❓ A parliamentary question regarding timber allocations and the forest management plan process. The Minister addresses concerns about compromising the integrity of the plan and provides information on government decisions and milling trials.
AnsweredQoN 1077Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
This question is supplementary to my question of 21 February, regarding timber allocations, which have already been raised by members in question time today. (1) Does the minister agree that setting timber contracts, or even just setting firm expectations for timber allocations, severely compromises the integrity of the forest management plan process? If not, why not? (2) In answer to my question of 21 February, the minister said he would provide more information on how to maintain flexibility in timber allocations “once the decisions have been made”. To which decisions is the minister referring? (3) Is the minister aware of trials to establish the amounts of sawn timber that can be recovered from various log grades? If so, can the minister provide those results to me? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(2) I will repeat the question so that whoever reads Hansard will understand my understanding of the question. Do I agree that setting contracts prior to the forest management plan compromises the process? It can have that effect. However, if the member had asked me whether the Government intends to do that, I would have said that it does not, and there is a reason for that. Three answers could be given to the same question depending on whether, in establishing those contracts prior to the FMP, contracts were established for a greater amount of timber volume than could ultimately be delivered by the FMP. Although to do that would not compromise the process, it would put the Government at great financial risk. If we were to contract for X amount, yet the forest management plan delivers X minus Y, the Government would have severe problems because it would have to buy back the guarantees it made. The FMP has the potential to cause the Government financial problems; however, I do not believe that it compromises the process itself. Some people might argue that it is pre-emptive of the process, and in a sense it is. In effect, by entering into agreements with proponents prior to the FMP, the Government is saying that it believes the FMP will deliver a greater amount of timber volumes than the agreements the proponents have already entered into; therefore, the proponents are able to enter into this contract. It is a fine line, and I appreciate the question because it gives me the opportunity to try to explain why the Government is doing what it is doing. The Government hopes that it will be able to enter into agreements with proponents in the not too distant future. I hope that in some cases it will be weeks rather than months; however, other agreements will take longer. In the earlier instances, I hope that through this process we do not enter into agreements with companies that will provide for timber volumes that are greater than can be delivered by the FMP. If we pick that number right - there is a risk - we will be able to bring to the industry the certainty that it needs if we are to attract investment into those job-creating, value-adding opportunities that we are so keen to undertake. Enormous pressure is on members on both sides of the House to deliver an investment scenario that can allow new jobs to be created out of the limited amount of forest product that will be available under the FMP. The earlier we can do that and the more certainty we can bring to communities, the sooner we can end the horrendous difficulties that are being caused for timber communities in the south west. I completely support the Government’s attitude to this process. We must end the uncertainty. I have been delighted and encouraged by the support of the Gallop Cabinet, which is entirely united on this matter, notwithstanding the tone of Hon Peter Foss’s question. We are united in the achievement of the old-growth forest policy, which has three parts. The old-growth policy requires us, first, to save the old-growth forest; secondly, to deliver a value-added industry that can provide opportunities for us to use the intrinsic value of our native and plantation timbers; and, thirdly, to set up our plantation industry in a manner that can ultimately replace the exploitation of the native forest. Hon Christine Sharp: You have forgotten an important aspect. The PRESIDENT: Order! This cannot become a debate. I am sure the minister is making his way to parts two and three of the member’s question. Hon KIM CHANCE: If I have forgotten a part of the policy - Hon Christine Sharp: Sustainability. Hon KIM CHANCE: Sustainability is an important part of the process; it is an intrinsic part of the FMP. The part of the question that referred to decisions on the forest management plans has been covered. (3) I am aware of milling trials of third-grade sawlogs or lower. I have been into the coupes from which those logs were harvested. I inspected the logs on site at the coupe landing. I was not able to be present during the milling processes, but I was surprised and delighted by the yield that came from those logging trials.
