❓ The Minister for Agriculture and Forestry provides an update on the Muchea livestock selling centre, confirming it's on track for a 2006 opening, fully funded by the government, and addresses land purchase and environmental approval status.
AnsweredQoN 314Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
(1) Can the minister inform the house of the current status of the proposed livestock selling centre at Muchea? (2) Has the land needed for the selling centre been purchased? (3) If so, has the proposed site received environmental approval for the development to proceed? (4) When is the livestock selling centre expected to open? (5) Will the proposed Muchea livestock selling centre be fully funded by the government? (6) What other regional livestock selling centres are to be upgraded? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for his question. (1) The status of the development of the Muchea livestock selling complex is on target. In the revised time scale that we put out about 12 months ago, we said that livestock sales would be conducted at Muchea by the end of 2006. In fact, I had a report from the WA Meat Industry Authority not long ago confirming that the development was on schedule to meet the 2006 operational date. (2) The land has been secured but the purchase has not been finalised. The options have been exercised but, as far as I am aware, the transaction of funds has not been taken up. The seller raised issues of a continuing mining right on the land, which needed to be renegotiated with WAMIA. I believe that may have held things up, but, as I understand it, the transaction process is still running smoothly. I do not think that either the buyer or seller is overly concerned. (3) The necessary applications have been made for EPA approval. I understand that the EPA is at this stage determining the level of assessment that will be carried out. Although I am probably not allowed to say this, I understand that the indicated level will be one of the lower level processes because of the existing land use. It is, after all, a mine site at the moment. (4) I have answered this part of the question. I believe that the livestock complex will be open for business at the end of 2006. (5) Yes, it will be fully funded by the government. The $16 million cost, which is the total go to whoa cost of the Muchea livestock selling complex, will be fully funded from the revenue created by the sale of the Midland saleyards land and the land attached to it but under the control of the Western Australian Meat Industry Authority. (6) This part of the question is harder to answer. It has always been my personal view that it would be better for this complex to carry some debt, in that it should not be fully funded by the government, and that the debt should be represented by a fund that can be drawn upon by other saleyards. However, the act does not permit that, and it would require a change in the legislation. The government has not made a decision in accord with my personal views on this matter. Simply because of the timing of the decision-making process, I have not felt obliged to clarify that matter within government yet. I would rather wait - I am sure the government would also rather wait - until there is some certainty about the eventual sale price of the Midland land and the construction cost of the Muchea complex before we divvy up anything left over, if there is anything left over. It is certainly my view that to create a degree of equity between saleyards around the state, the Muchea complex should probably carry some debt. Otherwise the government-owned facility would be debt free and saleyards owned by local government in other parts of the state would be carrying a debt burden. That is not equity. We do not have to solve that issue immediately, but I hope that as the issue progresses we will get over that problem. It may require a change to the legislation.
(2) Has the land needed for the selling centre been purchased? (3) If so, has the proposed site received environmental approval for the development to proceed? (4) When is the livestock selling centre expected to open? (5) Will the proposed Muchea livestock selling centre be fully funded by the government? (6) What other regional livestock selling centres are to be upgraded? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for his question. (1) The status of the development of the Muchea livestock selling complex is on target. In the revised time scale that we put out about 12 months ago, we said that livestock sales would be conducted at Muchea by the end of 2006. In fact, I had a report from the WA Meat Industry Authority not long ago confirming that the development was on schedule to meet the 2006 operational date. (2) The land has been secured but the purchase has not been finalised. The options have been exercised but, as far as I am aware, the transaction of funds has not been taken up. The seller raised issues of a continuing mining right on the land, which needed to be renegotiated with WAMIA. I believe that may have held things up, but, as I understand it, the transaction process is still running smoothly. I do not think that either the buyer or seller is overly concerned. (3) The necessary applications have been made for EPA approval. I understand that the EPA is at this stage determining the level of assessment that will be carried out. Although I am probably not allowed to say this, I understand that the indicated level will be one of the lower level processes because of the existing land use. It is, after all, a mine site at the moment. (4) I have answered this part of the question. I believe that the livestock complex will be open for business at the end of 2006. (5) Yes, it will be fully funded by the government. The $16 million cost, which is the total go to whoa cost of the Muchea livestock selling complex, will be fully funded from the revenue created by the sale of the Midland saleyards land and the land attached to it but under the control of the Western Australian Meat Industry Authority. (6) This part of the question is harder to answer. It has always been my personal view that it would be better for this complex to carry some debt, in that it should not be fully funded by the government, and that the debt should be represented by a fund that can be drawn upon by other saleyards. However, the act does not permit that, and it would require a change in the legislation. The government has not made a decision in accord with my personal views on this matter. Simply because of the timing of the decision-making process, I have not felt obliged to clarify that matter within government yet. I would rather wait - I am sure the government would also rather wait - until there is some certainty about the eventual sale price of the Midland land and the construction cost of the Muchea complex before we divvy up anything left over, if there is anything left over. It is certainly my view that to create a degree of equity between saleyards around the state, the Muchea complex should probably carry some debt. Otherwise the government-owned facility would be debt free and saleyards owned by local government in other parts of the state would be carrying a debt burden. That is not equity. We do not have to solve that issue immediately, but I hope that as the issue progresses we will get over that problem. It may require a change to the legislation.
(3) If so, has the proposed site received environmental approval for the development to proceed? (4) When is the livestock selling centre expected to open? (5) Will the proposed Muchea livestock selling centre be fully funded by the government? (6) What other regional livestock selling centres are to be upgraded? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for his question. (1) The status of the development of the Muchea livestock selling complex is on target. In the revised time scale that we put out about 12 months ago, we said that livestock sales would be conducted at Muchea by the end of 2006. In fact, I had a report from the WA Meat Industry Authority not long ago confirming that the development was on schedule to meet the 2006 operational date. (2) The land has been secured but the purchase has not been finalised. The options have been exercised but, as far as I am aware, the transaction of funds has not been taken up. The seller raised issues of a continuing mining right on the land, which needed to be renegotiated with WAMIA. I believe that may have held things up, but, as I understand it, the transaction process is still running smoothly. I do not think that either the buyer or seller is overly concerned. (3) The necessary applications have been made for EPA approval. I understand that the EPA is at this stage determining the level of assessment that will be carried out. Although I am probably not allowed to say this, I understand that the indicated level will be one of the lower level processes because of the existing land use. It is, after all, a mine site at the moment. (4) I have answered this part of the question. I believe that the livestock complex will be open for business at the end of 2006. (5) Yes, it will be fully funded by the government. The $16 million cost, which is the total go to whoa cost of the Muchea livestock selling complex, will be fully funded from the revenue created by the sale of the Midland saleyards land and the land attached to it but under the control of the Western Australian Meat Industry Authority. (6) This part of the question is harder to answer. It has always been my personal view that it would be better for this complex to carry some debt, in that it should not be fully funded by the government, and that the debt should be represented by a fund that can be drawn upon by other saleyards. However, the act does not permit that, and it would require a change in the legislation. The government has not made a decision in accord with my personal views on this matter. Simply because of the timing of the decision-making process, I have not felt obliged to clarify that matter within government yet. I would rather wait - I am sure the government would also rather wait - until there is some certainty about the eventual sale price of the Midland land and the construction cost of the Muchea complex before we divvy up anything left over, if there is anything left over. It is certainly my view that to create a degree of equity between saleyards around the state, the Muchea complex should probably carry some debt. Otherwise the government-owned facility would be debt free and saleyards owned by local government in other parts of the state would be carrying a debt burden. That is not equity. We do not have to solve that issue immediately, but I hope that as the issue progresses we will get over that problem. It may require a change to the legislation.
