❓ Hon. Christine Sharp questions the Minister for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries about flexibility in upcoming timber contracts and the timing of these contracts relative to the forest management plan. The Minister's response indicates the government is working to restructure the timber industry and address concerns about ministerial veto power.
AnsweredQoN 1043Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
TIMBER CONTRACTS, FLEXIBILITY 1043. Hon CHRISTINE SHARP to the Minister for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries: My questions relate to the imminent signing of new timber contracts. (1) Will the minister specify in some detail how he plans to allow flexibility in the timber quantities provided under those contracts to prevent undermining the credibility of the whole process of developing the new forest management plan? (2) How will the minister allow flexibility to entertain the real possibility that logging levels may need to be reduced significantly below the current publicised indicative figures against some of the following criteria: ecologically sustainable forest management objectives, long-term sustainable supplies of decent sized logs, further high conservation value reserves, silvicultural research findings recommended by Ferguson, et al, and improved recovery rates and much improved utilisation of lower grade logs? (3) How will the minister adequately publicise these flexible contract provisions, so that those conditions are well recognised by everyone? (4) Given the critical relationship of ecologically sustainable forest management to logging contracts, why are these contracts being set before the forest management process is under way? (5) When will section 60 of the Conservation and Land Management Act be amended, so that the Minister for Forestry no longer enjoys a veto over the forest management plans? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of this question. I do not think one could describe it as enjoying a power of veto, but we will work our way through that. (1)-(4) These matters are currently being considered by Government. I will be delighted to outline the process once decisions have been made. Members would generally be aware of the process that we are currently engaged in regarding the requests for proposals. Hon Peter Foss: We do not know why it has not come to an end. Hon KIM CHANCE: Soon. The Government is working to restructure the timber industry in response to the implementation of the protecting old-growth forests policy. The alternative of leaving that task and waiting, in effect, for the forest management plan, which is likely to be another year away, is not an option for the Government. The Government needs to get on with the implementation of the policy and simply cannot wait any longer for the FMP. (5) This part to the question relates to the veto that Hon Christine Sharp alleges I enjoy. This matter is being progressed. It is currently before Cabinet. Hon Peter Foss: Again? Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Peter Foss, having been a cabinet member, will be aware there are two stages to a cabinet decision: approval for drafting and approval for printing. Hon Peter Foss: Some take longer than others. Hon KIM CHANCE: Drafting priorities are a difficulty for governments of all colours, as the former Attorney General would be acutely aware. The matter is being progressed, and that will depend on the Government’s overall legislative program. My understanding of the position of that amendment Bill in the legislative program is that it enjoys quite a high priority. The Government is keen to honour that election promise and to remove the power of veto that the Minister for Forestry currently holds under the legislation. However, it is very much a nominal action, since it is a power of veto that I would never use, and in some sense, the legislation does not encompass the way a Cabinet works. Decisions of this nature are so far reaching that the whole Cabinet makes them, not one minister; they are not vetoed by one minister. In effect, I do not feel as though I am losing anything in losing the purported veto power. However, the Government will remove that veto so that people feel more comfortable about the legislation. All members who are concerned that one minister may have a veto power over something of such importance, should take comfort from the fact that this is not a power exercised by any one minister.
TIMBER CONTRACTS, FLEXIBILITY
My questions relate to the imminent signing of new timber contracts. (1) Will the minister specify in some detail how he plans to allow flexibility in the timber quantities provided under those contracts to prevent undermining the credibility of the whole process of developing the new forest management plan? (2) How will the minister allow flexibility to entertain the real possibility that logging levels may need to be reduced significantly below the current publicised indicative figures against some of the following criteria: ecologically sustainable forest management objectives, long-term sustainable supplies of decent sized logs, further high conservation value reserves, silvicultural research findings recommended by Ferguson, et al, and improved recovery rates and much improved utilisation of lower grade logs? (3) How will the minister adequately publicise these flexible contract provisions, so that those conditions are well recognised by everyone? (4) Given the critical relationship of ecologically sustainable forest management to logging contracts, why are these contracts being set before the forest management process is under way? (5) When will section 60 of the Conservation and Land Management Act be amended, so that the Minister for Forestry no longer enjoys a veto over the forest management plans? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. I do not think one could describe it as enjoying a power of veto, but we will work our way through that. (1)-(4) These matters are currently being considered by Government. I will be delighted to outline the process once decisions have been made. Members would generally be aware of the process that we are currently engaged in regarding the requests for proposals. Hon Peter Foss: We do not know why it has not come to an end. Hon KIM CHANCE: Soon. The Government is working to restructure the timber industry in response to the implementation of the protecting old-growth forests policy. The alternative of leaving that task and waiting, in effect, for the forest management plan, which is likely to be another year away, is not an option for the Government. The Government needs to get on with the implementation of the policy and simply cannot wait any longer for the FMP. (5) This part to the question relates to the veto that Hon Christine Sharp alleges I enjoy. This matter is being progressed. It is currently before Cabinet. Hon Peter Foss: Again? Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Peter Foss, having been a cabinet member, will be aware there are two stages to a cabinet decision: approval for drafting and approval for printing. Hon Peter Foss: Some take longer than others. Hon KIM CHANCE: Drafting priorities are a difficulty for governments of all colours, as the former Attorney General would be acutely aware. The matter is being progressed, and that will depend on the Government’s overall legislative program. My understanding of the position of that amendment Bill in the legislative program is that it enjoys quite a high priority. The Government is keen to honour that election promise and to remove the power of veto that the Minister for Forestry currently holds under the legislation. However, it is very much a nominal action, since it is a power of veto that I would never use, and in some sense, the legislation does not encompass the way a Cabinet works. Decisions of this nature are so far reaching that the whole Cabinet makes them, not one minister; they are not vetoed by one minister. In effect, I do not feel as though I am losing anything in losing the purported veto power. However, the Government will remove that veto so that people feel more comfortable about the legislation. All members who are concerned that one minister may have a veto power over something of such importance, should take comfort from the fact that this is not a power exercised by any one minister.
(1) Will the minister specify in some detail how he plans to allow flexibility in the timber quantities provided under those contracts to prevent undermining the credibility of the whole process of developing the new forest management plan? (2) How will the minister allow flexibility to entertain the real possibility that logging levels may need to be reduced significantly below the current publicised indicative figures against some of the following criteria: ecologically sustainable forest management objectives, long-term sustainable supplies of decent sized logs, further high conservation value reserves, silvicultural research findings recommended by Ferguson, et al, and improved recovery rates and much improved utilisation of lower grade logs? (3) How will the minister adequately publicise these flexible contract provisions, so that those conditions are well recognised by everyone? (4) Given the critical relationship of ecologically sustainable forest management to logging contracts, why are these contracts being set before the forest management process is under way? (5) When will section 60 of the Conservation and Land Management Act be amended, so that the Minister for Forestry no longer enjoys a veto over the forest management plans? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. I do not think one could describe it as enjoying a power of veto, but we will work our way through that. (1)-(4) These matters are currently being considered by Government. I will be delighted to outline the process once decisions have been made. Members would generally be aware of the process that we are currently engaged in regarding the requests for proposals. Hon Peter Foss: We do not know why it has not come to an end. Hon KIM CHANCE: Soon. The Government is working to restructure the timber industry in response to the implementation of the protecting old-growth forests policy. The alternative of leaving that task and waiting, in effect, for the forest management plan, which is likely to be another year away, is not an option for the Government. The Government needs to get on with the implementation of the policy and simply cannot wait any longer for the FMP. (5) This part to the question relates to the veto that Hon Christine Sharp alleges I enjoy. This matter is being progressed. It is currently before Cabinet. Hon Peter Foss: Again? Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Peter Foss, having been a cabinet member, will be aware there are two stages to a cabinet decision: approval for drafting and approval for printing. Hon Peter Foss: Some take longer than others. Hon KIM CHANCE: Drafting priorities are a difficulty for governments of all colours, as the former Attorney General would be acutely aware. The matter is being progressed, and that will depend on the Government’s overall legislative program. My understanding of the position of that amendment Bill in the legislative program is that it enjoys quite a high priority. The Government is keen to honour that election promise and to remove the power of veto that the Minister for Forestry currently holds under the legislation. However, it is very much a nominal action, since it is a power of veto that I would never use, and in some sense, the legislation does not encompass the way a Cabinet works. Decisions of this nature are so far reaching that the whole Cabinet makes them, not one minister; they are not vetoed by one minister. In effect, I do not feel as though I am losing anything in losing the purported veto power. However, the Government will remove that veto so that people feel more comfortable about the legislation. All members who are concerned that one minister may have a veto power over something of such importance, should take comfort from the fact that this is not a power exercised by any one minister.