(1) Does the minister agree that setting timber contracts, or even just setting firm expectations for timber allocations, severely compromises the integrity of the forest management plan process? If not, why not? (2) In answer to my question of 21 February, the minister said he would provide more information on how to maintain flexibility in timber allocations “once the decisions have been made”. To which decisions is the minister referring? (3) Is the minister aware of trials to establish the amounts of sawn timber that can be recovered from various log grades? If so, can the minister provide those results to me? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(2) I will repeat the question so that whoever reads Hansard will understand my understanding of the question. Do I agree that setting contracts prior to the forest management plan compromises the process? It can have that effect. However, if the member had asked me whether the Government intends to do that, I would have said that it does not, and there is a reason for that. Three answers could be given to the same question depending on whether, in establishing those contracts prior to the FMP, contracts were established for a greater amount of timber volume than could ultimately be delivered by the FMP. Although to do that would not compromise the process, it would put the Government at great financial risk. If we were to contract for X amount, yet the forest management plan delivers X minus Y, the Government would have severe problems because it would have to buy back the guarantees it made. The FMP has the potential to cause the Government financial problems; however, I do not believe that it compromises the process itself. Some people might argue that it is pre-emptive of the process, and in a sense it is. In effect, by entering into agreements with proponents prior to the FMP, the Government is saying that it believes the FMP will deliver a greater amount of timber volumes than the agreements the proponents have already entered into; therefore, the proponents are able to enter into this contract. It is a fine line, and I appreciate the question because it gives me the opportunity to try to explain why the Government is doing what it is doing. The Government hopes that it will be able to enter into agreements with proponents in the not too distant future. I hope that in some cases it will be weeks rather than months; however, other agreements will take longer. In the earlier instances, I hope that through this process we do not enter into agreements with companies that will provide for timber volumes that are greater than can be delivered by the FMP. If we pick that number right - there is a risk - we will be able to bring to the industry the certainty that it needs if we are to attract investment into those job-creating, value-adding opportunities that we are so keen to undertake. Enormous pressure is on members on both sides of the House to deliver an investment scenario that can allow new jobs to be created out of the limited amount of forest product that will be available under the FMP. The earlier we can do that and the more certainty we can bring to communities, the sooner we can end the horrendous difficulties that are being caused for timber communities in the south west. I completely support the Government’s attitude to this process. We must end the uncertainty. I have been delighted and encouraged by the support of the Gallop Cabinet, which is entirely united on this matter, notwithstanding the tone of Hon Peter Foss’s question. We are united in the achievement of the old-growth forest policy, which has three parts. The old-growth policy requires us, first, to save the old-growth forest; secondly, to deliver a value-added industry that can provide opportunities for us to use the intrinsic value of our native and plantation timbers; and, thirdly, to set up our plantation industry in a manner that can ultimately replace the exploitation of the native forest. Hon Christine Sharp: You have forgotten an important aspect. The PRESIDENT: Order! This cannot become a debate. I am sure the minister is making his way to parts two and three of the member’s question. Hon KIM CHANCE: If I have forgotten a part of the policy - Hon Christine Sharp: Sustainability. Hon KIM CHANCE: Sustainability is an important part of the process; it is an intrinsic part of the FMP. The part of the question that referred to decisions on the forest management plans has been covered. (3) I am aware of milling trials of third-grade sawlogs or lower. I have been into the coupes from which those logs were harvested. I inspected the logs on site at the coupe landing. I was not able to be present during the milling processes, but I was surprised and delighted by the yield that came from those logging trials.
(2) In answer to my question of 21 February, the minister said he would provide more information on how to maintain flexibility in timber allocations “once the decisions have been made”. To which decisions is the minister referring? (3) Is the minister aware of trials to establish the amounts of sawn timber that can be recovered from various log grades? If so, can the minister provide those results to me? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(2) I will repeat the question so that whoever reads Hansard will understand my understanding of the question. Do I agree that setting contracts prior to the forest management plan compromises the process? It can have that effect. However, if the member had asked me whether the Government intends to do that, I would have said that it does not, and there is a reason for that. Three answers could be given to the same question depending on whether, in establishing those contracts prior to the FMP, contracts were established for a greater amount of timber volume than could ultimately be delivered by the FMP. Although to do that would not compromise the process, it would put the Government at great financial risk. If we were to contract for X amount, yet the forest management plan delivers X minus Y, the Government would have severe problems because it would have to buy back the guarantees it made. The FMP has the potential to cause the Government financial problems; however, I do not believe that it compromises the process itself. Some people might argue that it is pre-emptive of the process, and in a sense it is. In effect, by entering into agreements with proponents prior to the FMP, the Government is saying that it believes the FMP will deliver a greater amount of timber volumes than the agreements the proponents have already entered into; therefore, the proponents are able to enter into this contract. It is a fine line, and I appreciate the question because it gives me the opportunity to try to explain why the