(4) When is the livestock selling centre expected to open? (5) Will the proposed Muchea livestock selling centre be fully funded by the government? (6) What other regional livestock selling centres are to be upgraded? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for his question. (1) The status of the development of the Muchea livestock selling complex is on target. In the revised time scale that we put out about 12 months ago, we said that livestock sales would be conducted at Muchea by the end of 2006. In fact, I had a report from the WA Meat Industry Authority not long ago confirming that the development was on schedule to meet the 2006 operational date. (2) The land has been secured but the purchase has not been finalised. The options have been exercised but, as far as I am aware, the transaction of funds has not been taken up. The seller raised issues of a continuing mining right on the land, which needed to be renegotiated with WAMIA. I believe that may have held things up, but, as I understand it, the transaction process is still running smoothly. I do not think that either the buyer or seller is overly concerned. (3) The necessary applications have been made for EPA approval. I understand that the EPA is at this stage determining the level of assessment that will be carried out. Although I am probably not allowed to say this, I understand that the indicated level will be one of the lower level processes because of the existing land use. It is, after all, a mine site at the moment. (4) I have answered this part of the question. I believe that the livestock complex will be open for business at the end of 2006. (5) Yes, it will be fully funded by the government. The $16 million cost, which is the total go to whoa cost of the Muchea livestock selling complex, will be fully funded from the revenue created by the sale of the Midland saleyards land and the land attached to it but under the control of the Western Australian Meat Industry Authority. (6) This part of the question is harder to answer. It has always been my personal view that it would be better for this complex to carry some debt, in that it should not be fully funded by the government, and that the debt should be represented by a fund that can be drawn upon by other saleyards. However, the act does not permit that, and it would require a change in the legislation. The government has not made a decision in accord with my personal views on this matter. Simply because of the timing of the decision-making process, I have not felt obliged to clarify that matter within government yet. I would rather wait - I am sure the government would also rather wait - until there is some certainty about the eventual sale price of the Midland land and the construction cost of the Muchea complex before we divvy up anything left over, if there is anything left over. It is certainly my view that to create a degree of equity between saleyards around the state, the Muchea complex should probably carry some debt. Otherwise the government-owned facility would be debt free and saleyards owned by local government in other parts of the state would be carrying a debt burden. That is not equity. We do not have to solve that issue immediately, but I hope that as the issue progresses we will get over that problem. It may require a change to the legislation.
(5) Will the proposed Muchea livestock selling centre be fully funded by the government? (6) What other regional livestock selling centres are to be upgraded? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for his question. (1) The status of the development of the Muchea livestock selling complex is on target. In the revised time scale that we put out about 12 months ago, we said that livestock sales would be conducted at Muchea by the end of 2006. In fact, I had a report from the WA Meat Industry Authority not long ago confirming that the development was on schedule to meet the 2006 operational date. (2) The land has been secured but the purchase has not been finalised. The options have been exercised but, as far as I am aware, the transaction of funds has not been taken up. The seller raised issues of a continuing mining right on the land, which needed to be renegotiated with WAMIA. I believe that may have held things up, but, as I understand it, the transaction process is still running smoothly. I do not think that either the buyer or seller is overly concerned. (3) The necessary applications have been made for EPA approval. I understand that the EPA is at this stage determining the level of assessment that will be carried out. Although I am probably not allowed to say this, I understand that the indicated level will be one of the lower level processes because of the existing land use. It is, after all, a mine site at the moment. (4) I have answered this part of the question. I believe that the livestock complex will be open for business at the end of 2006. (5) Yes, it will be fully funded by the government. The $16 million cost, which is the total go to whoa cost of the Muchea livestock selling complex, will be fully funded from the revenue created by the sale of the Midland saleyards land and the land attached to it but under the control of the Western Australian Meat Industry Authority. (6) This part of the question is harder to answer. It has always been my personal view that it would be better for this complex to carry some debt, in that it should not be fully funded by the government, and that the debt should be represented by a fund that can be drawn upon by other saleyards. However, the act does not permit that, and it would require a change in the legislation. The government has not made a decision in accord with my personal views on this matter. Simply because of the timing of the decision-making process, I have not felt obliged to clarify that matter within government yet. I would rather wait - I am sure the government would also rather wait - until there is some certainty about the eventual sale price of the Midland land and the construction cost of the Muchea complex before we divvy up anything left over, if there is anything left over. It is certainly my view that to create a degree of equity between saleyards around the state, the Muchea complex should probably carry some debt. Otherwise the government-owned facility would be debt free and saleyards owned by local government in other parts of the state would be carrying a debt burden. That is not equity. We do not have to solve that issue immediately, but I hope that as the issue progresses we will get over that problem. It may require a change to the legislation.