(2) How will the minister allow flexibility to entertain the real possibility that logging levels may need to be reduced significantly below the current publicised indicative figures against some of the following criteria: ecologically sustainable forest management objectives, long-term sustainable supplies of decent sized logs, further high conservation value reserves, silvicultural research findings recommended by Ferguson, et al, and improved recovery rates and much improved utilisation of lower grade logs? (3) How will the minister adequately publicise these flexible contract provisions, so that those conditions are well recognised by everyone? (4) Given the critical relationship of ecologically sustainable forest management to logging contracts, why are these contracts being set before the forest management process is under way? (5) When will section 60 of the Conservation and Land Management Act be amended, so that the Minister for Forestry no longer enjoys a veto over the forest management plans? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. I do not think one could describe it as enjoying a power of veto, but we will work our way through that. (1)-(4) These matters are currently being considered by Government. I will be delighted to outline the process once decisions have been made. Members would generally be aware of the process that we are currently engaged in regarding the requests for proposals. Hon Peter Foss: We do not know why it has not come to an end. Hon KIM CHANCE: Soon. The Government is working to restructure the timber industry in response to the implementation of the protecting old-growth forests policy. The alternative of leaving that task and waiting, in effect, for the forest management plan, which is likely to be another year away, is not an option for the Government. The Government needs to get on with the implementation of the policy and simply cannot wait any longer for the FMP. (5) This part to the question relates to the veto that Hon Christine Sharp alleges I enjoy. This matter is being progressed. It is currently before Cabinet. Hon Peter Foss: Again? Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Peter Foss, having been a cabinet member, will be aware there are two stages to a cabinet decision: approval for drafting and approval for printing. Hon Peter Foss: Some take longer than others. Hon KIM CHANCE: Drafting priorities are a difficulty for governments of all colours, as the former Attorney General would be acutely aware. The matter is being progressed, and that will depend on the Government’s overall legislative program. My understanding of the position of that amendment Bill in the legislative program is that it enjoys quite a high priority. The Government is keen to honour that election promise and to remove the power of veto that the Minister for Forestry currently holds under the legislation. However, it is very much a nominal action, since it is a power of veto that I would never use, and in some sense, the legislation does not encompass the way a Cabinet works. Decisions of this nature are so far reaching that the whole Cabinet makes them, not one minister; they are not vetoed by one minister. In effect, I do not feel as though I am losing anything in losing the purported veto power. However, the Government will remove that veto so that people feel more comfortable about the legislation. All members who are concerned that one minister may have a veto power over something of such importance, should take comfort from the fact that this is not a power exercised by any one minister.
(3) How will the minister adequately publicise these flexible contract provisions, so that those conditions are well recognised by everyone? (4) Given the critical relationship of ecologically sustainable forest management to logging contracts, why are these contracts being set before the forest management process is under way? (5) When will section 60 of the Conservation and Land Management Act be amended, so that the Minister for Forestry no longer enjoys a veto over the forest management plans? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. I do not think one could describe it as enjoying a power of veto, but we will work our way through that. (1)-(4) These matters are currently being considered by Government. I will be delighted to outline the process once decisions have been made. Members would generally be aware of the process that we are currently engaged in regarding the requests for proposals. Hon Peter Foss: We do not know why it has not come to an end. Hon KIM CHANCE: Soon. The Government is working to restructure the timber industry in response to the implementation of the protecting old-growth forests policy. The alternative of leaving that task and waiting, in effect, for the forest management plan, which is likely to be another year away, is not an option for the Government. The Government needs to get on with the implementation of the policy and simply cannot wait any longer for the FMP. (5) This part to the question relates to the veto that Hon Christine Sharp alleges I enjoy. This matter is being progressed. It is currently before Cabinet. Hon Peter Foss: Again? Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Peter Foss, having been a cabinet member, will be aware there are two stages to a cabinet decision: approval for drafting and approval for printing. Hon Peter Foss: Some take longer than others. Hon KIM CHANCE: Drafting priorities are a difficulty for governments of all colours, as the former Attorney General would be acutely aware. The matter is being progressed, and that will depend on the Government’s overall legislative program. My understanding of the position of that amendment Bill in the legislative program is that it enjoys quite a high priority. The Government is keen to honour that election promise and to remove the power of veto that the Minister for Forestry currently holds under the legislation. However, it is very much a nominal action, since it is a power of veto that I would never use, and in some sense, the legislation does not encompass the way a Cabinet works. Decisions of this nature are so far reaching that the whole Cabinet makes them, not one minister; they are not vetoed by one minister. In effect, I do not feel as though I am losing anything in losing the purported veto power. However, the Government will remove that veto so that people feel more comfortable about the legislation. All members who are concerned that one minister may have a veto power over something of such importance, should take comfort from the fact that this is not a power exercised by any one minister.
(4) Given the critical relationship of ecologically sustainable forest management to logging contracts, why are these contracts being set before the forest management process is under way? (5) When will section 60 of the Conservation and Land Management Act be amended, so that the Minister for Forestry no longer enjoys a veto over the forest management plans? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. I do not think one could describe it as enjoying a power of veto, but we will work our way through that. (1)-(4) These matters are currently being considered by Government. I will be delighted to outline the process once decisions have been made. Members would generally be aware of the process that we are currently engaged in regarding the requests for proposals. Hon Peter Foss: We do not know why it has not come to an end. Hon KIM CHANCE: Soon. The Government is working to restructure the timber industry in response to the implementation of the protecting old-growth forests policy. The alternative of leaving that task and waiting, in effect, for the forest management plan, which is likely to be another year away, is not an option for the Government. The Government needs to get on with the implementation of the policy and simply cannot wait any longer for the FMP. (5) This part to the question relates to the veto that Hon Christine Sharp alleges I enjoy. This matter is being progressed. It is currently before Cabinet. Hon Peter Foss: Again? Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Peter Foss, having been a cabinet member, will be aware there are two stages to a cabinet decision: approval for drafting and approval for printing. Hon Peter Foss: Some take longer than others. Hon KIM CHANCE: Drafting priorities are a difficulty for governments of all colours, as the former Attorney General would be acutely aware. The matter is being progressed, and that will depend on the Government’s overall legislative program. My understanding of the position of that amendment Bill in the legislative program is that it enjoys quite a high priority. The Government is keen to honour that election promise and to remove the power of veto that the Minister for Forestry currently holds under the legislation. However, it is very much a nominal action, since it is a power of veto that I would never use, and in some sense, the legislation does not encompass the way a Cabinet works. Decisions of this nature are so far reaching that the whole Cabinet makes them, not one minister; they are not vetoed by one minister. In effect, I do not feel as though I am losing anything in losing the purported veto power. However, the Government will remove that veto so that people feel more comfortable about the legislation. All members who are concerned that one minister may have a veto power over something of such importance, should take comfort from the fact that this is not a power exercised by any one minister.