Government is doing what it is doing. The Government hopes that it will be able to enter into agreements with proponents in the not too distant future. I hope that in some cases it will be weeks rather than months; however, other agreements will take longer. In the earlier instances, I hope that through this process we do not enter into agreements with companies that will provide for timber volumes that are greater than can be delivered by the FMP. If we pick that number right - there is a risk - we will be able to bring to the industry the certainty that it needs if we are to attract investment into those job-creating, value-adding opportunities that we are so keen to undertake. Enormous pressure is on members on both sides of the House to deliver an investment scenario that can allow new jobs to be created out of the limited amount of forest product that will be available under the FMP. The earlier we can do that and the more certainty we can bring to communities, the sooner we can end the horrendous difficulties that are being caused for timber communities in the south west. I completely support the Government’s attitude to this process. We must end the uncertainty. I have been delighted and encouraged by the support of the Gallop Cabinet, which is entirely united on this matter, notwithstanding the tone of Hon Peter Foss’s question. We are united in the achievement of the old-growth forest policy, which has three parts. The old-growth policy requires us, first, to save the old-growth forest; secondly, to deliver a value-added industry that can provide opportunities for us to use the intrinsic value of our native and plantation timbers; and, thirdly, to set up our plantation industry in a manner that can ultimately replace the exploitation of the native forest. Hon Christine Sharp: You have forgotten an important aspect. The PRESIDENT: Order! This cannot become a debate. I am sure the minister is making his way to parts two and three of the member’s question. Hon KIM CHANCE: If I have forgotten a part of the policy - Hon Christine Sharp: Sustainability. Hon KIM CHANCE: Sustainability is an important part of the process; it is an intrinsic part of the FMP. The part of the question that referred to decisions on the forest management plans has been covered. (3) I am aware of milling trials of third-grade sawlogs or lower. I have been into the coupes from which those logs were harvested. I inspected the logs on site at the coupe landing. I was not able to be present during the milling processes, but I was surprised and delighted by the yield that came from those logging trials.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(2) I will repeat the question so that whoever reads Hansard will understand my understanding of the question. Do I agree that setting contracts prior to the forest management plan compromises the process? It can have that effect. However, if the member had asked me whether the Government intends to do that, I would have said that it does not, and there is a reason for that. Three answers could be given to the same question depending on whether, in establishing those contracts prior to the FMP, contracts were established for a greater amount of timber volume than could ultimately be delivered by the FMP. Although to do that would not compromise the process, it would put the Government at great financial risk. If we were to contract for X amount, yet the forest management plan delivers X minus Y, the Government would have severe problems because it would have to buy back the guarantees it made. The FMP has the potential to cause the Government financial problems; however, I do not believe that it compromises the process itself. Some people might argue that it is pre-emptive of the process, and in a sense it is. In effect, by entering into agreements with proponents prior to the FMP, the Government is saying that it believes the FMP will deliver a greater amount of timber volumes than the agreements the proponents have already entered into; therefore, the proponents are able to enter into this contract. It is a fine line, and I appreciate the question because it gives me the opportunity to try to explain why the Government is doing what it is doing. The Government hopes that it will be able to enter into agreements with proponents in the not too distant future. I hope that in some cases it will be weeks rather than months; however, other agreements will take longer. In the earlier instances, I hope that through this process we do not enter into agreements with companies that will provide for timber volumes that are greater than can be delivered by the FMP. If we pick that number right - there is a risk - we will be able to bring to the industry the certainty that it needs if we are to attract investment into those job-creating, value-adding opportunities that we are so keen to undertake. Enormous pressure is on members on both sides of the House to deliver an investment scenario that can allow new jobs to be created out of the limited amount of forest product that will be available under the FMP. The earlier we can do that and the more certainty we can bring to communities, the sooner we can end the horrendous difficulties that are being caused for timber communities in the south west. I completely support the Government’s attitude to this process. We must end the uncertainty. I have been delighted and encouraged by the support of the Gallop Cabinet, which is entirely united on this matter, notwithstanding the tone of Hon Peter Foss’s question. We are united in the achievement of the old-growth forest policy, which has three parts. The old-growth policy requires us, first, to save the old-growth forest; secondly, to deliver a value-added industry that can provide opportunities for us to use the intrinsic value of our native and plantation timbers; and, thirdly, to set up our plantation industry in a manner that can ultimately replace the exploitation of the native forest. Hon Christine Sharp: You have forgotten an important aspect. The PRESIDENT: Order! This cannot become a debate. I am sure the minister is making his way to parts two and three of the member’s question. Hon KIM CHANCE: If I have forgotten a part of the policy - Hon Christine Sharp: Sustainability. Hon KIM CHANCE: Sustainability is an important part of the process; it is an intrinsic part of the FMP. The part of the question that referred to decisions on the forest management plans has been covered. (3) I am aware of milling trials of third-grade sawlogs or lower. I have been into the coupes from which those logs were harvested. I inspected the logs on site at the coupe landing. I was not able to be present during the milling processes, but I was surprised and delighted by the yield that came from those logging trials.