(6) What other regional livestock selling centres are to be upgraded? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for his question. (1) The status of the development of the Muchea livestock selling complex is on target. In the revised time scale that we put out about 12 months ago, we said that livestock sales would be conducted at Muchea by the end of 2006. In fact, I had a report from the WA Meat Industry Authority not long ago confirming that the development was on schedule to meet the 2006 operational date. (2) The land has been secured but the purchase has not been finalised. The options have been exercised but, as far as I am aware, the transaction of funds has not been taken up. The seller raised issues of a continuing mining right on the land, which needed to be renegotiated with WAMIA. I believe that may have held things up, but, as I understand it, the transaction process is still running smoothly. I do not think that either the buyer or seller is overly concerned. (3) The necessary applications have been made for EPA approval. I understand that the EPA is at this stage determining the level of assessment that will be carried out. Although I am probably not allowed to say this, I understand that the indicated level will be one of the lower level processes because of the existing land use. It is, after all, a mine site at the moment. (4) I have answered this part of the question. I believe that the livestock complex will be open for business at the end of 2006. (5) Yes, it will be fully funded by the government. The $16 million cost, which is the total go to whoa cost of the Muchea livestock selling complex, will be fully funded from the revenue created by the sale of the Midland saleyards land and the land attached to it but under the control of the Western Australian Meat Industry Authority. (6) This part of the question is harder to answer. It has always been my personal view that it would be better for this complex to carry some debt, in that it should not be fully funded by the government, and that the debt should be represented by a fund that can be drawn upon by other saleyards. However, the act does not permit that, and it would require a change in the legislation. The government has not made a decision in accord with my personal views on this matter. Simply because of the timing of the decision-making process, I have not felt obliged to clarify that matter within government yet. I would rather wait - I am sure the government would also rather wait - until there is some certainty about the eventual sale price of the Midland land and the construction cost of the Muchea complex before we divvy up anything left over, if there is anything left over. It is certainly my view that to create a degree of equity between saleyards around the state, the Muchea complex should probably carry some debt. Otherwise the government-owned facility would be debt free and saleyards owned by local government in other parts of the state would be carrying a debt burden. That is not equity. We do not have to solve that issue immediately, but I hope that as the issue progresses we will get over that problem. It may require a change to the legislation.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for his question. (1) The status of the development of the Muchea livestock selling complex is on target. In the revised time scale that we put out about 12 months ago, we said that livestock sales would be conducted at Muchea by the end of 2006. In fact, I had a report from the WA Meat Industry Authority not long ago confirming that the development was on schedule to meet the 2006 operational date. (2) The land has been secured but the purchase has not been finalised. The options have been exercised but, as far as I am aware, the transaction of funds has not been taken up. The seller raised issues of a continuing mining right on the land, which needed to be renegotiated with WAMIA. I believe that may have held things up, but, as I understand it, the transaction process is still running smoothly. I do not think that either the buyer or seller is overly concerned. (3) The necessary applications have been made for EPA approval. I understand that the EPA is at this stage determining the level of assessment that will be carried out. Although I am probably not allowed to say this, I understand that the indicated level will be one of the lower level processes because of the existing land use. It is, after all, a mine site at the moment. (4) I have answered this part of the question. I believe that the livestock complex will be open for business at the end of 2006. (5) Yes, it will be fully funded by the government. The $16 million cost, which is the total go to whoa cost of the Muchea livestock selling complex, will be fully funded from the revenue created by the sale of the Midland saleyards land and the land attached to it but under the control of the Western Australian Meat Industry Authority. (6) This part of the question is harder to answer. It has always been my personal view that it would be better for this complex to carry some debt, in that it should not be fully funded by the government, and that the debt should be represented by a fund that can be drawn upon by other saleyards. However, the act does not permit that, and it would require a change in the legislation. The government has not made a decision in accord with my personal views on this matter. Simply because of the timing of the decision-making process, I have not felt obliged to clarify that matter within government yet. I would rather wait - I am sure the government would also rather wait - until there is some certainty about the eventual sale price of the Midland land and the construction cost of the Muchea complex before we divvy up anything left over, if there is anything left over. It is certainly my view that to create a degree of equity between saleyards around the state, the Muchea complex should probably carry some debt. Otherwise the government-owned facility would be debt free and saleyards owned by local government in other parts of the state would be carrying a debt burden. That is not equity. We do not have to solve that issue immediately, but I hope that as the issue progresses we will get over that problem. It may require a change to the legislation.
I thank the member for his question. (1) The status of the development of the Muchea livestock selling complex is on target. In the revised time scale that we put out about 12 months ago, we said that livestock sales would be conducted at Muchea by the end of 2006. In fact, I had a report from the WA Meat Industry Authority not long ago confirming that the development was on schedule to meet the 2006 operational date. (2) The land has been secured but the purchase has not been finalised. The options have been exercised but, as far as I am aware, the transaction of funds has not been taken up. The seller raised issues of a continuing mining right on the land, which needed to be renegotiated with WAMIA. I believe that may have held things up, but, as I understand it, the transaction process is still running smoothly. I do not think that either the buyer or seller is overly concerned. (3) The necessary applications have been made for EPA approval. I understand that the EPA is at this stage determining the level of assessment that will be carried out. Although I am probably not allowed to say this, I understand that the indicated level will be one of the lower level processes because of the existing land use. It is, after all, a mine site at the moment. (4) I have answered this part of the question. I believe that the livestock complex will be open for business at the end of 2006. (5) Yes, it will be fully funded by the government. The $16 million cost, which is the total go to whoa cost of the Muchea livestock selling complex, will be fully funded from the revenue created by the sale of the Midland saleyards land and the land attached to it but under the control of the Western Australian Meat Industry Authority. (6) This part of the question is harder to answer. It has always been my personal view that it would be better for this complex to carry some debt, in that it should not be fully funded by the government, and that the debt should be represented by a fund that can be drawn upon by other saleyards. However, the act does not permit that, and it would require a change in the legislation. The government has not made a decision in accord with my personal views on this matter. Simply because of the timing of the decision-making process, I have not felt obliged to clarify that matter within government yet. I would rather wait - I am sure the government would also rather wait - until there is some certainty about the eventual sale price of the Midland land and the construction cost of the Muchea complex before we divvy up anything left over, if there is anything left over. It is certainly my view that to create a degree of equity between saleyards around the state, the Muchea complex should probably carry some debt. Otherwise the government-owned facility would be debt free and saleyards owned by local government in other parts of the state would be carrying a debt burden. That is not equity. We do not have to solve that issue immediately, but I hope that as the issue progresses we will get over that problem. It may require a change to the legislation.
