❓ A WA parliamentary question addresses meetings between the Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and small timber millers, inquiring about potential incentives for millers to exit the industry and the reasons for expedited decision-making.
AnsweredQoN 156Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the minister’s remarks in the previous sitting week about his intention to meet with some of the smaller timber millers. (1) Have meetings taken place with those small to medium-sized timber millers? (2) If they have, has the minister encouraged small to medium-sized timber millers to quit the industry immediately by offering a special higher business exit package deal if it is accepted by the end of this month? (3) If so, approximately how many small to medium-sized timber millers have been offered this special deal by the minister? (4) Why is the minister pressuring these people to make decisions on their future in this expedited fashion? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(4) On Saturday one week ago I met with 10 small sawmillers in Bunbury. That was on top of meetings I have had with a further five small millers. These were the first meetings I have had since the announcement of the indicative volumes, so we were able to discuss matters in more detail. At that stage, on the advice of Bob Pearce, they were the only millers who wanted to meet with government to have those discussions. Because of the success of that round of meetings, I have since asked whether other small millers want to resolve some matters. Three of the 10 sawmillers indicated some interest in taking the business exit allowance; that is, they either had an offer or were about to receive an offer. Hon Barry House: Was one Bedford’s in Donnybrook? Hon KIM CHANCE: I cannot disclose that. At that stage they had indicated either a refusal of the offer or some reserve about accepting the offer because of elements in the offer. Technically, we did offer to negotiate a higher business exit allowance payment. In each case in which the sawmiller indicated that the offer was inadequate, we sought from the sawmiller details of where it was inadequate. In most cases, it was due to the fact that the salvage value of the equipment, which can be offset against the initial offer, was, it was claimed, too high. We indicated to the sawmillers that we would be happy to go back and look at the high salvage value to determine whether it was still a relevant figure in light of the fact that much of the equipment would be coming on the market at this stage anyway and could cause the salvage value of the equipment to be lower than we had first thought, which, in effect, would lift the net payment to those persons. Yes, we did encourage sawmillers to act on the offer before the end of the current month. I indicated to millers that the earlier some of these offers were accepted, the better as far as we were concerned. Obviously, we could be more flexible with the earlier exit payments. The member may be aware that we are planning to reduce the quantum of the exit payments in time, because the value of the exit payment to the Government falls as it gets closer to the end of the contract period. At the end of 2003 there will be no value in it at all for the Government. That would mean they would have used - Hon Peter Foss: There is a legitimate expectation even though they did not have contractual rights - The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a committee stage. If the minister has answered the question, he has answered the question. Hon KIM CHANCE: I have nearly finished. Obviously, the value to the Government and to the industry as a whole of an earlier exit is higher than it is if nothing is gained in terms of the total sharing of the available volumes once the contract period has finished. Once the contract period has finished, the sawmiller effectively has nothing to sell because he has no contract. In answer to the last part of the question, we did it to maximise the value of the business exit payment to all parties.
(1) Have meetings taken place with those small to medium-sized timber millers? (2) If they have, has the minister encouraged small to medium-sized timber millers to quit the industry immediately by offering a special higher business exit package deal if it is accepted by the end of this month? (3) If so, approximately how many small to medium-sized timber millers have been offered this special deal by the minister? (4) Why is the minister pressuring these people to make decisions on their future in this expedited fashion? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(4) On Saturday one week ago I met with 10 small sawmillers in Bunbury. That was on top of meetings I have had with a further five small millers. These were the first meetings I have had since the announcement of the indicative volumes, so we were able to discuss matters in more detail. At that stage, on the advice of Bob Pearce, they were the only millers who wanted to meet with government to have those discussions. Because of the success of that round of meetings, I have since asked whether other small millers want to resolve some matters. Three of the 10 sawmillers indicated some interest in taking the business exit allowance; that is, they either had an offer or were about to receive an offer. Hon Barry House: Was one Bedford’s in Donnybrook? Hon KIM CHANCE: I cannot disclose that. At that stage they had indicated either a refusal of the offer or some reserve about accepting the offer because of elements in the offer. Technically, we did offer to negotiate a higher business exit allowance payment. In each case in which the sawmiller indicated that the offer was inadequate, we sought from the sawmiller details of where it was inadequate. In most cases, it was due to the fact that the salvage value of the equipment, which can be offset against the initial offer, was, it was claimed, too high. We indicated to the sawmillers that we would be happy to go back and look at the high salvage value to determine whether it was still a relevant figure in light of the fact that much of the equipment would be coming on the market at this stage anyway and could cause the salvage value of the equipment to be lower than we had first thought, which, in effect, would lift the net payment to those persons. Yes, we did encourage sawmillers to act on the offer before the end of the current month. I indicated to millers that the earlier some of these offers were accepted, the better as far as we were concerned. Obviously, we could be more flexible with the earlier exit payments. The member may be aware that we are planning to reduce the quantum of the exit payments in time, because the value of the exit payment to the Government falls as it gets closer to the end of the contract period. At the end of 2003 there will be no value in it at all for the Government. That would mean they would have used - Hon Peter Foss: There is a legitimate expectation even though they did not have contractual rights - The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a committee stage. If the minister has answered the question, he has answered the question. Hon KIM CHANCE: I have nearly finished. Obviously, the value to the Government and to the industry as a whole of an earlier exit is higher than it is if nothing is gained in terms of the total sharing of the available volumes once the contract period has finished. Once the contract period has finished, the sawmiller effectively has nothing to sell because he has no contract. In answer to the last part of the question, we did it to maximise the value of the business exit payment to all parties.
