will be approximately $50 million. Bearing in mind that is a gross figure, a number of offsetting issues will reduce that. I would be speculating if I tried to provide a net figure. However, in the spirit of answering the question I can advise that it will be in the order of $2.5 million to $3 million per annum. That is my best shot at answering a fairly complex question without notice. Hon Peter Foss: If you take the other amounts out, less money will be available to the public. Hon KIM CHANCE: It will be. The net sum is costed into our total financial consideration. It is fairly well understood that we had anticipated spending $57 million on the program, which includes the allocation of $15 million from the Commonwealth, which funding we understand to be assured within the package and have heard nothing to suggest that the Commonwealth will not come on board. (3) No. Two important components of the assistance package deal with departures; that is, the worker assistance package, which includes a suite of issues such as training and relocation, which are treated as departure issues; and, of course, the business exit assistance, which is also departure assistance. However, we have already seen an important component of the package work to some extent with both the Nannup Sawmill and Blueleaf Corporation Pty Ltd. Hon Peter Foss: Neither of which were started by you. Hon KIM CHANCE: I am happy to acknowledge that. Blueleaf Corporation was started and completed by the former Government. Nannup Sawmill was started by the former Government and completed by the current Government. They have provided an interesting model for the future. The Sotico Pty Ltd issue is an extension of that model. The investment attraction is an important component of the package, a component about which the Government is very enthusiastic. The more money we pump into the investment component of the package the less money will be required to be spent elsewhere. As the issue develops that will be obvious, particularly in Manjimup, with value adding flowing from the Sotico decision. The most difficult thing about trying to calculate the quantum of the whole package - that is, with those two exit provisions and the investment attraction issue - is getting away from ring fencing the three components. Although we try to determine a set number for each component, every time one changes it has an impact on the other. That can be healthy, but Treasury insists we have fairly clear guidelines for each component. I think in practice they will be shown to be very flexible. Although Hon Peter Foss did not ask about the business exit allowance, it will be difficult, consequently, for me to tell the House exactly how much money has been allocated for the business exit allowance, for example. Hon Peter Foss: How much has been allocated and found overall? Hon KIM CHANCE: At this stage it is $57 million. Hon Peter Foss: Has it been allocated and approved by Cabinet? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The question of whether it will be sufficient has been addressed by the Government, and I believe we can find more if it is needed. It is not our intention to bean count on this; we want to fulfil our objective and cause the least amount of pain to the south west communities as possible.
(2) Has he calculated the cost of packages necessary to assist people affected by his Government’s decisions on forestry? (3) Is the assistance being contemplated merely to assist people to depart from the industry or is some more positive assistance contemplated? (4) Where will the money come from to pay for these packages? (5) Has the minister progressed from his earlier answer to the timber industry that he did not have the faintest idea? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I know I should not answer a question with a question, but did I really say that? Hon Peter Foss: You did. Hon KIM CHANCE: I am pleased to provide an answer to that question, of which I did not receive any notice. (1)-(2) The effect on state revenue has been calculated. It could have been calculated in a number of ways. In gross terms the loss of stumpage could be calculated at about $12.5 million a year. Over a four-year program it will be approximately $50 million. Bearing in mind that is a gross figure, a number of offsetting issues will reduce that. I would be speculating if I tried to provide a net figure. However, in the spirit of answering the question I can advise that it will be in the order of $2.5 million to $3 million per annum. That is my best shot at answering a fairly complex question without notice. Hon Peter Foss: If you take the other amounts out, less money will be available to the public. Hon KIM CHANCE: It will be. The net sum is costed into our total financial consideration. It is fairly well understood that we had anticipated spending $57 million on the program, which includes the allocation of $15 million from the Commonwealth, which funding we understand to be assured within the package and have heard nothing to suggest that the Commonwealth will not come on board. (3) No. Two important components of the assistance package deal with departures; that is, the worker assistance package, which includes a suite of issues such as training and relocation, which are treated as departure issues; and, of course, the business exit assistance, which is also departure assistance. However, we have already seen an important component of the package work to some extent with both the Nannup Sawmill and Blueleaf Corporation Pty Ltd. Hon Peter Foss: Neither of which were started by you. Hon KIM CHANCE: I am happy to acknowledge that. Blueleaf Corporation was started and completed by the former Government. Nannup Sawmill was started by the former Government and completed by the current Government. They have provided an interesting model for the future. The Sotico Pty Ltd issue is an extension of that model. The investment attraction is an important component of the package, a component about which the Government is very enthusiastic. The more money we pump into the investment component of the package the less money will be required to be spent elsewhere. As the issue develops that will be obvious, particularly in Manjimup, with value adding flowing from the Sotico decision. The most difficult thing about trying to calculate the quantum of the whole package - that is, with those two exit provisions and the investment attraction issue - is getting away from ring fencing the three components. Although we try to determine a set number for each component, every time one changes it has an impact on the other. That can be healthy, but Treasury insists we have fairly clear guidelines for each component. I think in practice they will be shown to be very flexible. Although Hon Peter Foss did not ask about the business exit allowance, it will be difficult, consequently, for me to tell the House exactly how much money has been allocated for the business exit allowance, for example. Hon Peter Foss: How much has been allocated and found overall? Hon KIM CHANCE: At this stage it is $57 million. Hon Peter Foss: Has it been allocated and approved by Cabinet? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The question of whether it will be sufficient has been addressed by the Government, and I believe we can find more if it is needed. It is not our intention to bean count on this; we want to fulfil our objective and cause the least amount of pain to the south west communities as possible.
(3) Is the assistance being contemplated merely to assist people to depart from the industry or is some more positive assistance contemplated? (4) Where will the money come from to pay for these packages? (5) Has the minister progressed from his earlier answer to the timber industry that he did not have the faintest idea? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I know I should not answer a question with a question, but did I really say that? Hon Peter Foss: You did. Hon KIM CHANCE: I am pleased to provide an answer to that question, of which I did not receive any notice. (1)-(2) The effect on state revenue has been calculated. It could have been calculated in a number of ways. In gross terms the loss of stumpage could be calculated at about $12.5 million a year. Over a four-year program it will be approximately $50 million. Bearing in mind that is a gross figure, a number of offsetting issues will reduce that. I would be speculating if I tried to provide a net figure. However, in the spirit of answering the question I can advise that it will be in the order of $2.5 million to $3 million per annum. That is my best shot at answering a fairly complex question without notice. Hon Peter Foss: If you take the other amounts out, less money will be available to the public. Hon KIM CHANCE: It will be. The net sum is costed into our total financial consideration. It is fairly well understood that we had anticipated spending $57 million on the program, which includes the allocation of $15 million from the Commonwealth, which funding we understand to be assured within the package and have heard nothing to suggest that the Commonwealth will not come on board. (3) No. Two important components of the assistance package deal with departures; that is, the worker assistance package, which includes a suite of issues such as training and relocation, which are treated as departure issues; and, of course, the business exit assistance, which is also departure assistance. However, we have already seen an important component of the package work to some extent with both the Nannup Sawmill and Blueleaf Corporation Pty Ltd. Hon Peter Foss: Neither of which were started by you. Hon KIM CHANCE: I am happy to acknowledge that. Blueleaf Corporation was started and completed by the former Government. Nannup Sawmill was started by the former Government and completed by the current Government. They have provided an interesting model for the future. The Sotico Pty Ltd issue is an extension of that model. The investment attraction is an important component of the package, a component about which the Government is very enthusiastic. The more money we pump into the investment component of the package the less money will be required to be spent elsewhere. As the issue develops that will be obvious, particularly in Manjimup, with value adding flowing from the Sotico decision. The most difficult thing about trying to calculate the quantum of the whole package - that is, with those two exit provisions and the investment attraction issue - is getting away from ring fencing the three components. Although we try to determine a set number for each component, every time one changes it has an impact on the other. That can be healthy, but Treasury insists we have fairly clear guidelines for each component. I think in practice they will be shown to be very flexible. Although Hon Peter Foss did not ask about the business exit allowance, it will be difficult, consequently, for me to tell the House exactly how much money has been allocated for the business exit allowance, for example. Hon Peter Foss: How much has been allocated and found overall? Hon KIM CHANCE: At this stage it is $57 million. Hon Peter Foss: Has it been allocated and approved by Cabinet? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The question of whether it will be sufficient has been addressed by the Government, and I believe we can find more if it is needed. It is not our intention to bean count on this; we want to fulfil our objective and cause the least amount of pain to the south west communities as possible.