(1) The status of the development of the Muchea livestock selling complex is on target. In the revised time scale that we put out about 12 months ago, we said that livestock sales would be conducted at Muchea by the end of 2006. In fact, I had a report from the WA Meat Industry Authority not long ago confirming that the development was on schedule to meet the 2006 operational date. (2) The land has been secured but the purchase has not been finalised. The options have been exercised but, as far as I am aware, the transaction of funds has not been taken up. The seller raised issues of a continuing mining right on the land, which needed to be renegotiated with WAMIA. I believe that may have held things up, but, as I understand it, the transaction process is still running smoothly. I do not think that either the buyer or seller is overly concerned. (3) The necessary applications have been made for EPA approval. I understand that the EPA is at this stage determining the level of assessment that will be carried out. Although I am probably not allowed to say this, I understand that the indicated level will be one of the lower level processes because of the existing land use. It is, after all, a mine site at the moment. (4) I have answered this part of the question. I believe that the livestock complex will be open for business at the end of 2006. (5) Yes, it will be fully funded by the government. The $16 million cost, which is the total go to whoa cost of the Muchea livestock selling complex, will be fully funded from the revenue created by the sale of the Midland saleyards land and the land attached to it but under the control of the Western Australian Meat Industry Authority. (6) This part of the question is harder to answer. It has always been my personal view that it would be better for this complex to carry some debt, in that it should not be fully funded by the government, and that the debt should be represented by a fund that can be drawn upon by other saleyards. However, the act does not permit that, and it would require a change in the legislation. The government has not made a decision in accord with my personal views on this matter. Simply because of the timing of the decision-making process, I have not felt obliged to clarify that matter within government yet. I would rather wait - I am sure the government would also rather wait - until there is some certainty about the eventual sale price of the Midland land and the construction cost of the Muchea complex before we divvy up anything left over, if there is anything left over. It is certainly my view that to create a degree of equity between saleyards around the state, the Muchea complex should probably carry some debt. Otherwise the government-owned facility would be debt free and saleyards owned by local government in other parts of the state would be carrying a debt burden. That is not equity. We do not have to solve that issue immediately, but I hope that as the issue progresses we will get over that problem. It may require a change to the legislation.
(2) The land has been secured but the purchase has not been finalised. The options have been exercised but, as far as I am aware, the transaction of funds has not been taken up. The seller raised issues of a continuing mining right on the land, which needed to be renegotiated with WAMIA. I believe that may have held things up, but, as I understand it, the transaction process is still running smoothly. I do not think that either the buyer or seller is overly concerned. (3) The necessary applications have been made for EPA approval. I understand that the EPA is at this stage determining the level of assessment that will be carried out. Although I am probably not allowed to say this, I understand that the indicated level will be one of the lower level processes because of the existing land use. It is, after all, a mine site at the moment. (4) I have answered this part of the question. I believe that the livestock complex will be open for business at the end of 2006. (5) Yes, it will be fully funded by the government. The $16 million cost, which is the total go to whoa cost of the Muchea livestock selling complex, will be fully funded from the revenue created by the sale of the Midland saleyards land and the land attached to it but under the control of the Western Australian Meat Industry Authority. (6) This part of the question is harder to answer. It has always been my personal view that it would be better for this complex to carry some debt, in that it should not be fully funded by the government, and that the debt should be represented by a fund that can be drawn upon by other saleyards. However, the act does not permit that, and it would require a change in the legislation. The government has not made a decision in accord with my personal views on this matter. Simply because of the timing of the decision-making process, I have not felt obliged to clarify that matter within government yet. I would rather wait - I am sure the government would also rather wait - until there is some certainty about the eventual sale price of the Midland land and the construction cost of the Muchea complex before we divvy up anything left over, if there is anything left over. It is certainly my view that to create a degree of equity between saleyards around the state, the Muchea complex should probably carry some debt. Otherwise the government-owned facility would be debt free and saleyards owned by local government in other parts of the state would be carrying a debt burden. That is not equity. We do not have to solve that issue immediately, but I hope that as the issue progresses we will get over that problem. It may require a change to the legislation.
(3) The necessary applications have been made for EPA approval. I understand that the EPA is at this stage determining the level of assessment that will be carried out. Although I am probably not allowed to say this, I understand that the indicated level will be one of the lower level processes because of the existing land use. It is, after all, a mine site at the moment. (4) I have answered this part of the question. I believe that the livestock complex will be open for business at the end of 2006. (5) Yes, it will be fully funded by the government. The $16 million cost, which is the total go to whoa cost of the Muchea livestock selling complex, will be fully funded from the revenue created by the sale of the Midland saleyards land and the land attached to it but under the control of the Western Australian Meat Industry Authority. (6) This part of the question is harder to answer. It has always been my personal view that it would be better for this complex to carry some debt, in that it should not be fully funded by the government, and that the debt should be represented by a fund that can be drawn upon by other saleyards. However, the act does not permit that, and it would require a change in the legislation. The government has not made a decision in accord with my personal views on this matter. Simply because of the timing of the decision-making process, I have not felt obliged to clarify that matter within government yet. I would rather wait - I am sure the government would also rather wait - until there is some certainty about the eventual sale price of the Midland land and the construction cost of the Muchea complex before we divvy up anything left over, if there is anything left over. It is certainly my view that to create a degree of equity between saleyards around the state, the Muchea complex should probably carry some debt. Otherwise the government-owned facility would be debt free and saleyards owned by local government in other parts of the state would be carrying a debt burden. That is not equity. We do not have to solve that issue immediately, but I hope that as the issue progresses we will get over that problem. It may require a change to the legislation.
(4) I have answered this part of the question. I believe that the livestock complex will be open for business at the end of 2006. (5) Yes, it will be fully funded by the government. The $16 million cost, which is the total go to whoa cost of the Muchea livestock selling complex, will be fully funded from the revenue created by the sale of the Midland saleyards land and the land attached to it but under the control of the Western Australian Meat Industry Authority. (6) This part of the question is harder to answer. It has always been my personal view that it would be better for this complex to carry some debt, in that it should not be fully funded by the government, and that the debt should be represented by a fund that can be drawn upon by other saleyards. However, the act does not permit that, and it would require a change in the legislation. The government has not made a decision in accord with my personal views on this matter. Simply because of the timing of the decision-making process, I have not felt obliged to clarify that matter within government yet. I would rather wait - I am sure the government would also rather wait - until there is some certainty about the eventual sale price of the Midland land and the construction cost of the Muchea complex before we divvy up anything left over, if there is anything left over. It is certainly my view that to create a degree of equity between saleyards around the state, the Muchea complex should probably carry some debt. Otherwise the government-owned facility would be debt free and saleyards owned by local government in other parts of the state would be carrying a debt burden. That is not equity. We do not have to solve that issue immediately, but I hope that as the issue progresses we will get over that problem. It may require a change to the legislation.
(5) Yes, it will be fully funded by the government. The $16 million cost, which is the total go to whoa cost of the Muchea livestock selling complex, will be fully funded from the revenue created by the sale of the Midland saleyards land and the land attached to it but under the control of the Western Australian Meat Industry Authority. (6) This part of the question is harder to answer. It has always been my personal view that it would be better for this complex to carry some debt, in that it should not be fully funded by the government, and that the debt should be represented by a fund that can be drawn upon by other saleyards. However, the act does not permit that, and it would require a change in the legislation. The government has not made a decision in accord with my personal views on this matter. Simply because of the timing of the decision-making process, I have not felt obliged to clarify that matter within government yet. I would rather wait - I am sure the government would also rather wait - until there is some certainty about the eventual sale price of the Midland land and the construction cost of the Muchea complex before we divvy up anything left over, if there is anything left over. It is certainly my view that to create a degree of equity between saleyards around the state, the Muchea complex should probably carry some debt. Otherwise the government-owned facility would be debt free and saleyards owned by local government in other parts of the state would be carrying a debt burden. That is not equity. We do not have to solve that issue immediately, but I hope that as the issue progresses we will get over that problem. It may require a change to the legislation.