(2) If they have, has the minister encouraged small to medium-sized timber millers to quit the industry immediately by offering a special higher business exit package deal if it is accepted by the end of this month? (3) If so, approximately how many small to medium-sized timber millers have been offered this special deal by the minister? (4) Why is the minister pressuring these people to make decisions on their future in this expedited fashion? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(4) On Saturday one week ago I met with 10 small sawmillers in Bunbury. That was on top of meetings I have had with a further five small millers. These were the first meetings I have had since the announcement of the indicative volumes, so we were able to discuss matters in more detail. At that stage, on the advice of Bob Pearce, they were the only millers who wanted to meet with government to have those discussions. Because of the success of that round of meetings, I have since asked whether other small millers want to resolve some matters. Three of the 10 sawmillers indicated some interest in taking the business exit allowance; that is, they either had an offer or were about to receive an offer. Hon Barry House: Was one Bedford’s in Donnybrook? Hon KIM CHANCE: I cannot disclose that. At that stage they had indicated either a refusal of the offer or some reserve about accepting the offer because of elements in the offer. Technically, we did offer to negotiate a higher business exit allowance payment. In each case in which the sawmiller indicated that the offer was inadequate, we sought from the sawmiller details of where it was inadequate. In most cases, it was due to the fact that the salvage value of the equipment, which can be offset against the initial offer, was, it was claimed, too high. We indicated to the sawmillers that we would be happy to go back and look at the high salvage value to determine whether it was still a relevant figure in light of the fact that much of the equipment would be coming on the market at this stage anyway and could cause the salvage value of the equipment to be lower than we had first thought, which, in effect, would lift the net payment to those persons. Yes, we did encourage sawmillers to act on the offer before the end of the current month. I indicated to millers that the earlier some of these offers were accepted, the better as far as we were concerned. Obviously, we could be more flexible with the earlier exit payments. The member may be aware that we are planning to reduce the quantum of the exit payments in time, because the value of the exit payment to the Government falls as it gets closer to the end of the contract period. At the end of 2003 there will be no value in it at all for the Government. That would mean they would have used - Hon Peter Foss: There is a legitimate expectation even though they did not have contractual rights - The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a committee stage. If the minister has answered the question, he has answered the question. Hon KIM CHANCE: I have nearly finished. Obviously, the value to the Government and to the industry as a whole of an earlier exit is higher than it is if nothing is gained in terms of the total sharing of the available volumes once the contract period has finished. Once the contract period has finished, the sawmiller effectively has nothing to sell because he has no contract. In answer to the last part of the question, we did it to maximise the value of the business exit payment to all parties.
(3) If so, approximately how many small to medium-sized timber millers have been offered this special deal by the minister? (4) Why is the minister pressuring these people to make decisions on their future in this expedited fashion? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(4) On Saturday one week ago I met with 10 small sawmillers in Bunbury. That was on top of meetings I have had with a further five small millers. These were the first meetings I have had since the announcement of the indicative volumes, so we were able to discuss matters in more detail. At that stage, on the advice of Bob Pearce, they were the only millers who wanted to meet with government to have those discussions. Because of the success of that round of meetings, I have since asked whether other small millers want to resolve some matters. Three of the 10 sawmillers indicated some interest in taking the business exit allowance; that is, they either had an offer or were about to receive an offer. Hon Barry House: Was one Bedford’s in Donnybrook? Hon KIM CHANCE: I cannot disclose that. At that stage they had indicated either a refusal of the offer or some reserve about accepting the offer because of elements in the offer. Technically, we did offer to negotiate a higher business exit allowance payment. In each case in which the sawmiller indicated that the offer was inadequate, we sought from the sawmiller details of where it was inadequate. In most cases, it was due to the fact that the salvage value of the equipment, which can be offset against the initial offer, was, it was claimed, too high. We indicated to the sawmillers that we would be happy to go back and look at the high salvage value to determine whether it was still a relevant figure in light of the fact that much of the equipment would be coming on the market at this stage anyway and could cause the salvage value of the equipment to be lower than we had first thought, which, in effect, would lift the net payment to those persons. Yes, we did encourage sawmillers to act on the offer before the end of the current month. I indicated to millers that the earlier some of these offers were accepted, the better as far as we were concerned. Obviously, we could be more flexible with the earlier exit payments. The member may be aware that we are planning to reduce the quantum of the exit payments in time, because the value of the exit payment to the Government falls as it gets closer to the end of the contract period. At the end of 2003 there will be no value in it at all for the Government. That would mean they would have used - Hon Peter Foss: There is a legitimate expectation even though they did not have contractual rights - The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a committee stage. If the minister has answered the question, he has answered the question. Hon KIM CHANCE: I have nearly finished. Obviously, the value to the Government and to the industry as a whole of an earlier exit is higher than it is if nothing is gained in terms of the total sharing of the available volumes once the contract period has finished. Once the contract period has finished, the sawmiller effectively has nothing to sell because he has no contract. In answer to the last part of the question, we did it to maximise the value of the business exit payment to all parties.
(4) Why is the minister pressuring these people to make decisions on their future in this expedited fashion? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(4) On Saturday one week ago I met with 10 small sawmillers in Bunbury. That was on top of meetings I have had with a further five small millers. These were the first meetings I have had since the announcement of the indicative volumes, so we were able to discuss matters in more detail. At that stage, on the advice of Bob Pearce, they were the only millers who wanted to meet with government to have those discussions. Because of the success of that round of meetings, I have since asked whether other small millers want to resolve some matters. Three of the 10 sawmillers indicated some interest in taking the business exit allowance; that is, they either had an offer or were about to receive an offer. Hon Barry House: Was one Bedford’s in Donnybrook? Hon KIM CHANCE: I cannot disclose that. At that stage they had indicated either a refusal of the offer or some reserve about accepting the offer because of elements in the offer. Technically, we did offer to negotiate a higher business exit allowance payment. In each case in which the sawmiller indicated that the offer was inadequate, we sought from the sawmiller details of where it was inadequate. In most cases, it was due to the fact that the salvage value of the equipment, which can be offset against the initial offer, was, it was claimed, too high. We indicated to the sawmillers that we would be happy to go back and look at the high salvage value to determine whether it was still a relevant figure in light of the fact that much of the equipment would be coming on the market at this stage anyway and could cause the salvage value of the equipment to be lower than we had first thought, which, in effect, would lift the net payment to those persons. Yes, we did encourage sawmillers to act on the offer before the end of the current month. I indicated to millers that the earlier some of these offers were accepted, the better as far as we were concerned. Obviously, we could be more flexible with the earlier exit payments. The member may be aware that we are planning to reduce the quantum of the exit payments in time, because the value of the exit payment to the Government falls as it gets closer to the end of the contract period. At the end of 2003 there will be no value in it at all for the Government. That would mean they would have used - Hon Peter Foss: There is a legitimate expectation even though they did not have contractual rights - The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a committee stage. If the minister has answered the question, he has answered the question. Hon KIM CHANCE: I have nearly finished. Obviously, the value to the Government and to the industry as a whole of an earlier exit is higher than it is if nothing is gained in terms of the total sharing of the available volumes once the contract period has finished. Once the contract period has finished, the sawmiller effectively has nothing to sell because he has no contract. In answer to the last part of the question, we did it to maximise the value of the business exit payment to all parties.