(4) Where will the money come from to pay for these packages? (5) Has the minister progressed from his earlier answer to the timber industry that he did not have the faintest idea? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I know I should not answer a question with a question, but did I really say that? Hon Peter Foss: You did. Hon KIM CHANCE: I am pleased to provide an answer to that question, of which I did not receive any notice. (1)-(2) The effect on state revenue has been calculated. It could have been calculated in a number of ways. In gross terms the loss of stumpage could be calculated at about $12.5 million a year. Over a four-year program it will be approximately $50 million. Bearing in mind that is a gross figure, a number of offsetting issues will reduce that. I would be speculating if I tried to provide a net figure. However, in the spirit of answering the question I can advise that it will be in the order of $2.5 million to $3 million per annum. That is my best shot at answering a fairly complex question without notice. Hon Peter Foss: If you take the other amounts out, less money will be available to the public. Hon KIM CHANCE: It will be. The net sum is costed into our total financial consideration. It is fairly well understood that we had anticipated spending $57 million on the program, which includes the allocation of $15 million from the Commonwealth, which funding we understand to be assured within the package and have heard nothing to suggest that the Commonwealth will not come on board. (3) No. Two important components of the assistance package deal with departures; that is, the worker assistance package, which includes a suite of issues such as training and relocation, which are treated as departure issues; and, of course, the business exit assistance, which is also departure assistance. However, we have already seen an important component of the package work to some extent with both the Nannup Sawmill and Blueleaf Corporation Pty Ltd. Hon Peter Foss: Neither of which were started by you. Hon KIM CHANCE: I am happy to acknowledge that. Blueleaf Corporation was started and completed by the former Government. Nannup Sawmill was started by the former Government and completed by the current Government. They have provided an interesting model for the future. The Sotico Pty Ltd issue is an extension of that model. The investment attraction is an important component of the package, a component about which the Government is very enthusiastic. The more money we pump into the investment component of the package the less money will be required to be spent elsewhere. As the issue develops that will be obvious, particularly in Manjimup, with value adding flowing from the Sotico decision. The most difficult thing about trying to calculate the quantum of the whole package - that is, with those two exit provisions and the investment attraction issue - is getting away from ring fencing the three components. Although we try to determine a set number for each component, every time one changes it has an impact on the other. That can be healthy, but Treasury insists we have fairly clear guidelines for each component. I think in practice they will be shown to be very flexible. Although Hon Peter Foss did not ask about the business exit allowance, it will be difficult, consequently, for me to tell the House exactly how much money has been allocated for the business exit allowance, for example. Hon Peter Foss: How much has been allocated and found overall? Hon KIM CHANCE: At this stage it is $57 million. Hon Peter Foss: Has it been allocated and approved by Cabinet? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The question of whether it will be sufficient has been addressed by the Government, and I believe we can find more if it is needed. It is not our intention to bean count on this; we want to fulfil our objective and cause the least amount of pain to the south west communities as possible.
(5) Has the minister progressed from his earlier answer to the timber industry that he did not have the faintest idea? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I know I should not answer a question with a question, but did I really say that? Hon Peter Foss: You did. Hon KIM CHANCE: I am pleased to provide an answer to that question, of which I did not receive any notice. (1)-(2) The effect on state revenue has been calculated. It could have been calculated in a number of ways. In gross terms the loss of stumpage could be calculated at about $12.5 million a year. Over a four-year program it will be approximately $50 million. Bearing in mind that is a gross figure, a number of offsetting issues will reduce that. I would be speculating if I tried to provide a net figure. However, in the spirit of answering the question I can advise that it will be in the order of $2.5 million to $3 million per annum. That is my best shot at answering a fairly complex question without notice. Hon Peter Foss: If you take the other amounts out, less money will be available to the public. Hon KIM CHANCE: It will be. The net sum is costed into our total financial consideration. It is fairly well understood that we had anticipated spending $57 million on the program, which includes the allocation of $15 million from the Commonwealth, which funding we understand to be assured within the package and have heard nothing to suggest that the Commonwealth will not come on board. (3) No. Two important components of the assistance package deal with departures; that is, the worker assistance package, which includes a suite of issues such as training and relocation, which are treated as departure issues; and, of course, the business exit assistance, which is also departure assistance. However, we have already seen an important component of the package work to some extent with both the Nannup Sawmill and Blueleaf Corporation Pty Ltd. Hon Peter Foss: Neither of which were started by you. Hon KIM CHANCE: I am happy to acknowledge that. Blueleaf Corporation was started and completed by the former Government. Nannup Sawmill was started by the former Government and completed by the current Government. They have provided an interesting model for the future. The Sotico Pty Ltd issue is an extension of that model. The investment attraction is an important component of the package, a component about which the Government is very enthusiastic. The more money we pump into the investment component of the package the less money will be required to be spent elsewhere. As the issue develops that will be obvious, particularly in Manjimup, with value adding flowing from the Sotico decision. The most difficult thing about trying to calculate the quantum of the whole package - that is, with those two exit provisions and the investment attraction issue - is getting away from ring fencing the three components. Although we try to determine a set number for each component, every time one changes it has an impact on the other. That can be healthy, but Treasury insists we have fairly clear guidelines for each component. I think in practice they will be shown to be very flexible. Although Hon Peter Foss did not ask about the business exit allowance, it will be difficult, consequently, for me to tell the House exactly how much money has been allocated for the business exit allowance, for example. Hon Peter Foss: How much has been allocated and found overall? Hon KIM CHANCE: At this stage it is $57 million. Hon Peter Foss: Has it been allocated and approved by Cabinet? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The question of whether it will be sufficient has been addressed by the Government, and I believe we can find more if it is needed. It is not our intention to bean count on this; we want to fulfil our objective and cause the least amount of pain to the south west communities as possible.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I know I should not answer a question with a question, but did I really say that? Hon Peter Foss: You did. Hon KIM CHANCE: I am pleased to provide an answer to that question, of which I did not receive any notice. (1)-(2) The effect on state revenue has been calculated. It could have been calculated in a number of ways. In gross terms the loss of stumpage could be calculated at about $12.5 million a year. Over a four-year program it will be approximately $50 million. Bearing in mind that is a gross figure, a number of offsetting issues will reduce that. I would be speculating if I tried to provide a net figure. However, in the spirit of answering the question I can advise that it will be in the order of $2.5 million to $3 million per annum. That is my best shot at answering a fairly complex question without notice. Hon Peter Foss: If you take the other amounts out, less money will be available to the public. Hon KIM CHANCE: It will be. The net sum is costed into our total financial consideration. It is fairly well understood that we had anticipated spending $57 million on the program, which includes the allocation of $15 million from the Commonwealth, which funding we understand to be assured within the package and have heard nothing to suggest that the Commonwealth will not come on board. (3) No. Two important components of the assistance package deal with departures; that is, the worker assistance package, which includes a suite of issues such as training and relocation, which are treated as departure issues; and, of course, the business exit assistance, which is also departure assistance. However, we have already seen an important component of the package work to some extent with both the Nannup Sawmill and Blueleaf Corporation Pty Ltd. Hon Peter Foss: Neither of which were started by you. Hon KIM CHANCE: I am happy to acknowledge that. Blueleaf Corporation was started and completed by the former Government. Nannup Sawmill was started by the former Government and completed by the current Government. They have provided an interesting model for the future. The Sotico Pty Ltd issue is an extension of that model. The investment attraction is an important component of the package, a component about which the Government is very enthusiastic. The more money we pump into the investment component of the package the less money will be required to be spent elsewhere. As the issue develops that will be obvious, particularly in Manjimup, with value adding flowing from the Sotico decision. The most difficult thing about trying to calculate the quantum of the whole package - that is, with those two exit provisions and the investment attraction issue - is getting away from ring fencing the three components. Although we try to determine a set number for each component, every time one changes it has an impact on the other. That can be healthy, but Treasury insists we have fairly clear guidelines for each component. I think in practice they will be shown to be very flexible. Although Hon Peter Foss did not ask about the business exit allowance, it will be difficult, consequently, for me to tell the House exactly how much money has been allocated for the business exit allowance, for example. Hon Peter Foss: How much has been allocated and found overall? Hon KIM CHANCE: At this stage it is $57 million. Hon Peter Foss: Has it been allocated and approved by Cabinet? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The question of whether it will be sufficient has been addressed by the Government, and I believe we can find more if it is needed. It is not our intention to bean count on this; we want to fulfil our objective and cause the least amount of pain to the south west communities as possible.
I know I should not answer a question with a question, but did I really say that? Hon Peter Foss: You did. Hon KIM CHANCE: I am pleased to provide an answer to that question, of which I did not receive any notice. (1)-(2) The effect on state revenue has been calculated. It could have been calculated in a number of ways. In gross terms the loss of stumpage could be calculated at about $12.5 million a year. Over a four-year program it will be approximately $50 million. Bearing in mind that is a gross figure, a number of offsetting issues will reduce that. I would be speculating if I tried to provide a net figure. However, in the spirit of answering the question I can advise that it will be in the order of $2.5 million to $3 million per annum. That is my best shot at answering a fairly complex question without notice. Hon Peter Foss: If you take the other amounts out, less money will be available to the public. Hon KIM CHANCE: It will be. The net sum is costed into our total financial consideration. It is fairly well understood that we had anticipated spending $57 million on the program, which includes the allocation of $15 million from the Commonwealth, which funding we understand to be assured within the package and have heard nothing to suggest that the Commonwealth will not come on board. (3) No. Two important components of the assistance package deal with departures; that is, the worker assistance package, which includes a suite of issues such as training and relocation, which are treated as departure issues; and, of course, the business exit assistance, which is also departure assistance. However, we have already seen an important component of the package work to some extent with both the Nannup Sawmill and Blueleaf Corporation Pty Ltd. Hon Peter Foss: Neither of which were started by you. Hon KIM CHANCE: I am happy to acknowledge that. Blueleaf Corporation was started and completed by the former Government. Nannup Sawmill was started by the former Government and completed by the current Government. They have provided an interesting model for the future. The Sotico Pty Ltd issue is an extension of that model. The investment attraction is an important component of the package, a component about which the Government is very enthusiastic. The more money we pump into the investment component of the package the less money will be required to be spent elsewhere. As the issue develops that will be obvious, particularly in Manjimup, with value adding flowing from the Sotico decision. The most difficult thing about trying to calculate the quantum of the whole package - that is, with those two exit provisions and the investment attraction issue - is getting away from ring fencing the three components. Although we try to determine a set number for each component, every time one changes it has an impact on the other. That can be healthy, but Treasury insists we have fairly clear guidelines for each component. I think in practice they will be shown to be very flexible. Although Hon Peter Foss did not ask about the business exit allowance, it will be difficult, consequently, for me to tell the House exactly how much money has been allocated for the business exit allowance, for example. Hon Peter Foss: How much has been allocated and found overall? Hon KIM CHANCE: At this stage it is $57 million. Hon Peter Foss: Has it been allocated and approved by Cabinet? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The question of whether it will be sufficient has been addressed by the Government, and I believe we can find more if it is needed. It is not our intention to bean count on this; we want to fulfil our objective and cause the least amount of pain to the south west communities as possible.