(6) This part of the question is harder to answer. It has always been my personal view that it would be better for this complex to carry some debt, in that it should not be fully funded by the government, and that the debt should be represented by a fund that can be drawn upon by other saleyards. However, the act does not permit that, and it would require a change in the legislation. The government has not made a decision in accord with my personal views on this matter. Simply because of the timing of the decision-making process, I have not felt obliged to clarify that matter within government yet. I would rather wait - I am sure the government would also rather wait - until there is some certainty about the eventual sale price of the Midland land and the construction cost of the Muchea complex before we divvy up anything left over, if there is anything left over. It is certainly my view that to create a degree of equity between saleyards around the state, the Muchea complex should probably carry some debt. Otherwise the government-owned facility would be debt free and saleyards owned by local government in other parts of the state would be carrying a debt burden. That is not equity. We do not have to solve that issue immediately, but I hope that as the issue progresses we will get over that problem. It may require a change to the legislation.
(2) Has the land needed for the selling centre been purchased? (3) If so, has the proposed site received environmental approval for the development to proceed? (4) When is the livestock selling centre expected to open? (5) Will the proposed Muchea livestock selling centre be fully funded by the government? (6) What other regional livestock selling centres are to be upgraded? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for his question. (1) The status of the development of the Muchea livestock selling complex is on target. In the revised time scale that we put out about 12 months ago, we said that livestock sales would be conducted at Muchea by the end of 2006. In fact, I had a report from the WA Meat Industry Authority not long ago confirming that the development was on schedule to meet the 2006 operational date. (2) The land has been secured but the purchase has not been finalised. The options have been exercised but, as far as I am aware, the transaction of funds has not been taken up. The seller raised issues of a continuing mining right on the land, which needed to be renegotiated with WAMIA. I believe that may have held things up, but, as I understand it, the transaction process is still running smoothly. I do not think that either the buyer or seller is overly concerned. (3) The necessary applications have been made for EPA approval. I understand that the EPA is at this stage determining the level of assessment that will be carried out. Although I am probably not allowed to say this, I understand that the indicated level will be one of the lower level processes because of the existing land use. It is, after all, a mine site at the moment. (4) I have answered this part of the question. I believe that the livestock complex will be open for business at the end of 2006. (5) Yes, it will be fully funded by the government. The $16 million cost, which is the total go to whoa cost of the Muchea livestock selling complex, will be fully funded from the revenue created by the sale of the Midland saleyards land and the land attached to it but under the control of the Western Australian Meat Industry Authority. (6) This part of the question is harder to answer. It has always been my personal view that it would be better for this complex to carry some debt, in that it should not be fully funded by the government, and that the debt should be represented by a fund that can be drawn upon by other saleyards. However, the act does not permit that, and it would require a change in the legislation. The government has not made a decision in accord with my personal views on this matter. Simply because of the timing of the decision-making process, I have not felt obliged to clarify that matter within government yet. I would rather wait - I am sure the government would also rather wait - until there is some certainty about the eventual sale price of the Midland land and the construction cost of the Muchea complex before we divvy up anything left over, if there is anything left over. It is certainly my view that to create a degree of equity between saleyards around the state, the Muchea complex should probably carry some debt. Otherwise the government-owned facility would be debt free and saleyards owned by local government in other parts of the state would be carrying a debt burden. That is not equity. We do not have to solve that issue immediately, but I hope that as the issue progresses we will get over that problem. It may require a change to the legislation.
(3) If so, has the proposed site received environmental approval for the development to proceed? (4) When is the livestock selling centre expected to open? (5) Will the proposed Muchea livestock selling centre be fully funded by the government? (6) What other regional livestock selling centres are to be upgraded? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for his question. (1) The status of the development of the Muchea livestock selling complex is on target. In the revised time scale that we put out about 12 months ago, we said that livestock sales would be conducted at Muchea by the end of 2006. In fact, I had a report from the WA Meat Industry Authority not long ago confirming that the development was on schedule to meet the 2006 operational date. (2) The land has been secured but the purchase has not been finalised. The options have been exercised but, as far as I am aware, the transaction of funds has not been taken up. The seller raised issues of a continuing mining right on the land, which needed to be renegotiated with WAMIA. I believe that may have held things up, but, as I understand it, the transaction process is still running smoothly. I do not think that either the buyer or seller is overly concerned. (3) The necessary applications have been made for EPA approval. I understand that the EPA is at this stage determining the level of assessment that will be carried out. Although I am probably not allowed to say this, I understand that the indicated level will be one of the lower level processes because of the existing land use. It is, after all, a mine site at the moment. (4) I have answered this part of the question. I believe that the livestock complex will be open for business at the end of 2006. (5) Yes, it will be fully funded by the government. The $16 million cost, which is the total go to whoa cost of the Muchea livestock selling complex, will be fully funded from the revenue created by the sale of the Midland saleyards land and the land attached to it but under the control of the Western Australian Meat Industry Authority. (6) This part of the question is harder to answer. It has always been my personal view that it would be better for this complex to carry some debt, in that it should not be fully funded by the government, and that the debt should be represented by a fund that can be drawn upon by other saleyards. However, the act does not permit that, and it would require a change in the legislation. The government has not made a decision in accord with my personal views on this matter. Simply because of the timing of the decision-making process, I have not felt obliged to clarify that matter within government yet. I would rather wait - I am sure the government would also rather wait - until there is some certainty about the eventual sale price of the Midland land and the construction cost of the Muchea complex before we divvy up anything left over, if there is anything left over. It is certainly my view that to create a degree of equity between saleyards around the state, the Muchea complex should probably carry some debt. Otherwise the government-owned facility would be debt free and saleyards owned by local government in other parts of the state would be carrying a debt burden. That is not equity. We do not have to solve that issue immediately, but I hope that as the issue progresses we will get over that problem. It may require a change to the legislation.