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(4) On Saturday one week ago I met with 10 small sawmillers in Bunbury. That was on top of meetings I have had with a further five small millers. These were the first meetings I have had since the announcement of the indicative volumes, so we were able to discuss matters in more detail. At that stage, on the advice of Bob Pearce, they were the only millers who wanted to meet with government to have those discussions. Because of the success of that round of meetings, I have since asked whether other small millers want to resolve some matters. Three of the 10 sawmillers indicated some interest in taking the business exit allowance; that is, they either had an offer or were about to receive an offer. Hon Barry House: Was one Bedford’s in Donnybrook? Hon KIM CHANCE: I cannot disclose that. At that stage they had indicated either a refusal of the offer or some reserve about accepting the offer because of elements in the offer. Technically, we did offer to negotiate a higher business exit allowance payment. In each case in which the sawmiller indicated that the offer was inadequate, we sought from the sawmiller details of where it was inadequate. In most cases, it was due to the fact that the salvage value of the equipment, which can be offset against the initial offer, was, it was claimed, too high. We indicated to the sawmillers that we would be happy to go back and look at the high salvage value to determine whether it was still a relevant figure in light of the fact that much of the equipment would be coming on the market at this stage anyway and could cause the salvage value of the equipment to be lower than we had first thought, which, in effect, would lift the net payment to those persons. Yes, we did encourage sawmillers to act on the offer before the end of the current month. I indicated to millers that the earlier some of these offers were accepted, the better as far as we were concerned. Obviously, we could be more flexible with the earlier exit payments. The member may be aware that we are planning to reduce the quantum of the exit payments in time, because the value of the exit payment to the Government falls as it gets closer to the end of the contract period. At the end of 2003 there will be no value in it at all for the Government. That would mean they would have used - Hon Peter Foss: There is a legitimate expectation even though they did not have contractual rights - The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a committee stage. If the minister has answered the question, he has answered the question. Hon KIM CHANCE: I have nearly finished. Obviously, the value to the Government and to the industry as a whole of an earlier exit is higher than it is if nothing is gained in terms of the total sharing of the available volumes once the contract period has finished. Once the contract period has finished, the sawmiller effectively has nothing to sell because he has no contract. In answer to the last part of the question, we did it to maximise the value of the business exit payment to all parties.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(4) On Saturday one week ago I met with 10 small sawmillers in Bunbury. That was on top of meetings I have had with a further five small millers. These were the first meetings I have had since the announcement of the indicative volumes, so we were able to discuss matters in more detail. At that stage, on the advice of Bob Pearce, they were the only millers who wanted to meet with government to have those discussions. Because of the success of that round of meetings, I have since asked whether other small millers want to resolve some matters. Three of the 10 sawmillers indicated some interest in taking the business exit allowance; that is, they either had an offer or were about to receive an offer. Hon Barry House: Was one Bedford’s in Donnybrook? Hon KIM CHANCE: I cannot disclose that. At that stage they had indicated either a refusal of the offer or some reserve about accepting the offer because of elements in the offer. Technically, we did offer to negotiate a higher business exit allowance payment. In each case in which the sawmiller indicated that the offer was inadequate, we sought from the sawmiller details of where it was inadequate. In most cases, it was due to the fact that the salvage value of the equipment, which can be offset against the initial offer, was, it was claimed, too high. We indicated to the sawmillers that we would be happy to go back and look at the high salvage value to determine whether it was still a relevant figure in light of the fact that much of the equipment would be coming on the market at this stage anyway and could cause the salvage value of the equipment to be lower than we had first thought, which, in effect, would lift the net payment to those persons. Yes, we did encourage sawmillers to act on the offer before the end of the current month. I indicated to millers that the earlier some of these offers were accepted, the better as far as we were concerned. Obviously, we could be more flexible with the earlier exit payments. The member may be aware that we are planning to reduce the quantum of the exit payments in time, because the value of the exit payment to the Government falls as it gets closer to the end of the contract period. At the end of 2003 there will be no value in it at all for the Government. That would mean they would have used - Hon Peter Foss: There is a legitimate expectation even though they did not have contractual rights - The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a committee stage. If the minister has answered the question, he has answered the question. Hon KIM CHANCE: I have nearly finished. Obviously, the value to the Government and to the industry as a whole of an earlier exit is higher than it is if nothing is gained in terms of the total sharing of the available volumes once the contract period has finished. Once the contract period has finished, the sawmiller effectively has nothing to sell because he has no contract. In answer to the last part of the question, we did it to maximise the value of the business exit payment to all parties.
(1)-(4) On Saturday one week ago I met with 10 small sawmillers in Bunbury. That was on top of meetings I have had with a further five small millers. These were the first meetings I have had since the announcement of the indicative volumes, so we were able to discuss matters in more detail. At that stage, on the advice of Bob Pearce, they were the only millers who wanted to meet with government to have those discussions. Because of the success of that round of meetings, I have since asked whether other small millers want to resolve some matters. Three of the 10 sawmillers indicated some interest in taking the business exit allowance; that is, they either had an offer or were about to receive an offer. Hon Barry House: Was one Bedford’s in Donnybrook? Hon KIM CHANCE: I cannot disclose that. At that stage they had indicated either a refusal of the offer or some reserve about accepting the offer because of elements in the offer. Technically, we did offer to negotiate a higher business exit allowance payment. In each case in which the sawmiller indicated that the offer was inadequate, we sought from the sawmiller details of where it was inadequate. In most cases, it was due to the fact that the salvage value of the equipment, which can be offset against the initial offer, was, it was claimed, too high. We indicated to the sawmillers that we would be happy to go back and look at the high salvage value to determine whether it was still a relevant figure in light of the fact that much of the equipment would be coming on the market at this stage anyway and could cause the salvage value of the equipment to be lower than we had first thought, which, in effect, would lift the net payment to those persons. Yes, we did encourage sawmillers to act on the offer before the end of the current month. I indicated to millers that the earlier some of these offers were accepted, the better as far as we were concerned. Obviously, we could be more flexible with the earlier exit payments. The member may be aware that we are planning to reduce the quantum of the exit payments in time, because the value of the exit payment to the Government falls as it gets closer to the end of the contract period. At the end of 2003 there will be no value in it at all for the Government. That would mean they would have used - Hon Peter Foss: There is a legitimate expectation even though they did not have contractual rights - The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a committee stage. If the minister has answered the question, he has answered the question. Hon KIM CHANCE: I have nearly finished. Obviously, the value to the Government and to the industry as a whole of an earlier exit is higher than it is if nothing is gained in terms of the total sharing of the available volumes once the contract period has finished. Once the contract period has finished, the sawmiller effectively has nothing to sell because he has no contract. In answer to the last part of the question, we did it to maximise the value of the business exit payment to all parties.