Hon Peter Foss: You did. Hon KIM CHANCE: I am pleased to provide an answer to that question, of which I did not receive any notice. (1)-(2) The effect on state revenue has been calculated. It could have been calculated in a number of ways. In gross terms the loss of stumpage could be calculated at about $12.5 million a year. Over a four-year program it will be approximately $50 million. Bearing in mind that is a gross figure, a number of offsetting issues will reduce that. I would be speculating if I tried to provide a net figure. However, in the spirit of answering the question I can advise that it will be in the order of $2.5 million to $3 million per annum. That is my best shot at answering a fairly complex question without notice. Hon Peter Foss: If you take the other amounts out, less money will be available to the public. Hon KIM CHANCE: It will be. The net sum is costed into our total financial consideration. It is fairly well understood that we had anticipated spending $57 million on the program, which includes the allocation of $15 million from the Commonwealth, which funding we understand to be assured within the package and have heard nothing to suggest that the Commonwealth will not come on board. (3) No. Two important components of the assistance package deal with departures; that is, the worker assistance package, which includes a suite of issues such as training and relocation, which are treated as departure issues; and, of course, the business exit assistance, which is also departure assistance. However, we have already seen an important component of the package work to some extent with both the Nannup Sawmill and Blueleaf Corporation Pty Ltd. Hon Peter Foss: Neither of which were started by you. Hon KIM CHANCE: I am happy to acknowledge that. Blueleaf Corporation was started and completed by the former Government. Nannup Sawmill was started by the former Government and completed by the current Government. They have provided an interesting model for the future. The Sotico Pty Ltd issue is an extension of that model. The investment attraction is an important component of the package, a component about which the Government is very enthusiastic. The more money we pump into the investment component of the package the less money will be required to be spent elsewhere. As the issue develops that will be obvious, particularly in Manjimup, with value adding flowing from the Sotico decision. The most difficult thing about trying to calculate the quantum of the whole package - that is, with those two exit provisions and the investment attraction issue - is getting away from ring fencing the three components. Although we try to determine a set number for each component, every time one changes it has an impact on the other. That can be healthy, but Treasury insists we have fairly clear guidelines for each component. I think in practice they will be shown to be very flexible. Although Hon Peter Foss did not ask about the business exit allowance, it will be difficult, consequently, for me to tell the House exactly how much money has been allocated for the business exit allowance, for example. Hon Peter Foss: How much has been allocated and found overall? Hon KIM CHANCE: At this stage it is $57 million. Hon Peter Foss: Has it been allocated and approved by Cabinet? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The question of whether it will be sufficient has been addressed by the Government, and I believe we can find more if it is needed. It is not our intention to bean count on this; we want to fulfil our objective and cause the least amount of pain to the south west communities as possible.
Hon KIM CHANCE: I am pleased to provide an answer to that question, of which I did not receive any notice. (1)-(2) The effect on state revenue has been calculated. It could have been calculated in a number of ways. In gross terms the loss of stumpage could be calculated at about $12.5 million a year. Over a four-year program it will be approximately $50 million. Bearing in mind that is a gross figure, a number of offsetting issues will reduce that. I would be speculating if I tried to provide a net figure. However, in the spirit of answering the question I can advise that it will be in the order of $2.5 million to $3 million per annum. That is my best shot at answering a fairly complex question without notice. Hon Peter Foss: If you take the other amounts out, less money will be available to the public. Hon KIM CHANCE: It will be. The net sum is costed into our total financial consideration. It is fairly well understood that we had anticipated spending $57 million on the program, which includes the allocation of $15 million from the Commonwealth, which funding we understand to be assured within the package and have heard nothing to suggest that the Commonwealth will not come on board. (3) No. Two important components of the assistance package deal with departures; that is, the worker assistance package, which includes a suite of issues such as training and relocation, which are treated as departure issues; and, of course, the business exit assistance, which is also departure assistance. However, we have already seen an important component of the package work to some extent with both the Nannup Sawmill and Blueleaf Corporation Pty Ltd. Hon Peter Foss: Neither of which were started by you. Hon KIM CHANCE: I am happy to acknowledge that. Blueleaf Corporation was started and completed by the former Government. Nannup Sawmill was started by the former Government and completed by the current Government. They have provided an interesting model for the future. The Sotico Pty Ltd issue is an extension of that model. The investment attraction is an important component of the package, a component about which the Government is very enthusiastic. The more money we pump into the investment component of the package the less money will be required to be spent elsewhere. As the issue develops that will be obvious, particularly in Manjimup, with value adding flowing from the Sotico decision. The most difficult thing about trying to calculate the quantum of the whole package - that is, with those two exit provisions and the investment attraction issue - is getting away from ring fencing the three components. Although we try to determine a set number for each component, every time one changes it has an impact on the other. That can be healthy, but Treasury insists we have fairly clear guidelines for each component. I think in practice they will be shown to be very flexible. Although Hon Peter Foss did not ask about the business exit allowance, it will be difficult, consequently, for me to tell the House exactly how much money has been allocated for the business exit allowance, for example. Hon Peter Foss: How much has been allocated and found overall? Hon KIM CHANCE: At this stage it is $57 million. Hon Peter Foss: Has it been allocated and approved by Cabinet? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The question of whether it will be sufficient has been addressed by the Government, and I believe we can find more if it is needed. It is not our intention to bean count on this; we want to fulfil our objective and cause the least amount of pain to the south west communities as possible.
(1)-(2) The effect on state revenue has been calculated. It could have been calculated in a number of ways. In gross terms the loss of stumpage could be calculated at about $12.5 million a year. Over a four-year program it will be approximately $50 million. Bearing in mind that is a gross figure, a number of offsetting issues will reduce that. I would be speculating if I tried to provide a net figure. However, in the spirit of answering the question I can advise that it will be in the order of $2.5 million to $3 million per annum. That is my best shot at answering a fairly complex question without notice. Hon Peter Foss: If you take the other amounts out, less money will be available to the public. Hon KIM CHANCE: It will be. The net sum is costed into our total financial consideration. It is fairly well understood that we had anticipated spending $57 million on the program, which includes the allocation of $15 million from the Commonwealth, which funding we understand to be assured within the package and have heard nothing to suggest that the Commonwealth will not come on board. (3) No. Two important components of the assistance package deal with departures; that is, the worker assistance package, which includes a suite of issues such as training and relocation, which are treated as departure issues; and, of course, the business exit assistance, which is also departure assistance. However, we have already seen an important component of the package work to some extent with both the Nannup Sawmill and Blueleaf Corporation Pty Ltd. Hon Peter Foss: Neither of which were started by you. Hon KIM CHANCE: I am happy to acknowledge that. Blueleaf Corporation was started and completed by the former Government. Nannup Sawmill was started by the former Government and completed by the current Government. They have provided an interesting model for the future. The Sotico Pty Ltd issue is an extension of that model. The investment attraction is an important component of the package, a component about which the Government is very enthusiastic. The more money we pump into the investment component of the package the less money will be required to be spent elsewhere. As the issue develops that will be obvious, particularly in Manjimup, with value adding flowing from the Sotico decision. The most difficult thing about trying to calculate the quantum of the whole package - that is, with those two exit provisions and the investment attraction issue - is getting away from ring fencing the three components. Although we try to determine a set number for each component, every time one changes it has an impact on the other. That can be healthy, but Treasury insists we have fairly clear guidelines for each component. I think in practice they will be shown to be very flexible. Although Hon Peter Foss did not ask about the business exit allowance, it will be difficult, consequently, for me to tell the House exactly how much money has been allocated for the business exit allowance, for example. Hon Peter Foss: How much has been allocated and found overall? Hon KIM CHANCE: At this stage it is $57 million. Hon Peter Foss: Has it been allocated and approved by Cabinet? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The question of whether it will be sufficient has been addressed by the Government, and I believe we can find more if it is needed. It is not our intention to bean count on this; we want to fulfil our objective and cause the least amount of pain to the south west communities as possible.