(5) When will section 60 of the Conservation and Land Management Act be amended, so that the Minister for Forestry no longer enjoys a veto over the forest management plans? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. I do not think one could describe it as enjoying a power of veto, but we will work our way through that. (1)-(4) These matters are currently being considered by Government. I will be delighted to outline the process once decisions have been made. Members would generally be aware of the process that we are currently engaged in regarding the requests for proposals. Hon Peter Foss: We do not know why it has not come to an end. Hon KIM CHANCE: Soon. The Government is working to restructure the timber industry in response to the implementation of the protecting old-growth forests policy. The alternative of leaving that task and waiting, in effect, for the forest management plan, which is likely to be another year away, is not an option for the Government. The Government needs to get on with the implementation of the policy and simply cannot wait any longer for the FMP. (5) This part to the question relates to the veto that Hon Christine Sharp alleges I enjoy. This matter is being progressed. It is currently before Cabinet. Hon Peter Foss: Again? Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Peter Foss, having been a cabinet member, will be aware there are two stages to a cabinet decision: approval for drafting and approval for printing. Hon Peter Foss: Some take longer than others. Hon KIM CHANCE: Drafting priorities are a difficulty for governments of all colours, as the former Attorney General would be acutely aware. The matter is being progressed, and that will depend on the Government’s overall legislative program. My understanding of the position of that amendment Bill in the legislative program is that it enjoys quite a high priority. The Government is keen to honour that election promise and to remove the power of veto that the Minister for Forestry currently holds under the legislation. However, it is very much a nominal action, since it is a power of veto that I would never use, and in some sense, the legislation does not encompass the way a Cabinet works. Decisions of this nature are so far reaching that the whole Cabinet makes them, not one minister; they are not vetoed by one minister. In effect, I do not feel as though I am losing anything in losing the purported veto power. However, the Government will remove that veto so that people feel more comfortable about the legislation. All members who are concerned that one minister may have a veto power over something of such importance, should take comfort from the fact that this is not a power exercised by any one minister.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. I do not think one could describe it as enjoying a power of veto, but we will work our way through that. (1)-(4) These matters are currently being considered by Government. I will be delighted to outline the process once decisions have been made. Members would generally be aware of the process that we are currently engaged in regarding the requests for proposals. Hon Peter Foss: We do not know why it has not come to an end. Hon KIM CHANCE: Soon. The Government is working to restructure the timber industry in response to the implementation of the protecting old-growth forests policy. The alternative of leaving that task and waiting, in effect, for the forest management plan, which is likely to be another year away, is not an option for the Government. The Government needs to get on with the implementation of the policy and simply cannot wait any longer for the FMP. (5) This part to the question relates to the veto that Hon Christine Sharp alleges I enjoy. This matter is being progressed. It is currently before Cabinet. Hon Peter Foss: Again? Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Peter Foss, having been a cabinet member, will be aware there are two stages to a cabinet decision: approval for drafting and approval for printing. Hon Peter Foss: Some take longer than others. Hon KIM CHANCE: Drafting priorities are a difficulty for governments of all colours, as the former Attorney General would be acutely aware. The matter is being progressed, and that will depend on the Government’s overall legislative program. My understanding of the position of that amendment Bill in the legislative program is that it enjoys quite a high priority. The Government is keen to honour that election promise and to remove the power of veto that the Minister for Forestry currently holds under the legislation. However, it is very much a nominal action, since it is a power of veto that I would never use, and in some sense, the legislation does not encompass the way a Cabinet works. Decisions of this nature are so far reaching that the whole Cabinet makes them, not one minister; they are not vetoed by one minister. In effect, I do not feel as though I am losing anything in losing the purported veto power. However, the Government will remove that veto so that people feel more comfortable about the legislation. All members who are concerned that one minister may have a veto power over something of such importance, should take comfort from the fact that this is not a power exercised by any one minister.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. I do not think one could describe it as enjoying a power of veto, but we will work our way through that. (1)-(4) These matters are currently being considered by Government. I will be delighted to outline the process once decisions have been made. Members would generally be aware of the process that we are currently engaged in regarding the requests for proposals. Hon Peter Foss: We do not know why it has not come to an end. Hon KIM CHANCE: Soon. The Government is working to restructure the timber industry in response to the implementation of the protecting old-growth forests policy. The alternative of leaving that task and waiting, in effect, for the forest management plan, which is likely to be another year away, is not an option for the Government. The Government needs to get on with the implementation of the policy and simply cannot wait any longer for the FMP. (5) This part to the question relates to the veto that Hon Christine Sharp alleges I enjoy. This matter is being progressed. It is currently before Cabinet. Hon Peter Foss: Again? Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Peter Foss, having been a cabinet member, will be aware there are two stages to a cabinet decision: approval for drafting and approval for printing. Hon Peter Foss: Some take longer than others. Hon KIM CHANCE: Drafting priorities are a difficulty for governments of all colours, as the former Attorney General would be acutely aware. The matter is being progressed, and that will depend on the Government’s overall legislative program. My understanding of the position of that amendment Bill in the legislative program is that it enjoys quite a high priority. The Government is keen to honour that election promise and to remove the power of veto that the Minister for Forestry currently holds under the legislation. However, it is very much a nominal action, since it is a power of veto that I would never use, and in some sense, the legislation does not encompass the way a Cabinet works. Decisions of this nature are so far reaching that the whole Cabinet makes them, not one minister; they are not vetoed by one minister. In effect, I do not feel as though I am losing anything in losing the purported veto power. However, the Government will remove that veto so that people feel more comfortable about the legislation. All members who are concerned that one minister may have a veto power over something of such importance, should take comfort from the fact that this is not a power exercised by any one minister.
(1)-(4) These matters are currently being considered by Government. I will be delighted to outline the process once decisions have been made. Members would generally be aware of the process that we are currently engaged in regarding the requests for proposals. Hon Peter Foss: We do not know why it has not come to an end. Hon KIM CHANCE: Soon. The Government is working to restructure the timber industry in response to the implementation of the protecting old-growth forests policy. The alternative of leaving that task and waiting, in effect, for the forest management plan, which is likely to be another year away, is not an option for the Government. The Government needs to get on with the implementation of the policy and simply cannot wait any longer for the FMP. (5) This part to the question relates to the veto that Hon Christine Sharp alleges I enjoy. This matter is being progressed. It is currently before Cabinet. Hon Peter Foss: Again? Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Peter Foss, having been a cabinet member, will be aware there are two stages to a cabinet decision: approval for drafting and approval for printing. Hon Peter Foss: Some take longer than others. Hon KIM CHANCE: Drafting priorities are a difficulty for governments of all colours, as the former Attorney General would be acutely aware. The matter is being progressed, and that will depend on the Government’s overall legislative program. My understanding of the position of that amendment Bill in the legislative program is that it enjoys quite a high priority. The Government is keen to honour that election promise and to remove the power of veto that the Minister for Forestry currently holds under the legislation. However, it is very much a nominal action, since it is a power of veto that I would never use, and in some sense, the legislation does not encompass the way a Cabinet works. Decisions of this nature are so far reaching that the whole Cabinet makes them, not one minister; they are not vetoed by one minister. In effect, I do not feel as though I am losing anything in losing the purported veto power. However, the Government will remove that veto so that people feel more comfortable about the legislation. All members who are concerned that one minister may have a veto power over something of such importance, should take comfort from the fact that this is not a power exercised by any one minister.