Hon Barry House: Was one Bedford’s in Donnybrook? Hon KIM CHANCE: I cannot disclose that. At that stage they had indicated either a refusal of the offer or some reserve about accepting the offer because of elements in the offer. Technically, we did offer to negotiate a higher business exit allowance payment. In each case in which the sawmiller indicated that the offer was inadequate, we sought from the sawmiller details of where it was inadequate. In most cases, it was due to the fact that the salvage value of the equipment, which can be offset against the initial offer, was, it was claimed, too high. We indicated to the sawmillers that we would be happy to go back and look at the high salvage value to determine whether it was still a relevant figure in light of the fact that much of the equipment would be coming on the market at this stage anyway and could cause the salvage value of the equipment to be lower than we had first thought, which, in effect, would lift the net payment to those persons. Yes, we did encourage sawmillers to act on the offer before the end of the current month. I indicated to millers that the earlier some of these offers were accepted, the better as far as we were concerned. Obviously, we could be more flexible with the earlier exit payments. The member may be aware that we are planning to reduce the quantum of the exit payments in time, because the value of the exit payment to the Government falls as it gets closer to the end of the contract period. At the end of 2003 there will be no value in it at all for the Government. That would mean they would have used - Hon Peter Foss: There is a legitimate expectation even though they did not have contractual rights - The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a committee stage. If the minister has answered the question, he has answered the question. Hon KIM CHANCE: I have nearly finished. Obviously, the value to the Government and to the industry as a whole of an earlier exit is higher than it is if nothing is gained in terms of the total sharing of the available volumes once the contract period has finished. Once the contract period has finished, the sawmiller effectively has nothing to sell because he has no contract. In answer to the last part of the question, we did it to maximise the value of the business exit payment to all parties.
Hon KIM CHANCE: I cannot disclose that. At that stage they had indicated either a refusal of the offer or some reserve about accepting the offer because of elements in the offer. Technically, we did offer to negotiate a higher business exit allowance payment. In each case in which the sawmiller indicated that the offer was inadequate, we sought from the sawmiller details of where it was inadequate. In most cases, it was due to the fact that the salvage value of the equipment, which can be offset against the initial offer, was, it was claimed, too high. We indicated to the sawmillers that we would be happy to go back and look at the high salvage value to determine whether it was still a relevant figure in light of the fact that much of the equipment would be coming on the market at this stage anyway and could cause the salvage value of the equipment to be lower than we had first thought, which, in effect, would lift the net payment to those persons. Yes, we did encourage sawmillers to act on the offer before the end of the current month. I indicated to millers that the earlier some of these offers were accepted, the better as far as we were concerned. Obviously, we could be more flexible with the earlier exit payments. The member may be aware that we are planning to reduce the quantum of the exit payments in time, because the value of the exit payment to the Government falls as it gets closer to the end of the contract period. At the end of 2003 there will be no value in it at all for the Government. That would mean they would have used - Hon Peter Foss: There is a legitimate expectation even though they did not have contractual rights - The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a committee stage. If the minister has answered the question, he has answered the question. Hon KIM CHANCE: I have nearly finished. Obviously, the value to the Government and to the industry as a whole of an earlier exit is higher than it is if nothing is gained in terms of the total sharing of the available volumes once the contract period has finished. Once the contract period has finished, the sawmiller effectively has nothing to sell because he has no contract. In answer to the last part of the question, we did it to maximise the value of the business exit payment to all parties.
At that stage they had indicated either a refusal of the offer or some reserve about accepting the offer because of elements in the offer. Technically, we did offer to negotiate a higher business exit allowance payment. In each case in which the sawmiller indicated that the offer was inadequate, we sought from the sawmiller details of where it was inadequate. In most cases, it was due to the fact that the salvage value of the equipment, which can be offset against the initial offer, was, it was claimed, too high. We indicated to the sawmillers that we would be happy to go back and look at the high salvage value to determine whether it was still a relevant figure in light of the fact that much of the equipment would be coming on the market at this stage anyway and could cause the salvage value of the equipment to be lower than we had first thought, which, in effect, would lift the net payment to those persons. Yes, we did encourage sawmillers to act on the offer before the end of the current month. I indicated to millers that the earlier some of these offers were accepted, the better as far as we were concerned. Obviously, we could be more flexible with the earlier exit payments. The member may be aware that we are planning to reduce the quantum of the exit payments in time, because the value of the exit payment to the Government falls as it gets closer to the end of the contract period. At the end of 2003 there will be no value in it at all for the Government. That would mean they would have used - Hon Peter Foss: There is a legitimate expectation even though they did not have contractual rights - The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a committee stage. If the minister has answered the question, he has answered the question. Hon KIM CHANCE: I have nearly finished. Obviously, the value to the Government and to the industry as a whole of an earlier exit is higher than it is if nothing is gained in terms of the total sharing of the available volumes once the contract period has finished. Once the contract period has finished, the sawmiller effectively has nothing to sell because he has no contract. In answer to the last part of the question, we did it to maximise the value of the business exit payment to all parties.
Technically, we did offer to negotiate a higher business exit allowance payment. In each case in which the sawmiller indicated that the offer was inadequate, we sought from the sawmiller details of where it was inadequate. In most cases, it was due to the fact that the salvage value of the equipment, which can be offset against the initial offer, was, it was claimed, too high. We indicated to the sawmillers that we would be happy to go back and look at the high salvage value to determine whether it was still a relevant figure in light of the fact that much of the equipment would be coming on the market at this stage anyway and could cause the salvage value of the equipment to be lower than we had first thought, which, in effect, would lift the net payment to those persons. Yes, we did encourage sawmillers to act on the offer before the end of the current month. I indicated to millers that the earlier some of these offers were accepted, the better as far as we were concerned. Obviously, we could be more flexible with the earlier exit payments. The member may be aware that we are planning to reduce the quantum of the exit payments in time, because the value of the exit payment to the Government falls as it gets closer to the end of the contract period. At the end of 2003 there will be no value in it at all for the Government. That would mean they would have used - Hon Peter Foss: There is a legitimate expectation even though they did not have contractual rights - The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a committee stage. If the minister has answered the question, he has answered the question. Hon KIM CHANCE: I have nearly finished. Obviously, the value to the Government and to the industry as a whole of an earlier exit is higher than it is if nothing is gained in terms of the total sharing of the available volumes once the contract period has finished. Once the contract period has finished, the sawmiller effectively has nothing to sell because he has no contract. In answer to the last part of the question, we did it to maximise the value of the business exit payment to all parties.