(4) When is the livestock selling centre expected to open? (5) Will the proposed Muchea livestock selling centre be fully funded by the government? (6) What other regional livestock selling centres are to be upgraded? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for his question. (1) The status of the development of the Muchea livestock selling complex is on target. In the revised time scale that we put out about 12 months ago, we said that livestock sales would be conducted at Muchea by the end of 2006. In fact, I had a report from the WA Meat Industry Authority not long ago confirming that the development was on schedule to meet the 2006 operational date. (2) The land has been secured but the purchase has not been finalised. The options have been exercised but, as far as I am aware, the transaction of funds has not been taken up. The seller raised issues of a continuing mining right on the land, which needed to be renegotiated with WAMIA. I believe that may have held things up, but, as I understand it, the transaction process is still running smoothly. I do not think that either the buyer or seller is overly concerned. (3) The necessary applications have been made for EPA approval. I understand that the EPA is at this stage determining the level of assessment that will be carried out. Although I am probably not allowed to say this, I understand that the indicated level will be one of the lower level processes because of the existing land use. It is, after all, a mine site at the moment. (4) I have answered this part of the question. I believe that the livestock complex will be open for business at the end of 2006. (5) Yes, it will be fully funded by the government. The $16 million cost, which is the total go to whoa cost of the Muchea livestock selling complex, will be fully funded from the revenue created by the sale of the Midland saleyards land and the land attached to it but under the control of the Western Australian Meat Industry Authority. (6) This part of the question is harder to answer. It has always been my personal view that it would be better for this complex to carry some debt, in that it should not be fully funded by the government, and that the debt should be represented by a fund that can be drawn upon by other saleyards. However, the act does not permit that, and it would require a change in the legislation. The government has not made a decision in accord with my personal views on this matter. Simply because of the timing of the decision-making process, I have not felt obliged to clarify that matter within government yet. I would rather wait - I am sure the government would also rather wait - until there is some certainty about the eventual sale price of the Midland land and the construction cost of the Muchea complex before we divvy up anything left over, if there is anything left over. It is certainly my view that to create a degree of equity between saleyards around the state, the Muchea complex should probably carry some debt. Otherwise the government-owned facility would be debt free and saleyards owned by local government in other parts of the state would be carrying a debt burden. That is not equity. We do not have to solve that issue immediately, but I hope that as the issue progresses we will get over that problem. It may require a change to the legislation.
(5) Will the proposed Muchea livestock selling centre be fully funded by the government? (6) What other regional livestock selling centres are to be upgraded? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for his question. (1) The status of the development of the Muchea livestock selling complex is on target. In the revised time scale that we put out about 12 months ago, we said that livestock sales would be conducted at Muchea by the end of 2006. In fact, I had a report from the WA Meat Industry Authority not long ago confirming that the development was on schedule to meet the 2006 operational date. (2) The land has been secured but the purchase has not been finalised. The options have been exercised but, as far as I am aware, the transaction of funds has not been taken up. The seller raised issues of a continuing mining right on the land, which needed to be renegotiated with WAMIA. I believe that may have held things up, but, as I understand it, the transaction process is still running smoothly. I do not think that either the buyer or seller is overly concerned. (3) The necessary applications have been made for EPA approval. I understand that the EPA is at this stage determining the level of assessment that will be carried out. Although I am probably not allowed to say this, I understand that the indicated level will be one of the lower level processes because of the existing land use. It is, after all, a mine site at the moment. (4) I have answered this part of the question. I believe that the livestock complex will be open for business at the end of 2006. (5) Yes, it will be fully funded by the government. The $16 million cost, which is the total go to whoa cost of the Muchea livestock selling complex, will be fully funded from the revenue created by the sale of the Midland saleyards land and the land attached to it but under the control of the Western Australian Meat Industry Authority. (6) This part of the question is harder to answer. It has always been my personal view that it would be better for this complex to carry some debt, in that it should not be fully funded by the government, and that the debt should be represented by a fund that can be drawn upon by other saleyards. However, the act does not permit that, and it would require a change in the legislation. The government has not made a decision in accord with my personal views on this matter. Simply because of the timing of the decision-making process, I have not felt obliged to clarify that matter within government yet. I would rather wait - I am sure the government would also rather wait - until there is some certainty about the eventual sale price of the Midland land and the construction cost of the Muchea complex before we divvy up anything left over, if there is anything left over. It is certainly my view that to create a degree of equity between saleyards around the state, the Muchea complex should probably carry some debt. Otherwise the government-owned facility would be debt free and saleyards owned by local government in other parts of the state would be carrying a debt burden. That is not equity. We do not have to solve that issue immediately, but I hope that as the issue progresses we will get over that problem. It may require a change to the legislation.
(6) What other regional livestock selling centres are to be upgraded? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for his question. (1) The status of the development of the Muchea livestock selling complex is on target. In the revised time scale that we put out about 12 months ago, we said that livestock sales would be conducted at Muchea by the end of 2006. In fact, I had a report from the WA Meat Industry Authority not long ago confirming that the development was on schedule to meet the 2006 operational date. (2) The land has been secured but the purchase has not been finalised. The options have been exercised but, as far as I am aware, the transaction of funds has not been taken up. The seller raised issues of a continuing mining right on the land, which needed to be renegotiated with WAMIA. I believe that may have held things up, but, as I understand it, the transaction process is still running smoothly. I do not think that either the buyer or seller is overly concerned. (3) The necessary applications have been made for EPA approval. I understand that the EPA is at this stage determining the level of assessment that will be carried out. Although I am probably not allowed to say this, I understand that the indicated level will be one of the lower level processes because of the existing land use. It is, after all, a mine site at the moment. (4) I have answered this part of the question. I believe that the livestock complex will be open for business at the end of 2006. (5) Yes, it will be fully funded by the government. The $16 million cost, which is the total go to whoa cost of the Muchea livestock selling complex, will be fully funded from the revenue created by the sale of the Midland saleyards land and the land attached to it but under the control of the Western Australian Meat Industry Authority. (6) This part of the question is harder to answer. It has always been my personal view that it would be better for this complex to carry some debt, in that it should not be fully funded by the government, and that the debt should be represented by a fund that can be drawn upon by other saleyards. However, the act does not permit that, and it would require a change in the legislation. The government has not made a decision in accord with my personal views on this matter. Simply because of the timing of the decision-making process, I have not felt obliged to clarify that matter within government yet. I would rather wait - I am sure the government would also rather wait - until there is some certainty about the eventual sale price of the Midland land and the construction cost of the Muchea complex before we divvy up anything left over, if there is anything left over. It is certainly my view that to create a degree of equity between saleyards around the state, the Muchea complex should probably carry some debt. Otherwise the government-owned facility would be debt free and saleyards owned by local government in other parts of the state would be carrying a debt burden. That is not equity. We do not have to solve that issue immediately, but I hope that as the issue progresses we will get over that problem. It may require a change to the legislation.