Hon Peter Foss: If you take the other amounts out, less money will be available to the public. Hon KIM CHANCE: It will be. The net sum is costed into our total financial consideration. It is fairly well understood that we had anticipated spending $57 million on the program, which includes the allocation of $15 million from the Commonwealth, which funding we understand to be assured within the package and have heard nothing to suggest that the Commonwealth will not come on board. (3) No. Two important components of the assistance package deal with departures; that is, the worker assistance package, which includes a suite of issues such as training and relocation, which are treated as departure issues; and, of course, the business exit assistance, which is also departure assistance. However, we have already seen an important component of the package work to some extent with both the Nannup Sawmill and Blueleaf Corporation Pty Ltd. Hon Peter Foss: Neither of which were started by you. Hon KIM CHANCE: I am happy to acknowledge that. Blueleaf Corporation was started and completed by the former Government. Nannup Sawmill was started by the former Government and completed by the current Government. They have provided an interesting model for the future. The Sotico Pty Ltd issue is an extension of that model. The investment attraction is an important component of the package, a component about which the Government is very enthusiastic. The more money we pump into the investment component of the package the less money will be required to be spent elsewhere. As the issue develops that will be obvious, particularly in Manjimup, with value adding flowing from the Sotico decision. The most difficult thing about trying to calculate the quantum of the whole package - that is, with those two exit provisions and the investment attraction issue - is getting away from ring fencing the three components. Although we try to determine a set number for each component, every time one changes it has an impact on the other. That can be healthy, but Treasury insists we have fairly clear guidelines for each component. I think in practice they will be shown to be very flexible. Although Hon Peter Foss did not ask about the business exit allowance, it will be difficult, consequently, for me to tell the House exactly how much money has been allocated for the business exit allowance, for example. Hon Peter Foss: How much has been allocated and found overall? Hon KIM CHANCE: At this stage it is $57 million. Hon Peter Foss: Has it been allocated and approved by Cabinet? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The question of whether it will be sufficient has been addressed by the Government, and I believe we can find more if it is needed. It is not our intention to bean count on this; we want to fulfil our objective and cause the least amount of pain to the south west communities as possible.
Hon KIM CHANCE: It will be. The net sum is costed into our total financial consideration. It is fairly well understood that we had anticipated spending $57 million on the program, which includes the allocation of $15 million from the Commonwealth, which funding we understand to be assured within the package and have heard nothing to suggest that the Commonwealth will not come on board. (3) No. Two important components of the assistance package deal with departures; that is, the worker assistance package, which includes a suite of issues such as training and relocation, which are treated as departure issues; and, of course, the business exit assistance, which is also departure assistance. However, we have already seen an important component of the package work to some extent with both the Nannup Sawmill and Blueleaf Corporation Pty Ltd. Hon Peter Foss: Neither of which were started by you. Hon KIM CHANCE: I am happy to acknowledge that. Blueleaf Corporation was started and completed by the former Government. Nannup Sawmill was started by the former Government and completed by the current Government. They have provided an interesting model for the future. The Sotico Pty Ltd issue is an extension of that model. The investment attraction is an important component of the package, a component about which the Government is very enthusiastic. The more money we pump into the investment component of the package the less money will be required to be spent elsewhere. As the issue develops that will be obvious, particularly in Manjimup, with value adding flowing from the Sotico decision. The most difficult thing about trying to calculate the quantum of the whole package - that is, with those two exit provisions and the investment attraction issue - is getting away from ring fencing the three components. Although we try to determine a set number for each component, every time one changes it has an impact on the other. That can be healthy, but Treasury insists we have fairly clear guidelines for each component. I think in practice they will be shown to be very flexible. Although Hon Peter Foss did not ask about the business exit allowance, it will be difficult, consequently, for me to tell the House exactly how much money has been allocated for the business exit allowance, for example. Hon Peter Foss: How much has been allocated and found overall? Hon KIM CHANCE: At this stage it is $57 million. Hon Peter Foss: Has it been allocated and approved by Cabinet? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The question of whether it will be sufficient has been addressed by the Government, and I believe we can find more if it is needed. It is not our intention to bean count on this; we want to fulfil our objective and cause the least amount of pain to the south west communities as possible.
(3) No. Two important components of the assistance package deal with departures; that is, the worker assistance package, which includes a suite of issues such as training and relocation, which are treated as departure issues; and, of course, the business exit assistance, which is also departure assistance. However, we have already seen an important component of the package work to some extent with both the Nannup Sawmill and Blueleaf Corporation Pty Ltd. Hon Peter Foss: Neither of which were started by you. Hon KIM CHANCE: I am happy to acknowledge that. Blueleaf Corporation was started and completed by the former Government. Nannup Sawmill was started by the former Government and completed by the current Government. They have provided an interesting model for the future. The Sotico Pty Ltd issue is an extension of that model. The investment attraction is an important component of the package, a component about which the Government is very enthusiastic. The more money we pump into the investment component of the package the less money will be required to be spent elsewhere. As the issue develops that will be obvious, particularly in Manjimup, with value adding flowing from the Sotico decision. The most difficult thing about trying to calculate the quantum of the whole package - that is, with those two exit provisions and the investment attraction issue - is getting away from ring fencing the three components. Although we try to determine a set number for each component, every time one changes it has an impact on the other. That can be healthy, but Treasury insists we have fairly clear guidelines for each component. I think in practice they will be shown to be very flexible. Although Hon Peter Foss did not ask about the business exit allowance, it will be difficult, consequently, for me to tell the House exactly how much money has been allocated for the business exit allowance, for example. Hon Peter Foss: How much has been allocated and found overall? Hon KIM CHANCE: At this stage it is $57 million. Hon Peter Foss: Has it been allocated and approved by Cabinet? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The question of whether it will be sufficient has been addressed by the Government, and I believe we can find more if it is needed. It is not our intention to bean count on this; we want to fulfil our objective and cause the least amount of pain to the south west communities as possible.
Hon Peter Foss: Neither of which were started by you. Hon KIM CHANCE: I am happy to acknowledge that. Blueleaf Corporation was started and completed by the former Government. Nannup Sawmill was started by the former Government and completed by the current Government. They have provided an interesting model for the future. The Sotico Pty Ltd issue is an extension of that model. The investment attraction is an important component of the package, a component about which the Government is very enthusiastic. The more money we pump into the investment component of the package the less money will be required to be spent elsewhere. As the issue develops that will be obvious, particularly in Manjimup, with value adding flowing from the Sotico decision. The most difficult thing about trying to calculate the quantum of the whole package - that is, with those two exit provisions and the investment attraction issue - is getting away from ring fencing the three components. Although we try to determine a set number for each component, every time one changes it has an impact on the other. That can be healthy, but Treasury insists we have fairly clear guidelines for each component. I think in practice they will be shown to be very flexible. Although Hon Peter Foss did not ask about the business exit allowance, it will be difficult, consequently, for me to tell the House exactly how much money has been allocated for the business exit allowance, for example. Hon Peter Foss: How much has been allocated and found overall? Hon KIM CHANCE: At this stage it is $57 million. Hon Peter Foss: Has it been allocated and approved by Cabinet? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The question of whether it will be sufficient has been addressed by the Government, and I believe we can find more if it is needed. It is not our intention to bean count on this; we want to fulfil our objective and cause the least amount of pain to the south west communities as possible.
Hon KIM CHANCE: I am happy to acknowledge that. Blueleaf Corporation was started and completed by the former Government. Nannup Sawmill was started by the former Government and completed by the current Government. They have provided an interesting model for the future. The Sotico Pty Ltd issue is an extension of that model. The investment attraction is an important component of the package, a component about which the Government is very enthusiastic. The more money we pump into the investment component of the package the less money will be required to be spent elsewhere. As the issue develops that will be obvious, particularly in Manjimup, with value adding flowing from the Sotico decision. The most difficult thing about trying to calculate the quantum of the whole package - that is, with those two exit provisions and the investment attraction issue - is getting away from ring fencing the three components. Although we try to determine a set number for each component, every time one changes it has an impact on the other. That can be healthy, but Treasury insists we have fairly clear guidelines for each component. I think in practice they will be shown to be very flexible. Although Hon Peter Foss did not ask about the business exit allowance, it will be difficult, consequently, for me to tell the House exactly how much money has been allocated for the business exit allowance, for example. Hon Peter Foss: How much has been allocated and found overall? Hon KIM CHANCE: At this stage it is $57 million. Hon Peter Foss: Has it been allocated and approved by Cabinet? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The question of whether it will be sufficient has been addressed by the Government, and I believe we can find more if it is needed. It is not our intention to bean count on this; we want to fulfil our objective and cause the least amount of pain to the south west communities as possible.
Although Hon Peter Foss did not ask about the business exit allowance, it will be difficult, consequently, for me to tell the House exactly how much money has been allocated for the business exit allowance, for example. Hon Peter Foss: How much has been allocated and found overall? Hon KIM CHANCE: At this stage it is $57 million. Hon Peter Foss: Has it been allocated and approved by Cabinet? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The question of whether it will be sufficient has been addressed by the Government, and I believe we can find more if it is needed. It is not our intention to bean count on this; we want to fulfil our objective and cause the least amount of pain to the south west communities as possible.