Hon Peter Foss: We do not know why it has not come to an end. Hon KIM CHANCE: Soon. The Government is working to restructure the timber industry in response to the implementation of the protecting old-growth forests policy. The alternative of leaving that task and waiting, in effect, for the forest management plan, which is likely to be another year away, is not an option for the Government. The Government needs to get on with the implementation of the policy and simply cannot wait any longer for the FMP. (5) This part to the question relates to the veto that Hon Christine Sharp alleges I enjoy. This matter is being progressed. It is currently before Cabinet. Hon Peter Foss: Again? Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Peter Foss, having been a cabinet member, will be aware there are two stages to a cabinet decision: approval for drafting and approval for printing. Hon Peter Foss: Some take longer than others. Hon KIM CHANCE: Drafting priorities are a difficulty for governments of all colours, as the former Attorney General would be acutely aware. The matter is being progressed, and that will depend on the Government’s overall legislative program. My understanding of the position of that amendment Bill in the legislative program is that it enjoys quite a high priority. The Government is keen to honour that election promise and to remove the power of veto that the Minister for Forestry currently holds under the legislation. However, it is very much a nominal action, since it is a power of veto that I would never use, and in some sense, the legislation does not encompass the way a Cabinet works. Decisions of this nature are so far reaching that the whole Cabinet makes them, not one minister; they are not vetoed by one minister. In effect, I do not feel as though I am losing anything in losing the purported veto power. However, the Government will remove that veto so that people feel more comfortable about the legislation. All members who are concerned that one minister may have a veto power over something of such importance, should take comfort from the fact that this is not a power exercised by any one minister.
Hon KIM CHANCE: Soon. The Government is working to restructure the timber industry in response to the implementation of the protecting old-growth forests policy. The alternative of leaving that task and waiting, in effect, for the forest management plan, which is likely to be another year away, is not an option for the Government. The Government needs to get on with the implementation of the policy and simply cannot wait any longer for the FMP. (5) This part to the question relates to the veto that Hon Christine Sharp alleges I enjoy. This matter is being progressed. It is currently before Cabinet. Hon Peter Foss: Again? Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Peter Foss, having been a cabinet member, will be aware there are two stages to a cabinet decision: approval for drafting and approval for printing. Hon Peter Foss: Some take longer than others. Hon KIM CHANCE: Drafting priorities are a difficulty for governments of all colours, as the former Attorney General would be acutely aware. The matter is being progressed, and that will depend on the Government’s overall legislative program. My understanding of the position of that amendment Bill in the legislative program is that it enjoys quite a high priority. The Government is keen to honour that election promise and to remove the power of veto that the Minister for Forestry currently holds under the legislation. However, it is very much a nominal action, since it is a power of veto that I would never use, and in some sense, the legislation does not encompass the way a Cabinet works. Decisions of this nature are so far reaching that the whole Cabinet makes them, not one minister; they are not vetoed by one minister. In effect, I do not feel as though I am losing anything in losing the purported veto power. However, the Government will remove that veto so that people feel more comfortable about the legislation. All members who are concerned that one minister may have a veto power over something of such importance, should take comfort from the fact that this is not a power exercised by any one minister.
(5) This part to the question relates to the veto that Hon Christine Sharp alleges I enjoy. This matter is being progressed. It is currently before Cabinet. Hon Peter Foss: Again? Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Peter Foss, having been a cabinet member, will be aware there are two stages to a cabinet decision: approval for drafting and approval for printing. Hon Peter Foss: Some take longer than others. Hon KIM CHANCE: Drafting priorities are a difficulty for governments of all colours, as the former Attorney General would be acutely aware. The matter is being progressed, and that will depend on the Government’s overall legislative program. My understanding of the position of that amendment Bill in the legislative program is that it enjoys quite a high priority. The Government is keen to honour that election promise and to remove the power of veto that the Minister for Forestry currently holds under the legislation. However, it is very much a nominal action, since it is a power of veto that I would never use, and in some sense, the legislation does not encompass the way a Cabinet works. Decisions of this nature are so far reaching that the whole Cabinet makes them, not one minister; they are not vetoed by one minister. In effect, I do not feel as though I am losing anything in losing the purported veto power. However, the Government will remove that veto so that people feel more comfortable about the legislation. All members who are concerned that one minister may have a veto power over something of such importance, should take comfort from the fact that this is not a power exercised by any one minister.
Hon Peter Foss: Again? Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Peter Foss, having been a cabinet member, will be aware there are two stages to a cabinet decision: approval for drafting and approval for printing. Hon Peter Foss: Some take longer than others. Hon KIM CHANCE: Drafting priorities are a difficulty for governments of all colours, as the former Attorney General would be acutely aware. The matter is being progressed, and that will depend on the Government’s overall legislative program. My understanding of the position of that amendment Bill in the legislative program is that it enjoys quite a high priority. The Government is keen to honour that election promise and to remove the power of veto that the Minister for Forestry currently holds under the legislation. However, it is very much a nominal action, since it is a power of veto that I would never use, and in some sense, the legislation does not encompass the way a Cabinet works. Decisions of this nature are so far reaching that the whole Cabinet makes them, not one minister; they are not vetoed by one minister. In effect, I do not feel as though I am losing anything in losing the purported veto power. However, the Government will remove that veto so that people feel more comfortable about the legislation. All members who are concerned that one minister may have a veto power over something of such importance, should take comfort from the fact that this is not a power exercised by any one minister.
Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Peter Foss, having been a cabinet member, will be aware there are two stages to a cabinet decision: approval for drafting and approval for printing. Hon Peter Foss: Some take longer than others. Hon KIM CHANCE: Drafting priorities are a difficulty for governments of all colours, as the former Attorney General would be acutely aware. The matter is being progressed, and that will depend on the Government’s overall legislative program. My understanding of the position of that amendment Bill in the legislative program is that it enjoys quite a high priority. The Government is keen to honour that election promise and to remove the power of veto that the Minister for Forestry currently holds under the legislation. However, it is very much a nominal action, since it is a power of veto that I would never use, and in some sense, the legislation does not encompass the way a Cabinet works. Decisions of this nature are so far reaching that the whole Cabinet makes them, not one minister; they are not vetoed by one minister. In effect, I do not feel as though I am losing anything in losing the purported veto power. However, the Government will remove that veto so that people feel more comfortable about the legislation. All members who are concerned that one minister may have a veto power over something of such importance, should take comfort from the fact that this is not a power exercised by any one minister.
Hon Peter Foss: Some take longer than others. Hon KIM CHANCE: Drafting priorities are a difficulty for governments of all colours, as the former Attorney General would be acutely aware. The matter is being progressed, and that will depend on the Government’s overall legislative program. My understanding of the position of that amendment Bill in the legislative program is that it enjoys quite a high priority. The Government is keen to honour that election promise and to remove the power of veto that the Minister for Forestry currently holds under the legislation. However, it is very much a nominal action, since it is a power of veto that I would never use, and in some sense, the legislation does not encompass the way a Cabinet works. Decisions of this nature are so far reaching that the whole Cabinet makes them, not one minister; they are not vetoed by one minister. In effect, I do not feel as though I am losing anything in losing the purported veto power. However, the Government will remove that veto so that people feel more comfortable about the legislation. All members who are concerned that one minister may have a veto power over something of such importance, should take comfort from the fact that this is not a power exercised by any one minister.