Yes, we did encourage sawmillers to act on the offer before the end of the current month. I indicated to millers that the earlier some of these offers were accepted, the better as far as we were concerned. Obviously, we could be more flexible with the earlier exit payments. The member may be aware that we are planning to reduce the quantum of the exit payments in time, because the value of the exit payment to the Government falls as it gets closer to the end of the contract period. At the end of 2003 there will be no value in it at all for the Government. That would mean they would have used - Hon Peter Foss: There is a legitimate expectation even though they did not have contractual rights - The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a committee stage. If the minister has answered the question, he has answered the question. Hon KIM CHANCE: I have nearly finished. Obviously, the value to the Government and to the industry as a whole of an earlier exit is higher than it is if nothing is gained in terms of the total sharing of the available volumes once the contract period has finished. Once the contract period has finished, the sawmiller effectively has nothing to sell because he has no contract. In answer to the last part of the question, we did it to maximise the value of the business exit payment to all parties.
Hon Peter Foss: There is a legitimate expectation even though they did not have contractual rights - The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a committee stage. If the minister has answered the question, he has answered the question. Hon KIM CHANCE: I have nearly finished. Obviously, the value to the Government and to the industry as a whole of an earlier exit is higher than it is if nothing is gained in terms of the total sharing of the available volumes once the contract period has finished. Once the contract period has finished, the sawmiller effectively has nothing to sell because he has no contract. In answer to the last part of the question, we did it to maximise the value of the business exit payment to all parties.
The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a committee stage. If the minister has answered the question, he has answered the question. Hon KIM CHANCE: I have nearly finished. Obviously, the value to the Government and to the industry as a whole of an earlier exit is higher than it is if nothing is gained in terms of the total sharing of the available volumes once the contract period has finished. Once the contract period has finished, the sawmiller effectively has nothing to sell because he has no contract. In answer to the last part of the question, we did it to maximise the value of the business exit payment to all parties.
Hon KIM CHANCE: I have nearly finished. Obviously, the value to the Government and to the industry as a whole of an earlier exit is higher than it is if nothing is gained in terms of the total sharing of the available volumes once the contract period has finished. Once the contract period has finished, the sawmiller effectively has nothing to sell because he has no contract. In answer to the last part of the question, we did it to maximise the value of the business exit payment to all parties.
(1) Have meetings taken place with those small to medium-sized timber millers? (2) If they have, has the minister encouraged small to medium-sized timber millers to quit the industry immediately by offering a special higher business exit package deal if it is accepted by the end of this month? (3) If so, approximately how many small to medium-sized timber millers have been offered this special deal by the minister? (4) Why is the minister pressuring these people to make decisions on their future in this expedited fashion? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(4) On Saturday one week ago I met with 10 small sawmillers in Bunbury. That was on top of meetings I have had with a further five small millers. These were the first meetings I have had since the announcement of the indicative volumes, so we were able to discuss matters in more detail. At that stage, on the advice of Bob Pearce, they were the only millers who wanted to meet with government to have those discussions. Because of the success of that round of meetings, I have since asked whether other small millers want to resolve some matters. Three of the 10 sawmillers indicated some interest in taking the business exit allowance; that is, they either had an offer or were about to receive an offer. Hon Barry House: Was one Bedford’s in Donnybrook? Hon KIM CHANCE: I cannot disclose that. At that stage they had indicated either a refusal of the offer or some reserve about accepting the offer because of elements in the offer. Technically, we did offer to negotiate a higher business exit allowance payment. In each case in which the sawmiller indicated that the offer was inadequate, we sought from the sawmiller details of where it was inadequate. In most cases, it was due to the fact that the salvage value of the equipment, which can be offset against the initial offer, was, it was claimed, too high. We indicated to the sawmillers that we would be happy to go back and look at the high salvage value to determine whether it was still a relevant figure in light of the fact that much of the equipment would be coming on the market at this stage anyway and could cause the salvage value of the equipment to be lower than we had first thought, which, in effect, would lift the net payment to those persons. Yes, we did encourage sawmillers to act on the offer before the end of the current month. I indicated to millers that the earlier some of these offers were accepted, the better as far as we were concerned. Obviously, we could be more flexible with the earlier exit payments. The member may be aware that we are planning to reduce the quantum of the exit payments in time, because the value of the exit payment to the Government falls as it gets closer to the end of the contract period. At the end of 2003 there will be no value in it at all for the Government. That would mean they would have used - Hon Peter Foss: There is a legitimate expectation even though they did not have contractual rights - The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a committee stage. If the minister has answered the question, he has answered the question. Hon KIM CHANCE: I have nearly finished. Obviously, the value to the Government and to the industry as a whole of an earlier exit is higher than it is if nothing is gained in terms of the total sharing of the available volumes once the contract period has finished. Once the contract period has finished, the sawmiller effectively has nothing to sell because he has no contract. In answer to the last part of the question, we did it to maximise the value of the business exit payment to all parties.