(1)-(2) I will repeat the question so that whoever reads Hansard will understand my understanding of the question. Do I agree that setting contracts prior to the forest management plan compromises the process? It can have that effect. However, if the member had asked me whether the Government intends to do that, I would have said that it does not, and there is a reason for that. Three answers could be given to the same question depending on whether, in establishing those contracts prior to the FMP, contracts were established for a greater amount of timber volume than could ultimately be delivered by the FMP. Although to do that would not compromise the process, it would put the Government at great financial risk. If we were to contract for X amount, yet the forest management plan delivers X minus Y, the Government would have severe problems because it would have to buy back the guarantees it made. The FMP has the potential to cause the Government financial problems; however, I do not believe that it compromises the process itself. Some people might argue that it is pre-emptive of the process, and in a sense it is. In effect, by entering into agreements with proponents prior to the FMP, the Government is saying that it believes the FMP will deliver a greater amount of timber volumes than the agreements the proponents have already entered into; therefore, the proponents are able to enter into this contract. It is a fine line, and I appreciate the question because it gives me the opportunity to try to explain why the Government is doing what it is doing. The Government hopes that it will be able to enter into agreements with proponents in the not too distant future. I hope that in some cases it will be weeks rather than months; however, other agreements will take longer. In the earlier instances, I hope that through this process we do not enter into agreements with companies that will provide for timber volumes that are greater than can be delivered by the FMP. If we pick that number right - there is a risk - we will be able to bring to the industry the certainty that it needs if we are to attract investment into those job-creating, value-adding opportunities that we are so keen to undertake. Enormous pressure is on members on both sides of the House to deliver an investment scenario that can allow new jobs to be created out of the limited amount of forest product that will be available under the FMP. The earlier we can do that and the more certainty we can bring to communities, the sooner we can end the horrendous difficulties that are being caused for timber communities in the south west. I completely support the Government’s attitude to this process. We must end the uncertainty. I have been delighted and encouraged by the support of the Gallop Cabinet, which is entirely united on this matter, notwithstanding the tone of Hon Peter Foss’s question. We are united in the achievement of the old-growth forest policy, which has three parts. The old-growth policy requires us, first, to save the old-growth forest; secondly, to deliver a value-added industry that can provide opportunities for us to use the intrinsic value of our native and plantation timbers; and, thirdly, to set up our plantation industry in a manner that can ultimately replace the exploitation of the native forest. Hon Christine Sharp: You have forgotten an important aspect. The PRESIDENT: Order! This cannot become a debate. I am sure the minister is making his way to parts two and three of the member’s question. Hon KIM CHANCE: If I have forgotten a part of the policy - Hon Christine Sharp: Sustainability. Hon KIM CHANCE: Sustainability is an important part of the process; it is an intrinsic part of the FMP. The part of the question that referred to decisions on the forest management plans has been covered. (3) I am aware of milling trials of third-grade sawlogs or lower. I have been into the coupes from which those logs were harvested. I inspected the logs on site at the coupe landing. I was not able to be present during the milling processes, but I was surprised and delighted by the yield that came from those logging trials.
The Government hopes that it will be able to enter into agreements with proponents in the not too distant future. I hope that in some cases it will be weeks rather than months; however, other agreements will take longer. In the earlier instances, I hope that through this process we do not enter into agreements with companies that will provide for timber volumes that are greater than can be delivered by the FMP. If we pick that number right - there is a risk - we will be able to bring to the industry the certainty that it needs if we are to attract investment into those job-creating, value-adding opportunities that we are so keen to undertake. Enormous pressure is on members on both sides of the House to deliver an investment scenario that can allow new jobs to be created out of the limited amount of forest product that will be available under the FMP. The earlier we can do that and the more certainty we can bring to communities, the sooner we can end the horrendous difficulties that are being caused for timber communities in the south west. I completely support the Government’s attitude to this process. We must end the uncertainty. I have been delighted and encouraged by the support of the Gallop Cabinet, which is entirely united on this matter, notwithstanding the tone of Hon Peter Foss’s question. We are united in the achievement of the old-growth forest policy, which has three parts. The old-growth policy requires us, first, to save the old-growth forest; secondly, to deliver a value-added industry that can provide opportunities for us to use the intrinsic value of our native and plantation timbers; and, thirdly, to set up our plantation industry in a manner that can ultimately replace the exploitation of the native forest.
I completely support the Government’s attitude to this process. We must end the uncertainty. I have been delighted and encouraged by the support of the Gallop Cabinet, which is entirely united on this matter, notwithstanding the tone of Hon Peter Foss’s question. We are united in the achievement of the old-growth forest policy, which has three parts. The old-growth policy requires us, first, to save the old-growth forest; secondly, to deliver a value-added industry that can provide opportunities for us to use the intrinsic value of our native and plantation timbers; and, thirdly, to set up our plantation industry in a manner that can ultimately replace the exploitation of the native forest.
The PRESIDENT: Order! This cannot become a debate. I am sure the minister is making his way to parts two and three of the member’s question. Hon KIM CHANCE: If I have forgotten a part of the policy - Hon Christine Sharp: Sustainability. Hon KIM CHANCE: Sustainability is an important part of the process; it is an intrinsic part of the FMP. The part of the question that referred to decisions on the forest management plans has been covered. (3) I am aware of milling trials of third-grade sawlogs or lower. I have been into the coupes from which those logs were harvested. I inspected the logs on site at the coupe landing. I was not able to be present during the milling processes, but I was surprised and delighted by the yield that came from those logging trials.