Hon KIM CHANCE: Drafting priorities are a difficulty for governments of all colours, as the former Attorney General would be acutely aware. The matter is being progressed, and that will depend on the Government’s overall legislative program. My understanding of the position of that amendment Bill in the legislative program is that it enjoys quite a high priority. The Government is keen to honour that election promise and to remove the power of veto that the Minister for Forestry currently holds under the legislation. However, it is very much a nominal action, since it is a power of veto that I would never use, and in some sense, the legislation does not encompass the way a Cabinet works. Decisions of this nature are so far reaching that the whole Cabinet makes them, not one minister; they are not vetoed by one minister. In effect, I do not feel as though I am losing anything in losing the purported veto power. However, the Government will remove that veto so that people feel more comfortable about the legislation. All members who are concerned that one minister may have a veto power over something of such importance, should take comfort from the fact that this is not a power exercised by any one minister.
The matter is being progressed, and that will depend on the Government’s overall legislative program. My understanding of the position of that amendment Bill in the legislative program is that it enjoys quite a high priority. The Government is keen to honour that election promise and to remove the power of veto that the Minister for Forestry currently holds under the legislation. However, it is very much a nominal action, since it is a power of veto that I would never use, and in some sense, the legislation does not encompass the way a Cabinet works. Decisions of this nature are so far reaching that the whole Cabinet makes them, not one minister; they are not vetoed by one minister. In effect, I do not feel as though I am losing anything in losing the purported veto power. However, the Government will remove that veto so that people feel more comfortable about the legislation. All members who are concerned that one minister may have a veto power over something of such importance, should take comfort from the fact that this is not a power exercised by any one minister.
TIMBER CONTRACTS, FLEXIBILITY
My questions relate to the imminent signing of new timber contracts. (1) Will the minister specify in some detail how he plans to allow flexibility in the timber quantities provided under those contracts to prevent undermining the credibility of the whole process of developing the new forest management plan? (2) How will the minister allow flexibility to entertain the real possibility that logging levels may need to be reduced significantly below the current publicised indicative figures against some of the following criteria: ecologically sustainable forest management objectives, long-term sustainable supplies of decent sized logs, further high conservation value reserves, silvicultural research findings recommended by Ferguson, et al, and improved recovery rates and much improved utilisation of lower grade logs? (3) How will the minister adequately publicise these flexible contract provisions, so that those conditions are well recognised by everyone? (4) Given the critical relationship of ecologically sustainable forest management to logging contracts, why are these contracts being set before the forest management process is under way? (5) When will section 60 of the Conservation and Land Management Act be amended, so that the Minister for Forestry no longer enjoys a veto over the forest management plans? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. I do not think one could describe it as enjoying a power of veto, but we will work our way through that. (1)-(4) These matters are currently being considered by Government. I will be delighted to outline the process once decisions have been made. Members would generally be aware of the process that we are currently engaged in regarding the requests for proposals. Hon Peter Foss: We do not know why it has not come to an end. Hon KIM CHANCE: Soon. The Government is working to restructure the timber industry in response to the implementation of the protecting old-growth forests policy. The alternative of leaving that task and waiting, in effect, for the forest management plan, which is likely to be another year away, is not an option for the Government. The Government needs to get on with the implementation of the policy and simply cannot wait any longer for the FMP. (5) This part to the question relates to the veto that Hon Christine Sharp alleges I enjoy. This matter is being progressed. It is currently before Cabinet. Hon Peter Foss: Again? Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Peter Foss, having been a cabinet member, will be aware there are two stages to a cabinet decision: approval for drafting and approval for printing. Hon Peter Foss: Some take longer than others. Hon KIM CHANCE: Drafting priorities are a difficulty for governments of all colours, as the former Attorney General would be acutely aware. The matter is being progressed, and that will depend on the Government’s overall legislative program. My understanding of the position of that amendment Bill in the legislative program is that it enjoys quite a high priority. The Government is keen to honour that election promise and to remove the power of veto that the Minister for Forestry currently holds under the legislation. However, it is very much a nominal action, since it is a power of veto that I would never use, and in some sense, the legislation does not encompass the way a Cabinet works. Decisions of this nature are so far reaching that the whole Cabinet makes them, not one minister; they are not vetoed by one minister. In effect, I do not feel as though I am losing anything in losing the purported veto power. However, the Government will remove that veto so that people feel more comfortable about the legislation. All members who are concerned that one minister may have a veto power over something of such importance, should take comfort from the fact that this is not a power exercised by any one minister.
(1) Will the minister specify in some detail how he plans to allow flexibility in the timber quantities provided under those contracts to prevent undermining the credibility of the whole process of developing the new forest management plan? (2) How will the minister allow flexibility to entertain the real possibility that logging levels may need to be reduced significantly below the current publicised indicative figures against some of the following criteria: ecologically sustainable forest management objectives, long-term sustainable supplies of decent sized logs, further high conservation value reserves, silvicultural research findings recommended by Ferguson, et al, and improved recovery rates and much improved utilisation of lower grade logs? (3) How will the minister adequately publicise these flexible contract provisions, so that those conditions are well recognised by everyone? (4) Given the critical relationship of ecologically sustainable forest management to logging contracts, why are these contracts being set before the forest management process is under way? (5) When will section 60 of the Conservation and Land Management Act be amended, so that the Minister for Forestry no longer enjoys a veto over the forest management plans? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. I do not think one could describe it as enjoying a power of veto, but we will work our way through that. (1)-(4) These matters are currently being considered by Government. I will be delighted to outline the process once decisions have been made. Members would generally be aware of the process that we are currently engaged in regarding the requests for proposals. Hon Peter Foss: We do not know why it has not come to an end. Hon KIM CHANCE: Soon. The Government is working to restructure the timber industry in response to the implementation of the protecting old-growth forests policy. The alternative of leaving that task and waiting, in effect, for the forest management plan, which is likely to be another year away, is not an option for the Government. The Government needs to get on with the implementation of the policy and simply cannot wait any longer for the FMP. (5) This part to the question relates to the veto that Hon Christine Sharp alleges I enjoy. This matter is being progressed. It is currently before Cabinet. Hon Peter Foss: Again? Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Peter Foss, having been a cabinet member, will be aware there are two stages to a cabinet decision: approval for drafting and approval for printing. Hon Peter Foss: Some take longer than others. Hon KIM CHANCE: Drafting priorities are a difficulty for governments of all colours, as the former Attorney General would be acutely aware. The matter is being progressed, and that will depend on the Government’s overall legislative program. My understanding of the position of that amendment Bill in the legislative program is that it enjoys quite a high priority. The Government is keen to honour that election promise and to remove the power of veto that the Minister for Forestry currently holds under the legislation. However, it is very much a nominal action, since it is a power of veto that I would never use, and in some sense, the legislation does not encompass the way a Cabinet works. Decisions of this nature are so far reaching that the whole Cabinet makes them, not one minister; they are not vetoed by one minister. In effect, I do not feel as though I am losing anything in losing the purported veto power. However, the Government will remove that veto so that people feel more comfortable about the legislation. All members who are concerned that one minister may have a veto power over something of such importance, should take comfort from the fact that this is not a power exercised by any one minister.