Hon Peter Foss: How much has been allocated and found overall? Hon KIM CHANCE: At this stage it is $57 million. Hon Peter Foss: Has it been allocated and approved by Cabinet? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The question of whether it will be sufficient has been addressed by the Government, and I believe we can find more if it is needed. It is not our intention to bean count on this; we want to fulfil our objective and cause the least amount of pain to the south west communities as possible.
Hon KIM CHANCE: At this stage it is $57 million. Hon Peter Foss: Has it been allocated and approved by Cabinet? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The question of whether it will be sufficient has been addressed by the Government, and I believe we can find more if it is needed. It is not our intention to bean count on this; we want to fulfil our objective and cause the least amount of pain to the south west communities as possible.
Hon Peter Foss: Has it been allocated and approved by Cabinet? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The question of whether it will be sufficient has been addressed by the Government, and I believe we can find more if it is needed. It is not our intention to bean count on this; we want to fulfil our objective and cause the least amount of pain to the south west communities as possible.
Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The question of whether it will be sufficient has been addressed by the Government, and I believe we can find more if it is needed. It is not our intention to bean count on this; we want to fulfil our objective and cause the least amount of pain to the south west communities as possible.
(2) Has he calculated the cost of packages necessary to assist people affected by his Government’s decisions on forestry? (3) Is the assistance being contemplated merely to assist people to depart from the industry or is some more positive assistance contemplated? (4) Where will the money come from to pay for these packages? (5) Has the minister progressed from his earlier answer to the timber industry that he did not have the faintest idea? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I know I should not answer a question with a question, but did I really say that? Hon Peter Foss: You did. Hon KIM CHANCE: I am pleased to provide an answer to that question, of which I did not receive any notice. (1)-(2) The effect on state revenue has been calculated. It could have been calculated in a number of ways. In gross terms the loss of stumpage could be calculated at about $12.5 million a year. Over a four-year program it will be approximately $50 million. Bearing in mind that is a gross figure, a number of offsetting issues will reduce that. I would be speculating if I tried to provide a net figure. However, in the spirit of answering the question I can advise that it will be in the order of $2.5 million to $3 million per annum. That is my best shot at answering a fairly complex question without notice. Hon Peter Foss: If you take the other amounts out, less money will be available to the public. Hon KIM CHANCE: It will be. The net sum is costed into our total financial consideration. It is fairly well understood that we had anticipated spending $57 million on the program, which includes the allocation of $15 million from the Commonwealth, which funding we understand to be assured within the package and have heard nothing to suggest that the Commonwealth will not come on board. (3) No. Two important components of the assistance package deal with departures; that is, the worker assistance package, which includes a suite of issues such as training and relocation, which are treated as departure issues; and, of course, the business exit assistance, which is also departure assistance. However, we have already seen an important component of the package work to some extent with both the Nannup Sawmill and Blueleaf Corporation Pty Ltd. Hon Peter Foss: Neither of which were started by you. Hon KIM CHANCE: I am happy to acknowledge that. Blueleaf Corporation was started and completed by the former Government. Nannup Sawmill was started by the former Government and completed by the current Government. They have provided an interesting model for the future. The Sotico Pty Ltd issue is an extension of that model. The investment attraction is an important component of the package, a component about which the Government is very enthusiastic. The more money we pump into the investment component of the package the less money will be required to be spent elsewhere. As the issue develops that will be obvious, particularly in Manjimup, with value adding flowing from the Sotico decision. The most difficult thing about trying to calculate the quantum of the whole package - that is, with those two exit provisions and the investment attraction issue - is getting away from ring fencing the three components. Although we try to determine a set number for each component, every time one changes it has an impact on the other. That can be healthy, but Treasury insists we have fairly clear guidelines for each component. I think in practice they will be shown to be very flexible. Although Hon Peter Foss did not ask about the business exit allowance, it will be difficult, consequently, for me to tell the House exactly how much money has been allocated for the business exit allowance, for example. Hon Peter Foss: How much has been allocated and found overall? Hon KIM CHANCE: At this stage it is $57 million. Hon Peter Foss: Has it been allocated and approved by Cabinet? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The question of whether it will be sufficient has been addressed by the Government, and I believe we can find more if it is needed. It is not our intention to bean count on this; we want to fulfil our objective and cause the least amount of pain to the south west communities as possible.
(3) Is the assistance being contemplated merely to assist people to depart from the industry or is some more positive assistance contemplated? (4) Where will the money come from to pay for these packages? (5) Has the minister progressed from his earlier answer to the timber industry that he did not have the faintest idea? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I know I should not answer a question with a question, but did I really say that? Hon Peter Foss: You did. Hon KIM CHANCE: I am pleased to provide an answer to that question, of which I did not receive any notice. (1)-(2) The effect on state revenue has been calculated. It could have been calculated in a number of ways. In gross terms the loss of stumpage could be calculated at about $12.5 million a year. Over a four-year program it will be approximately $50 million. Bearing in mind that is a gross figure, a number of offsetting issues will reduce that. I would be speculating if I tried to provide a net figure. However, in the spirit of answering the question I can advise that it will be in the order of $2.5 million to $3 million per annum. That is my best shot at answering a fairly complex question without notice. Hon Peter Foss: If you take the other amounts out, less money will be available to the public. Hon KIM CHANCE: It will be. The net sum is costed into our total financial consideration. It is fairly well understood that we had anticipated spending $57 million on the program, which includes the allocation of $15 million from the Commonwealth, which funding we understand to be assured within the package and have heard nothing to suggest that the Commonwealth will not come on board. (3) No. Two important components of the assistance package deal with departures; that is, the worker assistance package, which includes a suite of issues such as training and relocation, which are treated as departure issues; and, of course, the business exit assistance, which is also departure assistance. However, we have already seen an important component of the package work to some extent with both the Nannup Sawmill and Blueleaf Corporation Pty Ltd. Hon Peter Foss: Neither of which were started by you. Hon KIM CHANCE: I am happy to acknowledge that. Blueleaf Corporation was started and completed by the former Government. Nannup Sawmill was started by the former Government and completed by the current Government. They have provided an interesting model for the future. The Sotico Pty Ltd issue is an extension of that model. The investment attraction is an important component of the package, a component about which the Government is very enthusiastic. The more money we pump into the investment component of the package the less money will be required to be spent elsewhere. As the issue develops that will be obvious, particularly in Manjimup, with value adding flowing from the Sotico decision. The most difficult thing about trying to calculate the quantum of the whole package - that is, with those two exit provisions and the investment attraction issue - is getting away from ring fencing the three components. Although we try to determine a set number for each component, every time one changes it has an impact on the other. That can be healthy, but Treasury insists we have fairly clear guidelines for each component. I think in practice they will be shown to be very flexible. Although Hon Peter Foss did not ask about the business exit allowance, it will be difficult, consequently, for me to tell the House exactly how much money has been allocated for the business exit allowance, for example. Hon Peter Foss: How much has been allocated and found overall? Hon KIM CHANCE: At this stage it is $57 million. Hon Peter Foss: Has it been allocated and approved by Cabinet? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The question of whether it will be sufficient has been addressed by the Government, and I believe we can find more if it is needed. It is not our intention to bean count on this; we want to fulfil our objective and cause the least amount of pain to the south west communities as possible.
(4) Where will the money come from to pay for these packages? (5) Has the minister progressed from his earlier answer to the timber industry that he did not have the faintest idea? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I know I should not answer a question with a question, but did I really say that? Hon Peter Foss: You did. Hon KIM CHANCE: I am pleased to provide an answer to that question, of which I did not receive any notice. (1)-(2) The effect on state revenue has been calculated. It could have been calculated in a number of ways. In gross terms the loss of stumpage could be calculated at about $12.5 million a year. Over a four-year program it will be approximately $50 million. Bearing in mind that is a gross figure, a number of offsetting issues will reduce that. I would be speculating if I tried to provide a net figure. However, in the spirit of answering the question I can advise that it will be in the order of $2.5 million to $3 million per annum. That is my best shot at answering a fairly complex question without notice. Hon Peter Foss: If you take the other amounts out, less money will be available to the public. Hon KIM CHANCE: It will be. The net sum is costed into our total financial consideration. It is fairly well understood that we had anticipated spending $57 million on the program, which includes the allocation of $15 million from the Commonwealth, which funding we understand to be assured within the package and have heard nothing to suggest that the Commonwealth will not come on board. (3) No. Two important components of the assistance package deal with departures; that is, the worker assistance package, which includes a suite of issues such as training and relocation, which are treated as departure issues; and, of course, the business exit assistance, which is also departure assistance. However, we have already seen an important component of the package work to some extent with both the Nannup Sawmill and Blueleaf Corporation Pty Ltd. Hon Peter Foss: Neither of which were started by you. Hon KIM CHANCE: I am happy to acknowledge that. Blueleaf Corporation was started and completed by the former Government. Nannup Sawmill was started by the former Government and completed by the current Government. They have provided an interesting model for the future. The Sotico Pty Ltd issue is an extension of that model. The investment attraction is an important component of the package, a component about which the Government is very enthusiastic. The more money we pump into the investment component of the package the less money will be required to be spent elsewhere. As the issue develops that will be obvious, particularly in Manjimup, with value adding flowing from the Sotico decision. The most difficult thing about trying to calculate the quantum of the whole package - that is, with those two exit provisions and the investment attraction issue - is getting away from ring fencing the three components. Although we try to determine a set number for each component, every time one changes it has an impact on the other. That can be healthy, but Treasury insists we have fairly clear guidelines for each component. I think in practice they will be shown to be very flexible. Although Hon Peter Foss did not ask about the business exit allowance, it will be difficult, consequently, for me to tell the House exactly how much money has been allocated for the business exit allowance, for example. Hon Peter Foss: How much has been allocated and found overall? Hon KIM CHANCE: At this stage it is $57 million. Hon Peter Foss: Has it been allocated and approved by Cabinet? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The question of whether it will be sufficient has been addressed by the Government, and I believe we can find more if it is needed. It is not our intention to bean count on this; we want to fulfil our objective and cause the least amount of pain to the south west communities as possible.