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for his question. (1) The status of the development of the Muchea livestock selling complex is on target. In the revised time scale that we put out about 12 months ago, we said that livestock sales would be conducted at Muchea by the end of 2006. In fact, I had a report from the WA Meat Industry Authority not long ago confirming that the development was on schedule to meet the 2006 operational date. (2) The land has been secured but the purchase has not been finalised. The options have been exercised but, as far as I am aware, the transaction of funds has not been taken up. The seller raised issues of a continuing mining right on the land, which needed to be renegotiated with WAMIA. I believe that may have held things up, but, as I understand it, the transaction process is still running smoothly. I do not think that either the buyer or seller is overly concerned. (3) The necessary applications have been made for EPA approval. I understand that the EPA is at this stage determining the level of assessment that will be carried out. Although I am probably not allowed to say this, I understand that the indicated level will be one of the lower level processes because of the existing land use. It is, after all, a mine site at the moment. (4) I have answered this part of the question. I believe that the livestock complex will be open for business at the end of 2006. (5) Yes, it will be fully funded by the government. The $16 million cost, which is the total go to whoa cost of the Muchea livestock selling complex, will be fully funded from the revenue created by the sale of the Midland saleyards land and the land attached to it but under the control of the Western Australian Meat Industry Authority. (6) This part of the question is harder to answer. It has always been my personal view that it would be better for this complex to carry some debt, in that it should not be fully funded by the government, and that the debt should be represented by a fund that can be drawn upon by other saleyards. However, the act does not permit that, and it would require a change in the legislation. The government has not made a decision in accord with my personal views on this matter. Simply because of the timing of the decision-making process, I have not felt obliged to clarify that matter within government yet. I would rather wait - I am sure the government would also rather wait - until there is some certainty about the eventual sale price of the Midland land and the construction cost of the Muchea complex before we divvy up anything left over, if there is anything left over. It is certainly my view that to create a degree of equity between saleyards around the state, the Muchea complex should probably carry some debt. Otherwise the government-owned facility would be debt free and saleyards owned by local government in other parts of the state would be carrying a debt burden. That is not equity. We do not have to solve that issue immediately, but I hope that as the issue progresses we will get over that problem. It may require a change to the legislation.
I thank the member for his question. (1) The status of the development of the Muchea livestock selling complex is on target. In the revised time scale that we put out about 12 months ago, we said that livestock sales would be conducted at Muchea by the end of 2006. In fact, I had a report from the WA Meat Industry Authority not long ago confirming that the development was on schedule to meet the 2006 operational date. (2) The land has been secured but the purchase has not been finalised. The options have been exercised but, as far as I am aware, the transaction of funds has not been taken up. The seller raised issues of a continuing mining right on the land, which needed to be renegotiated with WAMIA. I believe that may have held things up, but, as I understand it, the transaction process is still running smoothly. I do not think that either the buyer or seller is overly concerned. (3) The necessary applications have been made for EPA approval. I understand that the EPA is at this stage determining the level of assessment that will be carried out. Although I am probably not allowed to say this, I understand that the indicated level will be one of the lower level processes because of the existing land use. It is, after all, a mine site at the moment. (4) I have answered this part of the question. I believe that the livestock complex will be open for business at the end of 2006. (5) Yes, it will be fully funded by the government. The $16 million cost, which is the total go to whoa cost of the Muchea livestock selling complex, will be fully funded from the revenue created by the sale of the Midland saleyards land and the land attached to it but under the control of the Western Australian Meat Industry Authority. (6) This part of the question is harder to answer. It has always been my personal view that it would be better for this complex to carry some debt, in that it should not be fully funded by the government, and that the debt should be represented by a fund that can be drawn upon by other saleyards. However, the act does not permit that, and it would require a change in the legislation. The government has not made a decision in accord with my personal views on this matter. Simply because of the timing of the decision-making process, I have not felt obliged to clarify that matter within government yet. I would rather wait - I am sure the government would also rather wait - until there is some certainty about the eventual sale price of the Midland land and the construction cost of the Muchea complex before we divvy up anything left over, if there is anything left over. It is certainly my view that to create a degree of equity between saleyards around the state, the Muchea complex should probably carry some debt. Otherwise the government-owned facility would be debt free and saleyards owned by local government in other parts of the state would be carrying a debt burden. That is not equity. We do not have to solve that issue immediately, but I hope that as the issue progresses we will get over that problem. It may require a change to the legislation.
(1) The status of the development of the Muchea livestock selling complex is on target. In the revised time scale that we put out about 12 months ago, we said that livestock sales would be conducted at Muchea by the end of 2006. In fact, I had a report from the WA Meat Industry Authority not long ago confirming that the development was on schedule to meet the 2006 operational date. (2) The land has been secured but the purchase has not been finalised. The options have been exercised but, as far as I am aware, the transaction of funds has not been taken up. The seller raised issues of a continuing mining right on the land, which needed to be renegotiated with WAMIA. I believe that may have held things up, but, as I understand it, the transaction process is still running smoothly. I do not think that either the buyer or seller is overly concerned. (3) The necessary applications have been made for EPA approval. I understand that the EPA is at this stage determining the level of assessment that will be carried out. Although I am probably not allowed to say this, I understand that the indicated level will be one of the lower level processes because of the existing land use. It is, after all, a mine site at the moment. (4) I have answered this part of the question. I believe that the livestock complex will be open for business at the end of 2006. (5) Yes, it will be fully funded by the government. The $16 million cost, which is the total go to whoa cost of the Muchea livestock selling complex, will be fully funded from the revenue created by the sale of the Midland saleyards land and the land attached to it but under the control of the Western Australian Meat Industry Authority. (6) This part of the question is harder to answer. It has always been my personal view that it would be better for this complex to carry some debt, in that it should not be fully funded by the government, and that the debt should be represented by a fund that can be drawn upon by other saleyards. However, the act does not permit that, and it would require a change in the legislation. The government has not made a decision in accord with my personal views on this matter. Simply because of the timing of the decision-making process, I have not felt obliged to clarify that matter within government yet. I would rather wait - I am sure the government would also rather wait - until there is some certainty about the eventual sale price of the Midland land and the construction cost of the Muchea complex before we divvy up anything left over, if there is anything left over. It is certainly my view that to create a degree of equity between saleyards around the state, the Muchea complex should probably carry some debt. Otherwise the government-owned facility would be debt free and saleyards owned by local government in other parts of the state would be carrying a debt burden. That is not equity. We do not have to solve that issue immediately, but I hope that as the issue progresses we will get over that problem. It may require a change to the legislation.