(2) If they have, has the minister encouraged small to medium-sized timber millers to quit the industry immediately by offering a special higher business exit package deal if it is accepted by the end of this month? (3) If so, approximately how many small to medium-sized timber millers have been offered this special deal by the minister? (4) Why is the minister pressuring these people to make decisions on their future in this expedited fashion? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(4) On Saturday one week ago I met with 10 small sawmillers in Bunbury. That was on top of meetings I have had with a further five small millers. These were the first meetings I have had since the announcement of the indicative volumes, so we were able to discuss matters in more detail. At that stage, on the advice of Bob Pearce, they were the only millers who wanted to meet with government to have those discussions. Because of the success of that round of meetings, I have since asked whether other small millers want to resolve some matters. Three of the 10 sawmillers indicated some interest in taking the business exit allowance; that is, they either had an offer or were about to receive an offer. Hon Barry House: Was one Bedford’s in Donnybrook? Hon KIM CHANCE: I cannot disclose that. At that stage they had indicated either a refusal of the offer or some reserve about accepting the offer because of elements in the offer. Technically, we did offer to negotiate a higher business exit allowance payment. In each case in which the sawmiller indicated that the offer was inadequate, we sought from the sawmiller details of where it was inadequate. In most cases, it was due to the fact that the salvage value of the equipment, which can be offset against the initial offer, was, it was claimed, too high. We indicated to the sawmillers that we would be happy to go back and look at the high salvage value to determine whether it was still a relevant figure in light of the fact that much of the equipment would be coming on the market at this stage anyway and could cause the salvage value of the equipment to be lower than we had first thought, which, in effect, would lift the net payment to those persons. Yes, we did encourage sawmillers to act on the offer before the end of the current month. I indicated to millers that the earlier some of these offers were accepted, the better as far as we were concerned. Obviously, we could be more flexible with the earlier exit payments. The member may be aware that we are planning to reduce the quantum of the exit payments in time, because the value of the exit payment to the Government falls as it gets closer to the end of the contract period. At the end of 2003 there will be no value in it at all for the Government. That would mean they would have used - Hon Peter Foss: There is a legitimate expectation even though they did not have contractual rights - The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a committee stage. If the minister has answered the question, he has answered the question. Hon KIM CHANCE: I have nearly finished. Obviously, the value to the Government and to the industry as a whole of an earlier exit is higher than it is if nothing is gained in terms of the total sharing of the available volumes once the contract period has finished. Once the contract period has finished, the sawmiller effectively has nothing to sell because he has no contract. In answer to the last part of the question, we did it to maximise the value of the business exit payment to all parties.
(3) If so, approximately how many small to medium-sized timber millers have been offered this special deal by the minister? (4) Why is the minister pressuring these people to make decisions on their future in this expedited fashion? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(4) On Saturday one week ago I met with 10 small sawmillers in Bunbury. That was on top of meetings I have had with a further five small millers. These were the first meetings I have had since the announcement of the indicative volumes, so we were able to discuss matters in more detail. At that stage, on the advice of Bob Pearce, they were the only millers who wanted to meet with government to have those discussions. Because of the success of that round of meetings, I have since asked whether other small millers want to resolve some matters. Three of the 10 sawmillers indicated some interest in taking the business exit allowance; that is, they either had an offer or were about to receive an offer. Hon Barry House: Was one Bedford’s in Donnybrook? Hon KIM CHANCE: I cannot disclose that. At that stage they had indicated either a refusal of the offer or some reserve about accepting the offer because of elements in the offer. Technically, we did offer to negotiate a higher business exit allowance payment. In each case in which the sawmiller indicated that the offer was inadequate, we sought from the sawmiller details of where it was inadequate. In most cases, it was due to the fact that the salvage value of the equipment, which can be offset against the initial offer, was, it was claimed, too high. We indicated to the sawmillers that we would be happy to go back and look at the high salvage value to determine whether it was still a relevant figure in light of the fact that much of the equipment would be coming on the market at this stage anyway and could cause the salvage value of the equipment to be lower than we had first thought, which, in effect, would lift the net payment to those persons. Yes, we did encourage sawmillers to act on the offer before the end of the current month. I indicated to millers that the earlier some of these offers were accepted, the better as far as we were concerned. Obviously, we could be more flexible with the earlier exit payments. The member may be aware that we are planning to reduce the quantum of the exit payments in time, because the value of the exit payment to the Government falls as it gets closer to the end of the contract period. At the end of 2003 there will be no value in it at all for the Government. That would mean they would have used - Hon Peter Foss: There is a legitimate expectation even though they did not have contractual rights - The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a committee stage. If the minister has answered the question, he has answered the question. Hon KIM CHANCE: I have nearly finished. Obviously, the value to the Government and to the industry as a whole of an earlier exit is higher than it is if nothing is gained in terms of the total sharing of the available volumes once the contract period has finished. Once the contract period has finished, the sawmiller effectively has nothing to sell because he has no contract. In answer to the last part of the question, we did it to maximise the value of the business exit payment to all parties.
(4) Why is the minister pressuring these people to make decisions on their future in this expedited fashion? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(4) On Saturday one week ago I met with 10 small sawmillers in Bunbury. That was on top of meetings I have had with a further five small millers. These were the first meetings I have had since the announcement of the indicative volumes, so we were able to discuss matters in more detail. At that stage, on the advice of Bob Pearce, they were the only millers who wanted to meet with government to have those discussions. Because of the success of that round of meetings, I have since asked whether other small millers want to resolve some matters. Three of the 10 sawmillers indicated some interest in taking the business exit allowance; that is, they either had an offer or were about to receive an offer. Hon Barry House: Was one Bedford’s in Donnybrook? Hon KIM CHANCE: I cannot disclose that. At that stage they had indicated either a refusal of the offer or some reserve about accepting the offer because of elements in the offer. Technically, we did offer to negotiate a higher business exit allowance payment. In each case in which the sawmiller indicated that the offer was inadequate, we sought from the sawmiller details of where it was inadequate. In most cases, it was due to the fact that the salvage value of the equipment, which can be offset against the initial offer, was, it was claimed, too high. We indicated to the sawmillers that we would be happy to go back and look at the high salvage value to determine whether it was still a relevant figure in light of the fact that much of the equipment would be coming on the market at this stage anyway and could cause the salvage value of the equipment to be lower than we had first thought, which, in effect, would lift the net payment to those persons. Yes, we did encourage sawmillers to act on the offer before the end of the current month. I indicated to millers that the earlier some of these offers were accepted, the better as far as we were concerned. Obviously, we could be more flexible with the earlier exit payments. The member may be aware that we are planning to reduce the quantum of the exit payments in time, because the value of the exit payment to the Government falls as it gets closer to the end of the contract period. At the end of 2003 there will be no value in it at all for the Government. That would mean they would have used - Hon Peter Foss: There is a legitimate expectation even though they did not have contractual rights - The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a committee stage. If the minister has answered the question, he has answered the question. Hon KIM CHANCE: I have nearly finished. Obviously, the value to the Government and to the industry as a whole of an earlier exit is higher than it is if nothing is gained in terms of the total sharing of the available volumes once the contract period has finished. Once the contract period has finished, the sawmiller effectively has nothing to sell because he has no contract. In answer to the last part of the question, we did it to maximise the value of the business exit payment to all parties.