Hon KIM CHANCE: If I have forgotten a part of the policy - Hon Christine Sharp: Sustainability. Hon KIM CHANCE: Sustainability is an important part of the process; it is an intrinsic part of the FMP. The part of the question that referred to decisions on the forest management plans has been covered. (3) I am aware of milling trials of third-grade sawlogs or lower. I have been into the coupes from which those logs were harvested. I inspected the logs on site at the coupe landing. I was not able to be present during the milling processes, but I was surprised and delighted by the yield that came from those logging trials.
Hon Christine Sharp: Sustainability. Hon KIM CHANCE: Sustainability is an important part of the process; it is an intrinsic part of the FMP. The part of the question that referred to decisions on the forest management plans has been covered. (3) I am aware of milling trials of third-grade sawlogs or lower. I have been into the coupes from which those logs were harvested. I inspected the logs on site at the coupe landing. I was not able to be present during the milling processes, but I was surprised and delighted by the yield that came from those logging trials.
Hon KIM CHANCE: Sustainability is an important part of the process; it is an intrinsic part of the FMP. The part of the question that referred to decisions on the forest management plans has been covered. (3) I am aware of milling trials of third-grade sawlogs or lower. I have been into the coupes from which those logs were harvested. I inspected the logs on site at the coupe landing. I was not able to be present during the milling processes, but I was surprised and delighted by the yield that came from those logging trials.
(3) I am aware of milling trials of third-grade sawlogs or lower. I have been into the coupes from which those logs were harvested. I inspected the logs on site at the coupe landing. I was not able to be present during the milling processes, but I was surprised and delighted by the yield that came from those logging trials.
(1) Does the minister agree that setting timber contracts, or even just setting firm expectations for timber allocations, severely compromises the integrity of the forest management plan process? If not, why not? (2) In answer to my question of 21 February, the minister said he would provide more information on how to maintain flexibility in timber allocations “once the decisions have been made”. To which decisions is the minister referring? (3) Is the minister aware of trials to establish the amounts of sawn timber that can be recovered from various log grades? If so, can the minister provide those results to me? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(2) I will repeat the question so that whoever reads Hansard will understand my understanding of the question. Do I agree that setting contracts prior to the forest management plan compromises the process? It can have that effect. However, if the member had asked me whether the Government intends to do that, I would have said that it does not, and there is a reason for that. Three answers could be given to the same question depending on whether, in establishing those contracts prior to the FMP, contracts were established for a greater amount of timber volume than could ultimately be delivered by the FMP. Although to do that would not compromise the process, it would put the Government at great financial risk. If we were to contract for X amount, yet the forest management plan delivers X minus Y, the Government would have severe problems because it would have to buy back the guarantees it made. The FMP has the potential to cause the Government financial problems; however, I do not believe that it compromises the process itself. Some people might argue that it is pre-emptive of the process, and in a sense it is. In effect, by entering into agreements with proponents prior to the FMP, the Government is saying that it believes the FMP will deliver a greater amount of timber volumes than the agreements the proponents have already entered into; therefore, the proponents are able to enter into this contract. It is a fine line, and I appreciate the question because it gives me the opportunity to try to explain why the Government is doing what it is doing. The Government hopes that it will be able to enter into agreements with proponents in the not too distant future. I hope that in some cases it will be weeks rather than months; however, other agreements will take longer. In the earlier instances, I hope that through this process we do not enter into agreements with companies that will provide for timber volumes that are greater than can be delivered by the FMP. If we pick that number right - there is a risk - we will be able to bring to the industry the certainty that it needs if we are to attract investment into those job-creating, value-adding opportunities that we are so keen to undertake. Enormous pressure is on members on both sides of the House to deliver an investment scenario that can allow new jobs to be created out of the limited amount of forest product that will be available under the FMP. The earlier we can do that and the more certainty we can bring to communities, the sooner we can end the horrendous difficulties that are being caused for timber communities in the south west. I completely support the Government’s attitude to this process. We must end the uncertainty. I have been delighted and encouraged by the support of the Gallop Cabinet, which is entirely united on this matter, notwithstanding the tone of Hon Peter Foss’s question. We are united in the achievement of the old-growth forest policy, which has three parts. The old-growth policy requires us, first, to save the old-growth forest; secondly, to deliver a value-added industry that can provide opportunities for us to use the intrinsic value of our native and plantation timbers; and, thirdly, to set up our plantation industry in a manner that can ultimately replace the exploitation of the native forest. Hon Christine Sharp: You have forgotten an important aspect. The PRESIDENT: Order! This cannot become a debate. I am sure the minister is making his way to parts two and three of the member’s question. Hon KIM CHANCE: If I have forgotten a part of the policy - Hon Christine Sharp: Sustainability. Hon KIM CHANCE: Sustainability is an important part of the process; it is an intrinsic part of the FMP. The part of the question that referred to decisions on the forest management plans has been covered. (3) I am aware of milling trials of third-grade sawlogs or lower. I have been into the coupes from which those logs were harvested. I inspected the logs on site at the coupe landing. I was not able to be present during the milling processes, but I was surprised and delighted by the yield that came from those logging trials.