(2) How will the minister allow flexibility to entertain the real possibility that logging levels may need to be reduced significantly below the current publicised indicative figures against some of the following criteria: ecologically sustainable forest management objectives, long-term sustainable supplies of decent sized logs, further high conservation value reserves, silvicultural research findings recommended by Ferguson, et al, and improved recovery rates and much improved utilisation of lower grade logs? (3) How will the minister adequately publicise these flexible contract provisions, so that those conditions are well recognised by everyone? (4) Given the critical relationship of ecologically sustainable forest management to logging contracts, why are these contracts being set before the forest management process is under way? (5) When will section 60 of the Conservation and Land Management Act be amended, so that the Minister for Forestry no longer enjoys a veto over the forest management plans? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. I do not think one could describe it as enjoying a power of veto, but we will work our way through that. (1)-(4) These matters are currently being considered by Government. I will be delighted to outline the process once decisions have been made. Members would generally be aware of the process that we are currently engaged in regarding the requests for proposals. Hon Peter Foss: We do not know why it has not come to an end. Hon KIM CHANCE: Soon. The Government is working to restructure the timber industry in response to the implementation of the protecting old-growth forests policy. The alternative of leaving that task and waiting, in effect, for the forest management plan, which is likely to be another year away, is not an option for the Government. The Government needs to get on with the implementation of the policy and simply cannot wait any longer for the FMP. (5) This part to the question relates to the veto that Hon Christine Sharp alleges I enjoy. This matter is being progressed. It is currently before Cabinet. Hon Peter Foss: Again? Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Peter Foss, having been a cabinet member, will be aware there are two stages to a cabinet decision: approval for drafting and approval for printing. Hon Peter Foss: Some take longer than others. Hon KIM CHANCE: Drafting priorities are a difficulty for governments of all colours, as the former Attorney General would be acutely aware. The matter is being progressed, and that will depend on the Government’s overall legislative program. My understanding of the position of that amendment Bill in the legislative program is that it enjoys quite a high priority. The Government is keen to honour that election promise and to remove the power of veto that the Minister for Forestry currently holds under the legislation. However, it is very much a nominal action, since it is a power of veto that I would never use, and in some sense, the legislation does not encompass the way a Cabinet works. Decisions of this nature are so far reaching that the whole Cabinet makes them, not one minister; they are not vetoed by one minister. In effect, I do not feel as though I am losing anything in losing the purported veto power. However, the Government will remove that veto so that people feel more comfortable about the legislation. All members who are concerned that one minister may have a veto power over something of such importance, should take comfort from the fact that this is not a power exercised by any one minister.
(3) How will the minister adequately publicise these flexible contract provisions, so that those conditions are well recognised by everyone? (4) Given the critical relationship of ecologically sustainable forest management to logging contracts, why are these contracts being set before the forest management process is under way? (5) When will section 60 of the Conservation and Land Management Act be amended, so that the Minister for Forestry no longer enjoys a veto over the forest management plans? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. I do not think one could describe it as enjoying a power of veto, but we will work our way through that. (1)-(4) These matters are currently being considered by Government. I will be delighted to outline the process once decisions have been made. Members would generally be aware of the process that we are currently engaged in regarding the requests for proposals. Hon Peter Foss: We do not know why it has not come to an end. Hon KIM CHANCE: Soon. The Government is working to restructure the timber industry in response to the implementation of the protecting old-growth forests policy. The alternative of leaving that task and waiting, in effect, for the forest management plan, which is likely to be another year away, is not an option for the Government. The Government needs to get on with the implementation of the policy and simply cannot wait any longer for the FMP. (5) This part to the question relates to the veto that Hon Christine Sharp alleges I enjoy. This matter is being progressed. It is currently before Cabinet. Hon Peter Foss: Again? Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Peter Foss, having been a cabinet member, will be aware there are two stages to a cabinet decision: approval for drafting and approval for printing. Hon Peter Foss: Some take longer than others. Hon KIM CHANCE: Drafting priorities are a difficulty for governments of all colours, as the former Attorney General would be acutely aware. The matter is being progressed, and that will depend on the Government’s overall legislative program. My understanding of the position of that amendment Bill in the legislative program is that it enjoys quite a high priority. The Government is keen to honour that election promise and to remove the power of veto that the Minister for Forestry currently holds under the legislation. However, it is very much a nominal action, since it is a power of veto that I would never use, and in some sense, the legislation does not encompass the way a Cabinet works. Decisions of this nature are so far reaching that the whole Cabinet makes them, not one minister; they are not vetoed by one minister. In effect, I do not feel as though I am losing anything in losing the purported veto power. However, the Government will remove that veto so that people feel more comfortable about the legislation. All members who are concerned that one minister may have a veto power over something of such importance, should take comfort from the fact that this is not a power exercised by any one minister.
(4) Given the critical relationship of ecologically sustainable forest management to logging contracts, why are these contracts being set before the forest management process is under way? (5) When will section 60 of the Conservation and Land Management Act be amended, so that the Minister for Forestry no longer enjoys a veto over the forest management plans? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. I do not think one could describe it as enjoying a power of veto, but we will work our way through that. (1)-(4) These matters are currently being considered by Government. I will be delighted to outline the process once decisions have been made. Members would generally be aware of the process that we are currently engaged in regarding the requests for proposals. Hon Peter Foss: We do not know why it has not come to an end. Hon KIM CHANCE: Soon. The Government is working to restructure the timber industry in response to the implementation of the protecting old-growth forests policy. The alternative of leaving that task and waiting, in effect, for the forest management plan, which is likely to be another year away, is not an option for the Government. The Government needs to get on with the implementation of the policy and simply cannot wait any longer for the FMP. (5) This part to the question relates to the veto that Hon Christine Sharp alleges I enjoy. This matter is being progressed. It is currently before Cabinet. Hon Peter Foss: Again? Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Peter Foss, having been a cabinet member, will be aware there are two stages to a cabinet decision: approval for drafting and approval for printing. Hon Peter Foss: Some take longer than others. Hon KIM CHANCE: Drafting priorities are a difficulty for governments of all colours, as the former Attorney General would be acutely aware. The matter is being progressed, and that will depend on the Government’s overall legislative program. My understanding of the position of that amendment Bill in the legislative program is that it enjoys quite a high priority. The Government is keen to honour that election promise and to remove the power of veto that the Minister for Forestry currently holds under the legislation. However, it is very much a nominal action, since it is a power of veto that I would never use, and in some sense, the legislation does not encompass the way a Cabinet works. Decisions of this nature are so far reaching that the whole Cabinet makes them, not one minister; they are not vetoed by one minister. In effect, I do not feel as though I am losing anything in losing the purported veto power. However, the Government will remove that veto so that people feel more comfortable about the legislation. All members who are concerned that one minister may have a veto power over something of such importance, should take comfort from the fact that this is not a power exercised by any one minister.