(2) The land has been secured but the purchase has not been finalised. The options have been exercised but, as far as I am aware, the transaction of funds has not been taken up. The seller raised issues of a continuing mining right on the land, which needed to be renegotiated with WAMIA. I believe that may have held things up, but, as I understand it, the transaction process is still running smoothly. I do not think that either the buyer or seller is overly concerned. (3) The necessary applications have been made for EPA approval. I understand that the EPA is at this stage determining the level of assessment that will be carried out. Although I am probably not allowed to say this, I understand that the indicated level will be one of the lower level processes because of the existing land use. It is, after all, a mine site at the moment. (4) I have answered this part of the question. I believe that the livestock complex will be open for business at the end of 2006. (5) Yes, it will be fully funded by the government. The $16 million cost, which is the total go to whoa cost of the Muchea livestock selling complex, will be fully funded from the revenue created by the sale of the Midland saleyards land and the land attached to it but under the control of the Western Australian Meat Industry Authority. (6) This part of the question is harder to answer. It has always been my personal view that it would be better for this complex to carry some debt, in that it should not be fully funded by the government, and that the debt should be represented by a fund that can be drawn upon by other saleyards. However, the act does not permit that, and it would require a change in the legislation. The government has not made a decision in accord with my personal views on this matter. Simply because of the timing of the decision-making process, I have not felt obliged to clarify that matter within government yet. I would rather wait - I am sure the government would also rather wait - until there is some certainty about the eventual sale price of the Midland land and the construction cost of the Muchea complex before we divvy up anything left over, if there is anything left over. It is certainly my view that to create a degree of equity between saleyards around the state, the Muchea complex should probably carry some debt. Otherwise the government-owned facility would be debt free and saleyards owned by local government in other parts of the state would be carrying a debt burden. That is not equity. We do not have to solve that issue immediately, but I hope that as the issue progresses we will get over that problem. It may require a change to the legislation.
(3) The necessary applications have been made for EPA approval. I understand that the EPA is at this stage determining the level of assessment that will be carried out. Although I am probably not allowed to say this, I understand that the indicated level will be one of the lower level processes because of the existing land use. It is, after all, a mine site at the moment. (4) I have answered this part of the question. I believe that the livestock complex will be open for business at the end of 2006. (5) Yes, it will be fully funded by the government. The $16 million cost, which is the total go to whoa cost of the Muchea livestock selling complex, will be fully funded from the revenue created by the sale of the Midland saleyards land and the land attached to it but under the control of the Western Australian Meat Industry Authority. (6) This part of the question is harder to answer. It has always been my personal view that it would be better for this complex to carry some debt, in that it should not be fully funded by the government, and that the debt should be represented by a fund that can be drawn upon by other saleyards. However, the act does not permit that, and it would require a change in the legislation. The government has not made a decision in accord with my personal views on this matter. Simply because of the timing of the decision-making process, I have not felt obliged to clarify that matter within government yet. I would rather wait - I am sure the government would also rather wait - until there is some certainty about the eventual sale price of the Midland land and the construction cost of the Muchea complex before we divvy up anything left over, if there is anything left over. It is certainly my view that to create a degree of equity between saleyards around the state, the Muchea complex should probably carry some debt. Otherwise the government-owned facility would be debt free and saleyards owned by local government in other parts of the state would be carrying a debt burden. That is not equity. We do not have to solve that issue immediately, but I hope that as the issue progresses we will get over that problem. It may require a change to the legislation.
(4) I have answered this part of the question. I believe that the livestock complex will be open for business at the end of 2006. (5) Yes, it will be fully funded by the government. The $16 million cost, which is the total go to whoa cost of the Muchea livestock selling complex, will be fully funded from the revenue created by the sale of the Midland saleyards land and the land attached to it but under the control of the Western Australian Meat Industry Authority. (6) This part of the question is harder to answer. It has always been my personal view that it would be better for this complex to carry some debt, in that it should not be fully funded by the government, and that the debt should be represented by a fund that can be drawn upon by other saleyards. However, the act does not permit that, and it would require a change in the legislation. The government has not made a decision in accord with my personal views on this matter. Simply because of the timing of the decision-making process, I have not felt obliged to clarify that matter within government yet. I would rather wait - I am sure the government would also rather wait - until there is some certainty about the eventual sale price of the Midland land and the construction cost of the Muchea complex before we divvy up anything left over, if there is anything left over. It is certainly my view that to create a degree of equity between saleyards around the state, the Muchea complex should probably carry some debt. Otherwise the government-owned facility would be debt free and saleyards owned by local government in other parts of the state would be carrying a debt burden. That is not equity. We do not have to solve that issue immediately, but I hope that as the issue progresses we will get over that problem. It may require a change to the legislation.
(5) Yes, it will be fully funded by the government. The $16 million cost, which is the total go to whoa cost of the Muchea livestock selling complex, will be fully funded from the revenue created by the sale of the Midland saleyards land and the land attached to it but under the control of the Western Australian Meat Industry Authority. (6) This part of the question is harder to answer. It has always been my personal view that it would be better for this complex to carry some debt, in that it should not be fully funded by the government, and that the debt should be represented by a fund that can be drawn upon by other saleyards. However, the act does not permit that, and it would require a change in the legislation. The government has not made a decision in accord with my personal views on this matter. Simply because of the timing of the decision-making process, I have not felt obliged to clarify that matter within government yet. I would rather wait - I am sure the government would also rather wait - until there is some certainty about the eventual sale price of the Midland land and the construction cost of the Muchea complex before we divvy up anything left over, if there is anything left over. It is certainly my view that to create a degree of equity between saleyards around the state, the Muchea complex should probably carry some debt. Otherwise the government-owned facility would be debt free and saleyards owned by local government in other parts of the state would be carrying a debt burden. That is not equity. We do not have to solve that issue immediately, but I hope that as the issue progresses we will get over that problem. It may require a change to the legislation.
(6) This part of the question is harder to answer. It has always been my personal view that it would be better for this complex to carry some debt, in that it should not be fully funded by the government, and that the debt should be represented by a fund that can be drawn upon by other saleyards. However, the act does not permit that, and it would require a change in the legislation. The government has not made a decision in accord with my personal views on this matter. Simply because of the timing of the decision-making process, I have not felt obliged to clarify that matter within government yet. I would rather wait - I am sure the government would also rather wait - until there is some certainty about the eventual sale price of the Midland land and the construction cost of the Muchea complex before we divvy up anything left over, if there is anything left over. It is certainly my view that to create a degree of equity between saleyards around the state, the Muchea complex should probably carry some debt. Otherwise the government-owned facility would be debt free and saleyards owned by local government in other parts of the state would be carrying a debt burden. That is not equity. We do not have to solve that issue immediately, but I hope that as the issue progresses we will get over that problem. It may require a change to the legislation.
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.