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(4) On Saturday one week ago I met with 10 small sawmillers in Bunbury. That was on top of meetings I have had with a further five small millers. These were the first meetings I have had since the announcement of the indicative volumes, so we were able to discuss matters in more detail. At that stage, on the advice of Bob Pearce, they were the only millers who wanted to meet with government to have those discussions. Because of the success of that round of meetings, I have since asked whether other small millers want to resolve some matters. Three of the 10 sawmillers indicated some interest in taking the business exit allowance; that is, they either had an offer or were about to receive an offer. Hon Barry House: Was one Bedford’s in Donnybrook? Hon KIM CHANCE: I cannot disclose that. At that stage they had indicated either a refusal of the offer or some reserve about accepting the offer because of elements in the offer. Technically, we did offer to negotiate a higher business exit allowance payment. In each case in which the sawmiller indicated that the offer was inadequate, we sought from the sawmiller details of where it was inadequate. In most cases, it was due to the fact that the salvage value of the equipment, which can be offset against the initial offer, was, it was claimed, too high. We indicated to the sawmillers that we would be happy to go back and look at the high salvage value to determine whether it was still a relevant figure in light of the fact that much of the equipment would be coming on the market at this stage anyway and could cause the salvage value of the equipment to be lower than we had first thought, which, in effect, would lift the net payment to those persons. Yes, we did encourage sawmillers to act on the offer before the end of the current month. I indicated to millers that the earlier some of these offers were accepted, the better as far as we were concerned. Obviously, we could be more flexible with the earlier exit payments. The member may be aware that we are planning to reduce the quantum of the exit payments in time, because the value of the exit payment to the Government falls as it gets closer to the end of the contract period. At the end of 2003 there will be no value in it at all for the Government. That would mean they would have used - Hon Peter Foss: There is a legitimate expectation even though they did not have contractual rights - The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a committee stage. If the minister has answered the question, he has answered the question. Hon KIM CHANCE: I have nearly finished. Obviously, the value to the Government and to the industry as a whole of an earlier exit is higher than it is if nothing is gained in terms of the total sharing of the available volumes once the contract period has finished. Once the contract period has finished, the sawmiller effectively has nothing to sell because he has no contract. In answer to the last part of the question, we did it to maximise the value of the business exit payment to all parties.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(4) On Saturday one week ago I met with 10 small sawmillers in Bunbury. That was on top of meetings I have had with a further five small millers. These were the first meetings I have had since the announcement of the indicative volumes, so we were able to discuss matters in more detail. At that stage, on the advice of Bob Pearce, they were the only millers who wanted to meet with government to have those discussions. Because of the success of that round of meetings, I have since asked whether other small millers want to resolve some matters. Three of the 10 sawmillers indicated some interest in taking the business exit allowance; that is, they either had an offer or were about to receive an offer. Hon Barry House: Was one Bedford’s in Donnybrook? Hon KIM CHANCE: I cannot disclose that. At that stage they had indicated either a refusal of the offer or some reserve about accepting the offer because of elements in the offer. Technically, we did offer to negotiate a higher business exit allowance payment. In each case in which the sawmiller indicated that the offer was inadequate, we sought from the sawmiller details of where it was inadequate. In most cases, it was due to the fact that the salvage value of the equipment, which can be offset against the initial offer, was, it was claimed, too high. We indicated to the sawmillers that we would be happy to go back and look at the high salvage value to determine whether it was still a relevant figure in light of the fact that much of the equipment would be coming on the market at this stage anyway and could cause the salvage value of the equipment to be lower than we had first thought, which, in effect, would lift the net payment to those persons. Yes, we did encourage sawmillers to act on the offer before the end of the current month. I indicated to millers that the earlier some of these offers were accepted, the better as far as we were concerned. Obviously, we could be more flexible with the earlier exit payments. The member may be aware that we are planning to reduce the quantum of the exit payments in time, because the value of the exit payment to the Government falls as it gets closer to the end of the contract period. At the end of 2003 there will be no value in it at all for the Government. That would mean they would have used - Hon Peter Foss: There is a legitimate expectation even though they did not have contractual rights - The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a committee stage. If the minister has answered the question, he has answered the question. Hon KIM CHANCE: I have nearly finished. Obviously, the value to the Government and to the industry as a whole of an earlier exit is higher than it is if nothing is gained in terms of the total sharing of the available volumes once the contract period has finished. Once the contract period has finished, the sawmiller effectively has nothing to sell because he has no contract. In answer to the last part of the question, we did it to maximise the value of the business exit payment to all parties.
(1)-(4) On Saturday one week ago I met with 10 small sawmillers in Bunbury. That was on top of meetings I have had with a further five small millers. These were the first meetings I have had since the announcement of the indicative volumes, so we were able to discuss matters in more detail. At that stage, on the advice of Bob Pearce, they were the only millers who wanted to meet with government to have those discussions. Because of the success of that round of meetings, I have since asked whether other small millers want to resolve some matters. Three of the 10 sawmillers indicated some interest in taking the business exit allowance; that is, they either had an offer or were about to receive an offer. Hon Barry House: Was one Bedford’s in Donnybrook? Hon KIM CHANCE: I cannot disclose that. At that stage they had indicated either a refusal of the offer or some reserve about accepting the offer because of elements in the offer. Technically, we did offer to negotiate a higher business exit allowance payment. In each case in which the sawmiller indicated that the offer was inadequate, we sought from the sawmiller details of where it was inadequate. In most cases, it was due to the fact that the salvage value of the equipment, which can be offset against the initial offer, was, it was claimed, too high. We indicated to the sawmillers that we would be happy to go back and look at the high salvage value to determine whether it was still a relevant figure in light of the fact that much of the equipment would be coming on the market at this stage anyway and could cause the salvage value of the equipment to be lower than we had first thought, which, in effect, would lift the net payment to those persons. Yes, we did encourage sawmillers to act on the offer before the end of the current month. I indicated to millers that the earlier some of these offers were accepted, the better as far as we were concerned. Obviously, we could be more flexible with the earlier exit payments. The member may be aware that we are planning to reduce the quantum of the exit payments in time, because the value of the exit payment to the Government falls as it gets closer to the end of the contract period. At the end of 2003 there will be no value in it at all for the Government. That would mean they would have used - Hon Peter Foss: There is a legitimate expectation even though they did not have contractual rights - The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a committee stage. If the minister has answered the question, he has answered the question. Hon KIM CHANCE: I have nearly finished. Obviously, the value to the Government and to the industry as a whole of an earlier exit is higher than it is if nothing is gained in terms of the total sharing of the available volumes once the contract period has finished. Once the contract period has finished, the sawmiller effectively has nothing to sell because he has no contract. In answer to the last part of the question, we did it to maximise the value of the business exit payment to all parties.