(2) In answer to my question of 21 February, the minister said he would provide more information on how to maintain flexibility in timber allocations “once the decisions have been made”. To which decisions is the minister referring? (3) Is the minister aware of trials to establish the amounts of sawn timber that can be recovered from various log grades? If so, can the minister provide those results to me? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(2) I will repeat the question so that whoever reads Hansard will understand my understanding of the question. Do I agree that setting contracts prior to the forest management plan compromises the process? It can have that effect. However, if the member had asked me whether the Government intends to do that, I would have said that it does not, and there is a reason for that. Three answers could be given to the same question depending on whether, in establishing those contracts prior to the FMP, contracts were established for a greater amount of timber volume than could ultimately be delivered by the FMP. Although to do that would not compromise the process, it would put the Government at great financial risk. If we were to contract for X amount, yet the forest management plan delivers X minus Y, the Government would have severe problems because it would have to buy back the guarantees it made. The FMP has the potential to cause the Government financial problems; however, I do not believe that it compromises the process itself. Some people might argue that it is pre-emptive of the process, and in a sense it is. In effect, by entering into agreements with proponents prior to the FMP, the Government is saying that it believes the FMP will deliver a greater amount of timber volumes than the agreements the proponents have already entered into; therefore, the proponents are able to enter into this contract. It is a fine line, and I appreciate the question because it gives me the opportunity to try to explain why the Government is doing what it is doing. The Government hopes that it will be able to enter into agreements with proponents in the not too distant future. I hope that in some cases it will be weeks rather than months; however, other agreements will take longer. In the earlier instances, I hope that through this process we do not enter into agreements with companies that will provide for timber volumes that are greater than can be delivered by the FMP. If we pick that number right - there is a risk - we will be able to bring to the industry the certainty that it needs if we are to attract investment into those job-creating, value-adding opportunities that we are so keen to undertake. Enormous pressure is on members on both sides of the House to deliver an investment scenario that can allow new jobs to be created out of the limited amount of forest product that will be available under the FMP. The earlier we can do that and the more certainty we can bring to communities, the sooner we can end the horrendous difficulties that are being caused for timber communities in the south west. I completely support the Government’s attitude to this process. We must end the uncertainty. I have been delighted and encouraged by the support of the Gallop Cabinet, which is entirely united on this matter, notwithstanding the tone of Hon Peter Foss’s question. We are united in the achievement of the old-growth forest policy, which has three parts. The old-growth policy requires us, first, to save the old-growth forest; secondly, to deliver a value-added industry that can provide opportunities for us to use the intrinsic value of our native and plantation timbers; and, thirdly, to set up our plantation industry in a manner that can ultimately replace the exploitation of the native forest. Hon Christine Sharp: You have forgotten an important aspect. The PRESIDENT: Order! This cannot become a debate. I am sure the minister is making his way to parts two and three of the member’s question. Hon KIM CHANCE: If I have forgotten a part of the policy - Hon Christine Sharp: Sustainability. Hon KIM CHANCE: Sustainability is an important part of the process; it is an intrinsic part of the FMP. The part of the question that referred to decisions on the forest management plans has been covered. (3) I am aware of milling trials of third-grade sawlogs or lower. I have been into the coupes from which those logs were harvested. I inspected the logs on site at the coupe landing. I was not able to be present during the milling processes, but I was surprised and delighted by the yield that came from those logging trials.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(2) I will repeat the question so that whoever reads Hansard will understand my understanding of the question. Do I agree that setting contracts prior to the forest management plan compromises the process? It can have that effect. However, if the member had asked me whether the Government intends to do that, I would have said that it does not, and there is a reason for that. Three answers could be given to the same question depending on whether, in establishing those contracts prior to the FMP, contracts were established for a greater amount of timber volume than could ultimately be delivered by the FMP. Although to do that would not compromise the process, it would put the Government at great financial risk. If we were to contract for X amount, yet the forest management plan delivers X minus Y, the Government would have severe problems because it would have to buy back the guarantees it made. The FMP has the potential to cause the Government financial problems; however, I do not believe that it compromises the process itself. Some people might argue that it is pre-emptive of the process, and in a sense it is. In effect, by entering into agreements with proponents prior to the FMP, the Government is saying that it believes the FMP will deliver a greater amount of timber volumes than the agreements the proponents have already entered into; therefore, the proponents are able to enter into this contract. It is a fine line, and I appreciate the question because it gives me the opportunity to try to explain why the Government is doing what it is doing. The Government hopes that it will be able to enter into agreements with proponents in the not too distant future. I hope that in some cases it will be weeks rather than months; however, other agreements will take longer. In the earlier instances, I