(5) When will section 60 of the Conservation and Land Management Act be amended, so that the Minister for Forestry no longer enjoys a veto over the forest management plans? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. I do not think one could describe it as enjoying a power of veto, but we will work our way through that. (1)-(4) These matters are currently being considered by Government. I will be delighted to outline the process once decisions have been made. Members would generally be aware of the process that we are currently engaged in regarding the requests for proposals. Hon Peter Foss: We do not know why it has not come to an end. Hon KIM CHANCE: Soon. The Government is working to restructure the timber industry in response to the implementation of the protecting old-growth forests policy. The alternative of leaving that task and waiting, in effect, for the forest management plan, which is likely to be another year away, is not an option for the Government. The Government needs to get on with the implementation of the policy and simply cannot wait any longer for the FMP. (5) This part to the question relates to the veto that Hon Christine Sharp alleges I enjoy. This matter is being progressed. It is currently before Cabinet. Hon Peter Foss: Again? Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Peter Foss, having been a cabinet member, will be aware there are two stages to a cabinet decision: approval for drafting and approval for printing. Hon Peter Foss: Some take longer than others. Hon KIM CHANCE: Drafting priorities are a difficulty for governments of all colours, as the former Attorney General would be acutely aware. The matter is being progressed, and that will depend on the Government’s overall legislative program. My understanding of the position of that amendment Bill in the legislative program is that it enjoys quite a high priority. The Government is keen to honour that election promise and to remove the power of veto that the Minister for Forestry currently holds under the legislation. However, it is very much a nominal action, since it is a power of veto that I would never use, and in some sense, the legislation does not encompass the way a Cabinet works. Decisions of this nature are so far reaching that the whole Cabinet makes them, not one minister; they are not vetoed by one minister. In effect, I do not feel as though I am losing anything in losing the purported veto power. However, the Government will remove that veto so that people feel more comfortable about the legislation. All members who are concerned that one minister may have a veto power over something of such importance, should take comfort from the fact that this is not a power exercised by any one minister.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. I do not think one could describe it as enjoying a power of veto, but we will work our way through that. (1)-(4) These matters are currently being considered by Government. I will be delighted to outline the process once decisions have been made. Members would generally be aware of the process that we are currently engaged in regarding the requests for proposals. Hon Peter Foss: We do not know why it has not come to an end. Hon KIM CHANCE: Soon. The Government is working to restructure the timber industry in response to the implementation of the protecting old-growth forests policy. The alternative of leaving that task and waiting, in effect, for the forest management plan, which is likely to be another year away, is not an option for the Government. The Government needs to get on with the implementation of the policy and simply cannot wait any longer for the FMP. (5) This part to the question relates to the veto that Hon Christine Sharp alleges I enjoy. This matter is being progressed. It is currently before Cabinet. Hon Peter Foss: Again? Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Peter Foss, having been a cabinet member, will be aware there are two stages to a cabinet decision: approval for drafting and approval for printing. Hon Peter Foss: Some take longer than others. Hon KIM CHANCE: Drafting priorities are a difficulty for governments of all colours, as the former Attorney General would be acutely aware. The matter is being progressed, and that will depend on the Government’s overall legislative program. My understanding of the position of that amendment Bill in the legislative program is that it enjoys quite a high priority. The Government is keen to honour that election promise and to remove the power of veto that the Minister for Forestry currently holds under the legislation. However, it is very much a nominal action, since it is a power of veto that I would never use, and in some sense, the legislation does not encompass the way a Cabinet works. Decisions of this nature are so far reaching that the whole Cabinet makes them, not one minister; they are not vetoed by one minister. In effect, I do not feel as though I am losing anything in losing the purported veto power. However, the Government will remove that veto so that people feel more comfortable about the legislation. All members who are concerned that one minister may have a veto power over something of such importance, should take comfort from the fact that this is not a power exercised by any one minister.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. I do not think one could describe it as enjoying a power of veto, but we will work our way through that. (1)-(4) These matters are currently being considered by Government. I will be delighted to outline the process once decisions have been made. Members would generally be aware of the process that we are currently engaged in regarding the requests for proposals. Hon Peter Foss: We do not know why it has not come to an end. Hon KIM CHANCE: Soon. The Government is working to restructure the timber industry in response to the implementation of the protecting old-growth forests policy. The alternative of leaving that task and waiting, in effect, for the forest management plan, which is likely to be another year away, is not an option for the Government. The Government needs to get on with the implementation of the policy and simply cannot wait any longer for the FMP. (5) This part to the question relates to the veto that Hon Christine Sharp alleges I enjoy. This matter is being progressed. It is currently before Cabinet. Hon Peter Foss: Again? Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Peter Foss, having been a cabinet member, will be aware there are two stages to a cabinet decision: approval for drafting and approval for printing. Hon Peter Foss: Some take longer than others. Hon KIM CHANCE: Drafting priorities are a difficulty for governments of all colours, as the former Attorney General would be acutely aware. The matter is being progressed, and that will depend on the Government’s overall legislative program. My understanding of the position of that amendment Bill in the legislative program is that it enjoys quite a high priority. The Government is keen to honour that election promise and to remove the power of veto that the Minister for Forestry currently holds under the legislation. However, it is very much a nominal action, since it is a power of veto that I would never use, and in some sense, the legislation does not encompass the way a Cabinet works. Decisions of this nature are so far reaching that the whole Cabinet makes them, not one minister; they are not vetoed by one minister. In effect, I do not feel as though I am losing anything in losing the purported veto power. However, the Government will remove that veto so that people feel more comfortable about the legislation. All members who are concerned that one minister may have a veto power over something of such importance, should take comfort from the fact that this is not a power exercised by any one minister.
(1)-(4) These matters are currently being considered by Government. I will be delighted to outline the process once decisions have been made. Members would generally be aware of the process that we are currently engaged in regarding the requests for proposals. Hon Peter Foss: We do not know why it has not come to an end. Hon KIM CHANCE: Soon. The Government is working to restructure the timber industry in response to the implementation of the protecting old-growth forests policy. The alternative of leaving that task and waiting, in effect, for the forest management plan, which is likely to be another year away, is not an option for the Government. The Government needs to get on with the implementation of the policy and simply cannot wait any longer for the FMP. (5) This part to the question relates to the veto that Hon Christine Sharp alleges I enjoy. This matter is being progressed. It is currently before Cabinet. Hon Peter Foss: Again? Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Peter Foss, having been a cabinet member, will be aware there are two stages to a cabinet decision: approval for drafting and approval for printing. Hon Peter Foss: Some take longer than others. Hon KIM CHANCE: Drafting priorities are a difficulty for governments of all colours, as the former Attorney General would be acutely aware. The matter is being progressed, and that will depend on the Government’s overall legislative program. My understanding of the position of that amendment Bill in the legislative program is that it enjoys quite a high priority. The Government is keen to honour that election promise and to remove the power of veto that the Minister for Forestry currently holds under the legislation. However, it is very much a nominal action, since it is a power of veto that I would never use, and in some sense, the legislation does not encompass the way a Cabinet works. Decisions of this nature are so far reaching that the whole Cabinet makes them, not one minister; they are not vetoed by one minister. In effect, I do not feel as though I am losing anything in losing the purported veto power. However, the Government will remove that veto so that people feel more comfortable about the legislation. All members who are concerned that one minister may have a veto power over something of such importance, should take comfort from the fact that this is not a power exercised by any one minister.
Hon Peter Foss: We do not know why it has not come to an end. Hon KIM CHANCE: Soon. The Government is working to restructure the timber industry in response to the implementation of the protecting old-growth forests policy. The alternative of leaving that task and waiting, in effect, for the forest management plan, which is likely to be another year away, is not an option for the Government. The Government needs to get on with the implementation of the policy and simply cannot wait any longer for the FMP. (5) This part to the question relates to the veto that Hon Christine Sharp alleges I enjoy. This matter is being progressed. It is currently before Cabinet. Hon Peter Foss: Again? Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Peter Foss, having been a cabinet member, will be aware there are two stages to a cabinet decision: approval for drafting and approval for printing. Hon Peter Foss: Some take longer than others. Hon KIM CHANCE: Drafting priorities are a difficulty for governments of all colours, as the former Attorney General would be acutely aware. The matter is being progressed, and that will depend on the Government’s overall legislative program. My understanding of the position of that amendment Bill in the legislative program is that it enjoys quite a high priority. The Government is keen to honour that election promise and to remove the power of veto that the Minister for Forestry currently holds under the legislation. However, it is very much a nominal action, since it is a power of veto that I would never use, and in some sense, the legislation does not encompass the way a Cabinet works. Decisions of this nature are so far reaching that the whole Cabinet makes them, not one minister; they are not vetoed by one minister. In effect, I do not feel as though I am losing anything in losing the purported veto power. However, the Government will remove that veto so that people feel more comfortable about the legislation. All members who are concerned that one minister may have a veto power over something of such importance, should take comfort from the fact that this is not a power exercised by any one minister.