(5) Has the minister progressed from his earlier answer to the timber industry that he did not have the faintest idea? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I know I should not answer a question with a question, but did I really say that? Hon Peter Foss: You did. Hon KIM CHANCE: I am pleased to provide an answer to that question, of which I did not receive any notice. (1)-(2) The effect on state revenue has been calculated. It could have been calculated in a number of ways. In gross terms the loss of stumpage could be calculated at about $12.5 million a year. Over a four-year program it will be approximately $50 million. Bearing in mind that is a gross figure, a number of offsetting issues will reduce that. I would be speculating if I tried to provide a net figure. However, in the spirit of answering the question I can advise that it will be in the order of $2.5 million to $3 million per annum. That is my best shot at answering a fairly complex question without notice. Hon Peter Foss: If you take the other amounts out, less money will be available to the public. Hon KIM CHANCE: It will be. The net sum is costed into our total financial consideration. It is fairly well understood that we had anticipated spending $57 million on the program, which includes the allocation of $15 million from the Commonwealth, which funding we understand to be assured within the package and have heard nothing to suggest that the Commonwealth will not come on board. (3) No. Two important components of the assistance package deal with departures; that is, the worker assistance package, which includes a suite of issues such as training and relocation, which are treated as departure issues; and, of course, the business exit assistance, which is also departure assistance. However, we have already seen an important component of the package work to some extent with both the Nannup Sawmill and Blueleaf Corporation Pty Ltd. Hon Peter Foss: Neither of which were started by you. Hon KIM CHANCE: I am happy to acknowledge that. Blueleaf Corporation was started and completed by the former Government. Nannup Sawmill was started by the former Government and completed by the current Government. They have provided an interesting model for the future. The Sotico Pty Ltd issue is an extension of that model. The investment attraction is an important component of the package, a component about which the Government is very enthusiastic. The more money we pump into the investment component of the package the less money will be required to be spent elsewhere. As the issue develops that will be obvious, particularly in Manjimup, with value adding flowing from the Sotico decision. The most difficult thing about trying to calculate the quantum of the whole package - that is, with those two exit provisions and the investment attraction issue - is getting away from ring fencing the three components. Although we try to determine a set number for each component, every time one changes it has an impact on the other. That can be healthy, but Treasury insists we have fairly clear guidelines for each component. I think in practice they will be shown to be very flexible. Although Hon Peter Foss did not ask about the business exit allowance, it will be difficult, consequently, for me to tell the House exactly how much money has been allocated for the business exit allowance, for example. Hon Peter Foss: How much has been allocated and found overall? Hon KIM CHANCE: At this stage it is $57 million. Hon Peter Foss: Has it been allocated and approved by Cabinet? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The question of whether it will be sufficient has been addressed by the Government, and I believe we can find more if it is needed. It is not our intention to bean count on this; we want to fulfil our objective and cause the least amount of pain to the south west communities as possible.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I know I should not answer a question with a question, but did I really say that? Hon Peter Foss: You did. Hon KIM CHANCE: I am pleased to provide an answer to that question, of which I did not receive any notice. (1)-(2) The effect on state revenue has been calculated. It could have been calculated in a number of ways. In gross terms the loss of stumpage could be calculated at about $12.5 million a year. Over a four-year program it will be approximately $50 million. Bearing in mind that is a gross figure, a number of offsetting issues will reduce that. I would be speculating if I tried to provide a net figure. However, in the spirit of answering the question I can advise that it will be in the order of $2.5 million to $3 million per annum. That is my best shot at answering a fairly complex question without notice. Hon Peter Foss: If you take the other amounts out, less money will be available to the public. Hon KIM CHANCE: It will be. The net sum is costed into our total financial consideration. It is fairly well understood that we had anticipated spending $57 million on the program, which includes the allocation of $15 million from the Commonwealth, which funding we understand to be assured within the package and have heard nothing to suggest that the Commonwealth will not come on board. (3) No. Two important components of the assistance package deal with departures; that is, the worker assistance package, which includes a suite of issues such as training and relocation, which are treated as departure issues; and, of course, the business exit assistance, which is also departure assistance. However, we have already seen an important component of the package work to some extent with both the Nannup Sawmill and Blueleaf Corporation Pty Ltd. Hon Peter Foss: Neither of which were started by you. Hon KIM CHANCE: I am happy to acknowledge that. Blueleaf Corporation was started and completed by the former Government. Nannup Sawmill was started by the former Government and completed by the current Government. They have provided an interesting model for the future. The Sotico Pty Ltd issue is an extension of that model. The investment attraction is an important component of the package, a component about which the Government is very enthusiastic. The more money we pump into the investment component of the package the less money will be required to be spent elsewhere. As the issue develops that will be obvious, particularly in Manjimup, with value adding flowing from the Sotico decision. The most difficult thing about trying to calculate the quantum of the whole package - that is, with those two exit provisions and the investment attraction issue - is getting away from ring fencing the three components. Although we try to determine a set number for each component, every time one changes it has an impact on the other. That can be healthy, but Treasury insists we have fairly clear guidelines for each component. I think in practice they will be shown to be very flexible. Although Hon Peter Foss did not ask about the business exit allowance, it will be difficult, consequently, for me to tell the House exactly how much money has been allocated for the business exit allowance, for example. Hon Peter Foss: How much has been allocated and found overall? Hon KIM CHANCE: At this stage it is $57 million. Hon Peter Foss: Has it been allocated and approved by Cabinet? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The question of whether it will be sufficient has been addressed by the Government, and I believe we can find more if it is needed. It is not our intention to bean count on this; we want to fulfil our objective and cause the least amount of pain to the south west communities as possible.
I know I should not answer a question with a question, but did I really say that? Hon Peter Foss: You did. Hon KIM CHANCE: I am pleased to provide an answer to that question, of which I did not receive any notice. (1)-(2) The effect on state revenue has been calculated. It could have been calculated in a number of ways. In gross terms the loss of stumpage could be calculated at about $12.5 million a year. Over a four-year program it will be approximately $50 million. Bearing in mind that is a gross figure, a number of offsetting issues will reduce that. I would be speculating if I tried to provide a net figure. However, in the spirit of answering the question I can advise that it will be in the order of $2.5 million to $3 million per annum. That is my best shot at answering a fairly complex question without notice. Hon Peter Foss: If you take the other amounts out, less money will be available to the public. Hon KIM CHANCE: It will be. The net sum is costed into our total financial consideration. It is fairly well understood that we had anticipated spending $57 million on the program, which includes the allocation of $15 million from the Commonwealth, which funding we understand to be assured within the package and have heard nothing to suggest that the Commonwealth will not come on board. (3) No. Two important components of the assistance package deal with departures; that is, the worker assistance package, which includes a suite of issues such as training and relocation, which are treated as departure issues; and, of course, the business exit assistance, which is also departure assistance. However, we have already seen an important component of the package work to some extent with both the Nannup Sawmill and Blueleaf Corporation Pty Ltd. Hon Peter Foss: Neither of which were started by you. Hon KIM CHANCE: I am happy to acknowledge that. Blueleaf Corporation was started and completed by the former Government. Nannup Sawmill was started by the former Government and completed by the current Government. They have provided an interesting model for the future. The Sotico Pty Ltd issue is an extension of that model. The investment attraction is an important component of the package, a component about which the Government is very enthusiastic. The more money we pump into the investment component of the package the less money will be required to be spent elsewhere. As the issue develops that will be obvious, particularly in Manjimup, with value adding flowing from the Sotico decision. The most difficult thing about trying to calculate the quantum of the whole package - that is, with those two exit provisions and the investment attraction issue - is getting away from ring fencing the three components. Although we try to determine a set number for each component, every time one changes it has an impact on the other. That can be healthy, but Treasury insists we have fairly clear guidelines for each component. I think in practice they will be shown to be very flexible. Although Hon Peter Foss did not ask about the business exit allowance, it will be difficult, consequently, for me to tell the House exactly how much money has been allocated for the business exit allowance, for example. Hon Peter Foss: How much has been allocated and found overall? Hon KIM CHANCE: At this stage it is $57 million. Hon Peter Foss: Has it been allocated and approved by Cabinet? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The question of whether it will be sufficient has been addressed by the Government, and I believe we can find more if it is needed. It is not our intention to bean count on this; we want to fulfil our objective and cause the least amount of pain to the south west communities as possible.