hope that through this process we do not enter into agreements with companies that will provide for timber volumes that are greater than can be delivered by the FMP. If we pick that number right - there is a risk - we will be able to bring to the industry the certainty that it needs if we are to attract investment into those job-creating, value-adding opportunities that we are so keen to undertake. Enormous pressure is on members on both sides of the House to deliver an investment scenario that can allow new jobs to be created out of the limited amount of forest product that will be available under the FMP. The earlier we can do that and the more certainty we can bring to communities, the sooner we can end the horrendous difficulties that are being caused for timber communities in the south west. I completely support the Government’s attitude to this process. We must end the uncertainty. I have been delighted and encouraged by the support of the Gallop Cabinet, which is entirely united on this matter, notwithstanding the tone of Hon Peter Foss’s question. We are united in the achievement of the old-growth forest policy, which has three parts. The old-growth policy requires us, first, to save the old-growth forest; secondly, to deliver a value-added industry that can provide opportunities for us to use the intrinsic value of our native and plantation timbers; and, thirdly, to set up our plantation industry in a manner that can ultimately replace the exploitation of the native forest. Hon Christine Sharp: You have forgotten an important aspect. The PRESIDENT: Order! This cannot become a debate. I am sure the minister is making his way to parts two and three of the member’s question. Hon KIM CHANCE: If I have forgotten a part of the policy - Hon Christine Sharp: Sustainability. Hon KIM CHANCE: Sustainability is an important part of the process; it is an intrinsic part of the FMP. The part of the question that referred to decisions on the forest management plans has been covered. (3) I am aware of milling trials of third-grade sawlogs or lower. I have been into the coupes from which those logs were harvested. I inspected the logs on site at the coupe landing. I was not able to be present during the milling processes, but I was surprised and delighted by the yield that came from those logging trials.
(1)-(2) I will repeat the question so that whoever reads Hansard will understand my understanding of the question. Do I agree that setting contracts prior to the forest management plan compromises the process? It can have that effect. However, if the member had asked me whether the Government intends to do that, I would have said that it does not, and there is a reason for that. Three answers could be given to the same question depending on whether, in establishing those contracts prior to the FMP, contracts were established for a greater amount of timber volume than could ultimately be delivered by the FMP. Although to do that would not compromise the process, it would put the Government at great financial risk. If we were to contract for X amount, yet the forest management plan delivers X minus Y, the Government would have severe problems because it would have to buy back the guarantees it made. The FMP has the potential to cause the Government financial problems; however, I do not believe that it compromises the process itself. Some people might argue that it is pre-emptive of the process, and in a sense it is. In effect, by entering into agreements with proponents prior to the FMP, the Government is saying that it believes the FMP will deliver a greater amount of timber volumes than the agreements the proponents have already entered into; therefore, the proponents are able to enter into this contract. It is a fine line, and I appreciate the question because it gives me the opportunity to try to explain why the Government is doing what it is doing. The Government hopes that it will be able to enter into agreements with proponents in the not too distant future. I hope that in some cases it will be weeks rather than months; however, other agreements will take longer. In the earlier instances, I hope that through this process we do not enter into agreements with companies that will provide for timber volumes that are greater than can be delivered by the FMP. If we pick that number right - there is a risk - we will be able to bring to the industry the certainty that it needs if we are to attract investment into those job-creating, value-adding opportunities that we are so keen to undertake. Enormous pressure is on members on both sides of the House to deliver an investment scenario that can allow new jobs to be created out of the limited amount of forest product that will be available under the FMP. The earlier we can do that and the more certainty we can bring to communities, the sooner we can end the horrendous difficulties that are being caused for timber communities in the south west. I completely support the Government’s attitude to this process. We must end the uncertainty. I have been delighted and encouraged by the support of the Gallop Cabinet, which is entirely united on this matter, notwithstanding the tone of Hon Peter Foss’s question. We are united in the achievement of the old-growth forest policy, which has three parts. The old-growth policy requires us, first, to save the old-growth forest; secondly, to deliver a value-added industry that can provide opportunities for us to use the intrinsic value of our native and plantation timbers; and, thirdly, to set up our plantation industry in a manner that can ultimately replace the exploitation of the native forest. Hon Christine Sharp: You have forgotten an important aspect. The PRESIDENT: Order! This cannot become a debate. I am sure the minister is making his way to parts two and three of the member’s question. Hon KIM CHANCE: If I have forgotten a part of the policy - Hon Christine Sharp: Sustainability. Hon KIM CHANCE: Sustainability is an important part of the process; it is an intrinsic part of the FMP. The part of the question that referred to decisions on the forest management plans has been covered. (3) I am aware of milling trials of third-grade sawlogs or lower. I have been into the coupes from which those logs were harvested. I inspected the logs on site at the coupe landing. I was not able to be present during the milling processes, but I was surprised and delighted by the yield that came from those logging trials.