Hon KIM CHANCE: Soon. The Government is working to restructure the timber industry in response to the implementation of the protecting old-growth forests policy. The alternative of leaving that task and waiting, in effect, for the forest management plan, which is likely to be another year away, is not an option for the Government. The Government needs to get on with the implementation of the policy and simply cannot wait any longer for the FMP. (5) This part to the question relates to the veto that Hon Christine Sharp alleges I enjoy. This matter is being progressed. It is currently before Cabinet. Hon Peter Foss: Again? Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Peter Foss, having been a cabinet member, will be aware there are two stages to a cabinet decision: approval for drafting and approval for printing. Hon Peter Foss: Some take longer than others. Hon KIM CHANCE: Drafting priorities are a difficulty for governments of all colours, as the former Attorney General would be acutely aware. The matter is being progressed, and that will depend on the Government’s overall legislative program. My understanding of the position of that amendment Bill in the legislative program is that it enjoys quite a high priority. The Government is keen to honour that election promise and to remove the power of veto that the Minister for Forestry currently holds under the legislation. However, it is very much a nominal action, since it is a power of veto that I would never use, and in some sense, the legislation does not encompass the way a Cabinet works. Decisions of this nature are so far reaching that the whole Cabinet makes them, not one minister; they are not vetoed by one minister. In effect, I do not feel as though I am losing anything in losing the purported veto power. However, the Government will remove that veto so that people feel more comfortable about the legislation. All members who are concerned that one minister may have a veto power over something of such importance, should take comfort from the fact that this is not a power exercised by any one minister.
(5) This part to the question relates to the veto that Hon Christine Sharp alleges I enjoy. This matter is being progressed. It is currently before Cabinet. Hon Peter Foss: Again? Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Peter Foss, having been a cabinet member, will be aware there are two stages to a cabinet decision: approval for drafting and approval for printing. Hon Peter Foss: Some take longer than others. Hon KIM CHANCE: Drafting priorities are a difficulty for governments of all colours, as the former Attorney General would be acutely aware. The matter is being progressed, and that will depend on the Government’s overall legislative program. My understanding of the position of that amendment Bill in the legislative program is that it enjoys quite a high priority. The Government is keen to honour that election promise and to remove the power of veto that the Minister for Forestry currently holds under the legislation. However, it is very much a nominal action, since it is a power of veto that I would never use, and in some sense, the legislation does not encompass the way a Cabinet works. Decisions of this nature are so far reaching that the whole Cabinet makes them, not one minister; they are not vetoed by one minister. In effect, I do not feel as though I am losing anything in losing the purported veto power. However, the Government will remove that veto so that people feel more comfortable about the legislation. All members who are concerned that one minister may have a veto power over something of such importance, should take comfort from the fact that this is not a power exercised by any one minister.
Hon Peter Foss: Again? Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Peter Foss, having been a cabinet member, will be aware there are two stages to a cabinet decision: approval for drafting and approval for printing. Hon Peter Foss: Some take longer than others. Hon KIM CHANCE: Drafting priorities are a difficulty for governments of all colours, as the former Attorney General would be acutely aware. The matter is being progressed, and that will depend on the Government’s overall legislative program. My understanding of the position of that amendment Bill in the legislative program is that it enjoys quite a high priority. The Government is keen to honour that election promise and to remove the power of veto that the Minister for Forestry currently holds under the legislation. However, it is very much a nominal action, since it is a power of veto that I would never use, and in some sense, the legislation does not encompass the way a Cabinet works. Decisions of this nature are so far reaching that the whole Cabinet makes them, not one minister; they are not vetoed by one minister. In effect, I do not feel as though I am losing anything in losing the purported veto power. However, the Government will remove that veto so that people feel more comfortable about the legislation. All members who are concerned that one minister may have a veto power over something of such importance, should take comfort from the fact that this is not a power exercised by any one minister.
Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Peter Foss, having been a cabinet member, will be aware there are two stages to a cabinet decision: approval for drafting and approval for printing. Hon Peter Foss: Some take longer than others. Hon KIM CHANCE: Drafting priorities are a difficulty for governments of all colours, as the former Attorney General would be acutely aware. The matter is being progressed, and that will depend on the Government’s overall legislative program. My understanding of the position of that amendment Bill in the legislative program is that it enjoys quite a high priority. The Government is keen to honour that election promise and to remove the power of veto that the Minister for Forestry currently holds under the legislation. However, it is very much a nominal action, since it is a power of veto that I would never use, and in some sense, the legislation does not encompass the way a Cabinet works. Decisions of this nature are so far reaching that the whole Cabinet makes them, not one minister; they are not vetoed by one minister. In effect, I do not feel as though I am losing anything in losing the purported veto power. However, the Government will remove that veto so that people feel more comfortable about the legislation. All members who are concerned that one minister may have a veto power over something of such importance, should take comfort from the fact that this is not a power exercised by any one minister.
Hon Peter Foss: Some take longer than others. Hon KIM CHANCE: Drafting priorities are a difficulty for governments of all colours, as the former Attorney General would be acutely aware. The matter is being progressed, and that will depend on the Government’s overall legislative program. My understanding of the position of that amendment Bill in the legislative program is that it enjoys quite a high priority. The Government is keen to honour that election promise and to remove the power of veto that the Minister for Forestry currently holds under the legislation. However, it is very much a nominal action, since it is a power of veto that I would never use, and in some sense, the legislation does not encompass the way a Cabinet works. Decisions of this nature are so far reaching that the whole Cabinet makes them, not one minister; they are not vetoed by one minister. In effect, I do not feel as though I am losing anything in losing the purported veto power. However, the Government will remove that veto so that people feel more comfortable about the legislation. All members who are concerned that one minister may have a veto power over something of such importance, should take comfort from the fact that this is not a power exercised by any one minister.
Hon KIM CHANCE: Drafting priorities are a difficulty for governments of all colours, as the former Attorney General would be acutely aware. The matter is being progressed, and that will depend on the Government’s overall legislative program. My understanding of the position of that amendment Bill in the legislative program is that it enjoys quite a high priority. The Government is keen to honour that election promise and to remove the power of veto that the Minister for Forestry currently holds under the legislation. However, it is very much a nominal action, since it is a power of veto that I would never use, and in some sense, the legislation does not encompass the way a Cabinet works. Decisions of this nature are so far reaching that the whole Cabinet makes them, not one minister; they are not vetoed by one minister. In effect, I do not feel as though I am losing anything in losing the purported veto power. However, the Government will remove that veto so that people feel more comfortable about the legislation. All members who are concerned that one minister may have a veto power over something of such importance, should take comfort from the fact that this is not a power exercised by any one minister.
The matter is being progressed, and that will depend on the Government’s overall legislative program. My understanding of the position of that amendment Bill in the legislative program is that it enjoys quite a high priority. The Government is keen to honour that election promise and to remove the power of veto that the Minister for Forestry currently holds under the legislation. However, it is very much a nominal action, since it is a power of veto that I would never use, and in some sense, the legislation does not encompass the way a Cabinet works. Decisions of this nature are so far reaching that the whole Cabinet makes them, not one minister; they are not vetoed by one minister. In effect, I do not feel as though I am losing anything in losing the purported veto power. However, the Government will remove that veto so that people feel more comfortable about the legislation. All members who are concerned that one minister may have a veto power over something of such importance, should take comfort from the fact that this is not a power exercised by any one minister.
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.