Hon Peter Foss: You did. Hon KIM CHANCE: I am pleased to provide an answer to that question, of which I did not receive any notice. (1)-(2) The effect on state revenue has been calculated. It could have been calculated in a number of ways. In gross terms the loss of stumpage could be calculated at about $12.5 million a year. Over a four-year program it will be approximately $50 million. Bearing in mind that is a gross figure, a number of offsetting issues will reduce that. I would be speculating if I tried to provide a net figure. However, in the spirit of answering the question I can advise that it will be in the order of $2.5 million to $3 million per annum. That is my best shot at answering a fairly complex question without notice. Hon Peter Foss: If you take the other amounts out, less money will be available to the public. Hon KIM CHANCE: It will be. The net sum is costed into our total financial consideration. It is fairly well understood that we had anticipated spending $57 million on the program, which includes the allocation of $15 million from the Commonwealth, which funding we understand to be assured within the package and have heard nothing to suggest that the Commonwealth will not come on board. (3) No. Two important components of the assistance package deal with departures; that is, the worker assistance package, which includes a suite of issues such as training and relocation, which are treated as departure issues; and, of course, the business exit assistance, which is also departure assistance. However, we have already seen an important component of the package work to some extent with both the Nannup Sawmill and Blueleaf Corporation Pty Ltd. Hon Peter Foss: Neither of which were started by you. Hon KIM CHANCE: I am happy to acknowledge that. Blueleaf Corporation was started and completed by the former Government. Nannup Sawmill was started by the former Government and completed by the current Government. They have provided an interesting model for the future. The Sotico Pty Ltd issue is an extension of that model. The investment attraction is an important component of the package, a component about which the Government is very enthusiastic. The more money we pump into the investment component of the package the less money will be required to be spent elsewhere. As the issue develops that will be obvious, particularly in Manjimup, with value adding flowing from the Sotico decision. The most difficult thing about trying to calculate the quantum of the whole package - that is, with those two exit provisions and the investment attraction issue - is getting away from ring fencing the three components. Although we try to determine a set number for each component, every time one changes it has an impact on the other. That can be healthy, but Treasury insists we have fairly clear guidelines for each component. I think in practice they will be shown to be very flexible. Although Hon Peter Foss did not ask about the business exit allowance, it will be difficult, consequently, for me to tell the House exactly how much money has been allocated for the business exit allowance, for example. Hon Peter Foss: How much has been allocated and found overall? Hon KIM CHANCE: At this stage it is $57 million. Hon Peter Foss: Has it been allocated and approved by Cabinet? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The question of whether it will be sufficient has been addressed by the Government, and I believe we can find more if it is needed. It is not our intention to bean count on this; we want to fulfil our objective and cause the least amount of pain to the south west communities as possible.
Hon KIM CHANCE: I am pleased to provide an answer to that question, of which I did not receive any notice. (1)-(2) The effect on state revenue has been calculated. It could have been calculated in a number of ways. In gross terms the loss of stumpage could be calculated at about $12.5 million a year. Over a four-year program it will be approximately $50 million. Bearing in mind that is a gross figure, a number of offsetting issues will reduce that. I would be speculating if I tried to provide a net figure. However, in the spirit of answering the question I can advise that it will be in the order of $2.5 million to $3 million per annum. That is my best shot at answering a fairly complex question without notice. Hon Peter Foss: If you take the other amounts out, less money will be available to the public. Hon KIM CHANCE: It will be. The net sum is costed into our total financial consideration. It is fairly well understood that we had anticipated spending $57 million on the program, which includes the allocation of $15 million from the Commonwealth, which funding we understand to be assured within the package and have heard nothing to suggest that the Commonwealth will not come on board. (3) No. Two important components of the assistance package deal with departures; that is, the worker assistance package, which includes a suite of issues such as training and relocation, which are treated as departure issues; and, of course, the business exit assistance, which is also departure assistance. However, we have already seen an important component of the package work to some extent with both the Nannup Sawmill and Blueleaf Corporation Pty Ltd. Hon Peter Foss: Neither of which were started by you. Hon KIM CHANCE: I am happy to acknowledge that. Blueleaf Corporation was started and completed by the former Government. Nannup Sawmill was started by the former Government and completed by the current Government. They have provided an interesting model for the future. The Sotico Pty Ltd issue is an extension of that model. The investment attraction is an important component of the package, a component about which the Government is very enthusiastic. The more money we pump into the investment component of the package the less money will be required to be spent elsewhere. As the issue develops that will be obvious, particularly in Manjimup, with value adding flowing from the Sotico decision. The most difficult thing about trying to calculate the quantum of the whole package - that is, with those two exit provisions and the investment attraction issue - is getting away from ring fencing the three components. Although we try to determine a set number for each component, every time one changes it has an impact on the other. That can be healthy, but Treasury insists we have fairly clear guidelines for each component. I think in practice they will be shown to be very flexible. Although Hon Peter Foss did not ask about the business exit allowance, it will be difficult, consequently, for me to tell the House exactly how much money has been allocated for the business exit allowance, for example. Hon Peter Foss: How much has been allocated and found overall? Hon KIM CHANCE: At this stage it is $57 million. Hon Peter Foss: Has it been allocated and approved by Cabinet? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The question of whether it will be sufficient has been addressed by the Government, and I believe we can find more if it is needed. It is not our intention to bean count on this; we want to fulfil our objective and cause the least amount of pain to the south west communities as possible.
(1)-(2) The effect on state revenue has been calculated. It could have been calculated in a number of ways. In gross terms the loss of stumpage could be calculated at about $12.5 million a year. Over a four-year program it will be approximately $50 million. Bearing in mind that is a gross figure, a number of offsetting issues will reduce that. I would be speculating if I tried to provide a net figure. However, in the spirit of answering the question I can advise that it will be in the order of $2.5 million to $3 million per annum. That is my best shot at answering a fairly complex question without notice. Hon Peter Foss: If you take the other amounts out, less money will be available to the public. Hon KIM CHANCE: It will be. The net sum is costed into our total financial consideration. It is fairly well understood that we had anticipated spending $57 million on the program, which includes the allocation of $15 million from the Commonwealth, which funding we understand to be assured within the package and have heard nothing to suggest that the Commonwealth will not come on board. (3) No. Two important components of the assistance package deal with departures; that is, the worker assistance package, which includes a suite of issues such as training and relocation, which are treated as departure issues; and, of course, the business exit assistance, which is also departure assistance. However, we have already seen an important component of the package work to some extent with both the Nannup Sawmill and Blueleaf Corporation Pty Ltd. Hon Peter Foss: Neither of which were started by you. Hon KIM CHANCE: I am happy to acknowledge that. Blueleaf Corporation was started and completed by the former Government. Nannup Sawmill was started by the former Government and completed by the current Government. They have provided an interesting model for the future. The Sotico Pty Ltd issue is an extension of that model. The investment attraction is an important component of the package, a component about which the Government is very enthusiastic. The more money we pump into the investment component of the package the less money will be required to be spent elsewhere. As the issue develops that will be obvious, particularly in Manjimup, with value adding flowing from the Sotico decision. The most difficult thing about trying to calculate the quantum of the whole package - that is, with those two exit provisions and the investment attraction issue - is getting away from ring fencing the three components. Although we try to determine a set number for each component, every time one changes it has an impact on the other. That can be healthy, but Treasury insists we have fairly clear guidelines for each component. I think in practice they will be shown to be very flexible. Although Hon Peter Foss did not ask about the business exit allowance, it will be difficult, consequently, for me to tell the House exactly how much money has been allocated for the business exit allowance, for example. Hon Peter Foss: How much has been allocated and found overall? Hon KIM CHANCE: At this stage it is $57 million. Hon Peter Foss: Has it been allocated and approved by Cabinet? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The question of whether it will be sufficient has been addressed by the Government, and I believe we can find more if it is needed. It is not our intention to bean count on this; we want to fulfil our objective and cause the least amount of pain to the south west communities as possible.
Hon Peter Foss: If you take the other amounts out, less money will be available to the public. Hon KIM CHANCE: It will be. The net sum is costed into our total financial consideration. It is fairly well understood that we had anticipated spending $57 million on the program, which includes the allocation of $15 million from the Commonwealth, which funding we understand to be assured within the package and have heard nothing to suggest that the Commonwealth will not come on board. (3) No. Two important components of the assistance package deal with departures; that is, the worker assistance package, which includes a suite of issues such as training and relocation, which are treated as departure issues; and, of course, the business exit assistance, which is also departure assistance. However, we have already seen an important component of the package work to some extent with both the Nannup Sawmill and Blueleaf Corporation Pty Ltd. Hon Peter Foss: Neither of which were started by you. Hon KIM CHANCE: I am happy to acknowledge that. Blueleaf Corporation was started and completed by the former Government. Nannup Sawmill was started by the former Government and completed by the current Government. They have provided an interesting model for the future. The Sotico Pty Ltd issue is an extension of that model. The investment attraction is an important component of the package, a component about which the Government is very enthusiastic. The more money we pump into the investment component of the package the less money will be required to be spent elsewhere. As the issue develops that will be obvious, particularly in Manjimup, with value adding flowing from the Sotico decision. The most difficult thing about trying to calculate the quantum of the whole package - that is, with those two exit provisions and the investment attraction issue - is getting away from ring fencing the three components. Although we try to determine a set number for each component, every time one changes it has an impact on the other. That can be healthy, but Treasury insists we have fairly clear guidelines for each component. I think in practice they will be shown to be very flexible. Although Hon Peter Foss did not ask about the business exit allowance, it will be difficult, consequently, for me to tell the House exactly how much money has been allocated for the business exit allowance, for example. Hon Peter Foss: How much has been allocated and found overall? Hon KIM CHANCE: At this stage it is $57 million. Hon Peter Foss: Has it been allocated and approved by Cabinet? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The question of whether it will be sufficient has been addressed by the Government, and I believe we can find more if it is needed. It is not our intention to bean count on this; we want to fulfil our objective and cause the least amount of pain to the south west communities as possible.