The Government hopes that it will be able to enter into agreements with proponents in the not too distant future. I hope that in some cases it will be weeks rather than months; however, other agreements will take longer. In the earlier instances, I hope that through this process we do not enter into agreements with companies that will provide for timber volumes that are greater than can be delivered by the FMP. If we pick that number right - there is a risk - we will be able to bring to the industry the certainty that it needs if we are to attract investment into those job-creating, value-adding opportunities that we are so keen to undertake. Enormous pressure is on members on both sides of the House to deliver an investment scenario that can allow new jobs to be created out of the limited amount of forest product that will be available under the FMP. The earlier we can do that and the more certainty we can bring to communities, the sooner we can end the horrendous difficulties that are being caused for timber communities in the south west. I completely support the Government’s attitude to this process. We must end the uncertainty. I have been delighted and encouraged by the support of the Gallop Cabinet, which is entirely united on this matter, notwithstanding the tone of Hon Peter Foss’s question. We are united in the achievement of the old-growth forest policy, which has three parts. The old-growth policy requires us, first, to save the old-growth forest; secondly, to deliver a value-added industry that can provide opportunities for us to use the intrinsic value of our native and plantation timbers; and, thirdly, to set up our plantation industry in a manner that can ultimately replace the exploitation of the native forest.
I completely support the Government’s attitude to this process. We must end the uncertainty. I have been delighted and encouraged by the support of the Gallop Cabinet, which is entirely united on this matter, notwithstanding the tone of Hon Peter Foss’s question. We are united in the achievement of the old-growth forest policy, which has three parts. The old-growth policy requires us, first, to save the old-growth forest; secondly, to deliver a value-added industry that can provide opportunities for us to use the intrinsic value of our native and plantation timbers; and, thirdly, to set up our plantation industry in a manner that can ultimately replace the exploitation of the native forest.
The PRESIDENT: Order! This cannot become a debate. I am sure the minister is making his way to parts two and three of the member’s question. Hon KIM CHANCE: If I have forgotten a part of the policy - Hon Christine Sharp: Sustainability. Hon KIM CHANCE: Sustainability is an important part of the process; it is an intrinsic part of the FMP. The part of the question that referred to decisions on the forest management plans has been covered. (3) I am aware of milling trials of third-grade sawlogs or lower. I have been into the coupes from which those logs were harvested. I inspected the logs on site at the coupe landing. I was not able to be present during the milling processes, but I was surprised and delighted by the yield that came from those logging trials.
Hon KIM CHANCE: If I have forgotten a part of the policy - Hon Christine Sharp: Sustainability. Hon KIM CHANCE: Sustainability is an important part of the process; it is an intrinsic part of the FMP. The part of the question that referred to decisions on the forest management plans has been covered. (3) I am aware of milling trials of third-grade sawlogs or lower. I have been into the coupes from which those logs were harvested. I inspected the logs on site at the coupe landing. I was not able to be present during the milling processes, but I was surprised and delighted by the yield that came from those logging trials.
Hon Christine Sharp: Sustainability. Hon KIM CHANCE: Sustainability is an important part of the process; it is an intrinsic part of the FMP. The part of the question that referred to decisions on the forest management plans has been covered. (3) I am aware of milling trials of third-grade sawlogs or lower. I have been into the coupes from which those logs were harvested. I inspected the logs on site at the coupe landing. I was not able to be present during the milling processes, but I was surprised and delighted by the yield that came from those logging trials.
Hon KIM CHANCE: Sustainability is an important part of the process; it is an intrinsic part of the FMP. The part of the question that referred to decisions on the forest management plans has been covered. (3) I am aware of milling trials of third-grade sawlogs or lower. I have been into the coupes from which those logs were harvested. I inspected the logs on site at the coupe landing. I was not able to be present during the milling processes, but I was surprised and delighted by the yield that came from those logging trials.
(3) I am aware of milling trials of third-grade sawlogs or lower. I have been into the coupes from which those logs were harvested. I inspected the logs on site at the coupe landing. I was not able to be present during the milling processes, but I was surprised and delighted by the yield that came from those logging trials.
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.