Hon KIM CHANCE: It will be. The net sum is costed into our total financial consideration. It is fairly well understood that we had anticipated spending $57 million on the program, which includes the allocation of $15 million from the Commonwealth, which funding we understand to be assured within the package and have heard nothing to suggest that the Commonwealth will not come on board. (3) No. Two important components of the assistance package deal with departures; that is, the worker assistance package, which includes a suite of issues such as training and relocation, which are treated as departure issues; and, of course, the business exit assistance, which is also departure assistance. However, we have already seen an important component of the package work to some extent with both the Nannup Sawmill and Blueleaf Corporation Pty Ltd. Hon Peter Foss: Neither of which were started by you. Hon KIM CHANCE: I am happy to acknowledge that. Blueleaf Corporation was started and completed by the former Government. Nannup Sawmill was started by the former Government and completed by the current Government. They have provided an interesting model for the future. The Sotico Pty Ltd issue is an extension of that model. The investment attraction is an important component of the package, a component about which the Government is very enthusiastic. The more money we pump into the investment component of the package the less money will be required to be spent elsewhere. As the issue develops that will be obvious, particularly in Manjimup, with value adding flowing from the Sotico decision. The most difficult thing about trying to calculate the quantum of the whole package - that is, with those two exit provisions and the investment attraction issue - is getting away from ring fencing the three components. Although we try to determine a set number for each component, every time one changes it has an impact on the other. That can be healthy, but Treasury insists we have fairly clear guidelines for each component. I think in practice they will be shown to be very flexible. Although Hon Peter Foss did not ask about the business exit allowance, it will be difficult, consequently, for me to tell the House exactly how much money has been allocated for the business exit allowance, for example. Hon Peter Foss: How much has been allocated and found overall? Hon KIM CHANCE: At this stage it is $57 million. Hon Peter Foss: Has it been allocated and approved by Cabinet? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The question of whether it will be sufficient has been addressed by the Government, and I believe we can find more if it is needed. It is not our intention to bean count on this; we want to fulfil our objective and cause the least amount of pain to the south west communities as possible.
(3) No. Two important components of the assistance package deal with departures; that is, the worker assistance package, which includes a suite of issues such as training and relocation, which are treated as departure issues; and, of course, the business exit assistance, which is also departure assistance. However, we have already seen an important component of the package work to some extent with both the Nannup Sawmill and Blueleaf Corporation Pty Ltd. Hon Peter Foss: Neither of which were started by you. Hon KIM CHANCE: I am happy to acknowledge that. Blueleaf Corporation was started and completed by the former Government. Nannup Sawmill was started by the former Government and completed by the current Government. They have provided an interesting model for the future. The Sotico Pty Ltd issue is an extension of that model. The investment attraction is an important component of the package, a component about which the Government is very enthusiastic. The more money we pump into the investment component of the package the less money will be required to be spent elsewhere. As the issue develops that will be obvious, particularly in Manjimup, with value adding flowing from the Sotico decision. The most difficult thing about trying to calculate the quantum of the whole package - that is, with those two exit provisions and the investment attraction issue - is getting away from ring fencing the three components. Although we try to determine a set number for each component, every time one changes it has an impact on the other. That can be healthy, but Treasury insists we have fairly clear guidelines for each component. I think in practice they will be shown to be very flexible. Although Hon Peter Foss did not ask about the business exit allowance, it will be difficult, consequently, for me to tell the House exactly how much money has been allocated for the business exit allowance, for example. Hon Peter Foss: How much has been allocated and found overall? Hon KIM CHANCE: At this stage it is $57 million. Hon Peter Foss: Has it been allocated and approved by Cabinet? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The question of whether it will be sufficient has been addressed by the Government, and I believe we can find more if it is needed. It is not our intention to bean count on this; we want to fulfil our objective and cause the least amount of pain to the south west communities as possible.
Hon Peter Foss: Neither of which were started by you. Hon KIM CHANCE: I am happy to acknowledge that. Blueleaf Corporation was started and completed by the former Government. Nannup Sawmill was started by the former Government and completed by the current Government. They have provided an interesting model for the future. The Sotico Pty Ltd issue is an extension of that model. The investment attraction is an important component of the package, a component about which the Government is very enthusiastic. The more money we pump into the investment component of the package the less money will be required to be spent elsewhere. As the issue develops that will be obvious, particularly in Manjimup, with value adding flowing from the Sotico decision. The most difficult thing about trying to calculate the quantum of the whole package - that is, with those two exit provisions and the investment attraction issue - is getting away from ring fencing the three components. Although we try to determine a set number for each component, every time one changes it has an impact on the other. That can be healthy, but Treasury insists we have fairly clear guidelines for each component. I think in practice they will be shown to be very flexible. Although Hon Peter Foss did not ask about the business exit allowance, it will be difficult, consequently, for me to tell the House exactly how much money has been allocated for the business exit allowance, for example. Hon Peter Foss: How much has been allocated and found overall? Hon KIM CHANCE: At this stage it is $57 million. Hon Peter Foss: Has it been allocated and approved by Cabinet? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The question of whether it will be sufficient has been addressed by the Government, and I believe we can find more if it is needed. It is not our intention to bean count on this; we want to fulfil our objective and cause the least amount of pain to the south west communities as possible.
Hon KIM CHANCE: I am happy to acknowledge that. Blueleaf Corporation was started and completed by the former Government. Nannup Sawmill was started by the former Government and completed by the current Government. They have provided an interesting model for the future. The Sotico Pty Ltd issue is an extension of that model. The investment attraction is an important component of the package, a component about which the Government is very enthusiastic. The more money we pump into the investment component of the package the less money will be required to be spent elsewhere. As the issue develops that will be obvious, particularly in Manjimup, with value adding flowing from the Sotico decision. The most difficult thing about trying to calculate the quantum of the whole package - that is, with those two exit provisions and the investment attraction issue - is getting away from ring fencing the three components. Although we try to determine a set number for each component, every time one changes it has an impact on the other. That can be healthy, but Treasury insists we have fairly clear guidelines for each component. I think in practice they will be shown to be very flexible. Although Hon Peter Foss did not ask about the business exit allowance, it will be difficult, consequently, for me to tell the House exactly how much money has been allocated for the business exit allowance, for example. Hon Peter Foss: How much has been allocated and found overall? Hon KIM CHANCE: At this stage it is $57 million. Hon Peter Foss: Has it been allocated and approved by Cabinet? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The question of whether it will be sufficient has been addressed by the Government, and I believe we can find more if it is needed. It is not our intention to bean count on this; we want to fulfil our objective and cause the least amount of pain to the south west communities as possible.
Although Hon Peter Foss did not ask about the business exit allowance, it will be difficult, consequently, for me to tell the House exactly how much money has been allocated for the business exit allowance, for example. Hon Peter Foss: How much has been allocated and found overall? Hon KIM CHANCE: At this stage it is $57 million. Hon Peter Foss: Has it been allocated and approved by Cabinet? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The question of whether it will be sufficient has been addressed by the Government, and I believe we can find more if it is needed. It is not our intention to bean count on this; we want to fulfil our objective and cause the least amount of pain to the south west communities as possible.
Hon Peter Foss: How much has been allocated and found overall? Hon KIM CHANCE: At this stage it is $57 million. Hon Peter Foss: Has it been allocated and approved by Cabinet? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The question of whether it will be sufficient has been addressed by the Government, and I believe we can find more if it is needed. It is not our intention to bean count on this; we want to fulfil our objective and cause the least amount of pain to the south west communities as possible.
Hon KIM CHANCE: At this stage it is $57 million. Hon Peter Foss: Has it been allocated and approved by Cabinet? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The question of whether it will be sufficient has been addressed by the Government, and I believe we can find more if it is needed. It is not our intention to bean count on this; we want to fulfil our objective and cause the least amount of pain to the south west communities as possible.
Hon Peter Foss: Has it been allocated and approved by Cabinet? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The question of whether it will be sufficient has been addressed by the Government, and I believe we can find more if it is needed. It is not our intention to bean count on this; we want to fulfil our objective and cause the least amount of pain to the south west communities as possible.
Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The question of whether it will be sufficient has been addressed by the Government, and I believe we can find more if it is needed. It is not our intention to bean count on this; we want to fulfil our objective and cause the least amount of pain to the south west communities as possible.
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.