Hon Barry House: Was one Bedford’s in Donnybrook? Hon KIM CHANCE: I cannot disclose that. At that stage they had indicated either a refusal of the offer or some reserve about accepting the offer because of elements in the offer. Technically, we did offer to negotiate a higher business exit allowance payment. In each case in which the sawmiller indicated that the offer was inadequate, we sought from the sawmiller details of where it was inadequate. In most cases, it was due to the fact that the salvage value of the equipment, which can be offset against the initial offer, was, it was claimed, too high. We indicated to the sawmillers that we would be happy to go back and look at the high salvage value to determine whether it was still a relevant figure in light of the fact that much of the equipment would be coming on the market at this stage anyway and could cause the salvage value of the equipment to be lower than we had first thought, which, in effect, would lift the net payment to those persons. Yes, we did encourage sawmillers to act on the offer before the end of the current month. I indicated to millers that the earlier some of these offers were accepted, the better as far as we were concerned. Obviously, we could be more flexible with the earlier exit payments. The member may be aware that we are planning to reduce the quantum of the exit payments in time, because the value of the exit payment to the Government falls as it gets closer to the end of the contract period. At the end of 2003 there will be no value in it at all for the Government. That would mean they would have used - Hon Peter Foss: There is a legitimate expectation even though they did not have contractual rights - The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a committee stage. If the minister has answered the question, he has answered the question. Hon KIM CHANCE: I have nearly finished. Obviously, the value to the Government and to the industry as a whole of an earlier exit is higher than it is if nothing is gained in terms of the total sharing of the available volumes once the contract period has finished. Once the contract period has finished, the sawmiller effectively has nothing to sell because he has no contract. In answer to the last part of the question, we did it to maximise the value of the business exit payment to all parties.
Hon KIM CHANCE: I cannot disclose that. At that stage they had indicated either a refusal of the offer or some reserve about accepting the offer because of elements in the offer. Technically, we did offer to negotiate a higher business exit allowance payment. In each case in which the sawmiller indicated that the offer was inadequate, we sought from the sawmiller details of where it was inadequate. In most cases, it was due to the fact that the salvage value of the equipment, which can be offset against the initial offer, was, it was claimed, too high. We indicated to the sawmillers that we would be happy to go back and look at the high salvage value to determine whether it was still a relevant figure in light of the fact that much of the equipment would be coming on the market at this stage anyway and could cause the salvage value of the equipment to be lower than we had first thought, which, in effect, would lift the net payment to those persons. Yes, we did encourage sawmillers to act on the offer before the end of the current month. I indicated to millers that the earlier some of these offers were accepted, the better as far as we were concerned. Obviously, we could be more flexible with the earlier exit payments. The member may be aware that we are planning to reduce the quantum of the exit payments in time, because the value of the exit payment to the Government falls as it gets closer to the end of the contract period. At the end of 2003 there will be no value in it at all for the Government. That would mean they would have used - Hon Peter Foss: There is a legitimate expectation even though they did not have contractual rights - The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a committee stage. If the minister has answered the question, he has answered the question. Hon KIM CHANCE: I have nearly finished. Obviously, the value to the Government and to the industry as a whole of an earlier exit is higher than it is if nothing is gained in terms of the total sharing of the available volumes once the contract period has finished. Once the contract period has finished, the sawmiller effectively has nothing to sell because he has no contract. In answer to the last part of the question, we did it to maximise the value of the business exit payment to all parties.
At that stage they had indicated either a refusal of the offer or some reserve about accepting the offer because of elements in the offer. Technically, we did offer to negotiate a higher business exit allowance payment. In each case in which the sawmiller indicated that the offer was inadequate, we sought from the sawmiller details of where it was inadequate. In most cases, it was due to the fact that the salvage value of the equipment, which can be offset against the initial offer, was, it was claimed, too high. We indicated to the sawmillers that we would be happy to go back and look at the high salvage value to determine whether it was still a relevant figure in light of the fact that much of the equipment would be coming on the market at this stage anyway and could cause the salvage value of the equipment to be lower than we had first thought, which, in effect, would lift the net payment to those persons. Yes, we did encourage sawmillers to act on the offer before the end of the current month. I indicated to millers that the earlier some of these offers were accepted, the better as far as we were concerned. Obviously, we could be more flexible with the earlier exit payments. The member may be aware that we are planning to reduce the quantum of the exit payments in time, because the value of the exit payment to the Government falls as it gets closer to the end of the contract period. At the end of 2003 there will be no value in it at all for the Government. That would mean they would have used - Hon Peter Foss: There is a legitimate expectation even though they did not have contractual rights - The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a committee stage. If the minister has answered the question, he has answered the question. Hon KIM CHANCE: I have nearly finished. Obviously, the value to the Government and to the industry as a whole of an earlier exit is higher than it is if nothing is gained in terms of the total sharing of the available volumes once the contract period has finished. Once the contract period has finished, the sawmiller effectively has nothing to sell because he has no contract. In answer to the last part of the question, we did it to maximise the value of the business exit payment to all parties.
Technically, we did offer to negotiate a higher business exit allowance payment. In each case in which the sawmiller indicated that the offer was inadequate, we sought from the sawmiller details of where it was inadequate. In most cases, it was due to the fact that the salvage value of the equipment, which can be offset against the initial offer, was, it was claimed, too high. We indicated to the sawmillers that we would be happy to go back and look at the high salvage value to determine whether it was still a relevant figure in light of the fact that much of the equipment would be coming on the market at this stage anyway and could cause the salvage value of the equipment to be lower than we had first thought, which, in effect, would lift the net payment to those persons. Yes, we did encourage sawmillers to act on the offer before the end of the current month. I indicated to millers that the earlier some of these offers were accepted, the better as far as we were concerned. Obviously, we could be more flexible with the earlier exit payments. The member may be aware that we are planning to reduce the quantum of the exit payments in time, because the value of the exit payment to the Government falls as it gets closer to the end of the contract period. At the end of 2003 there will be no value in it at all for the Government. That would mean they would have used - Hon Peter Foss: There is a legitimate expectation even though they did not have contractual rights - The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a committee stage. If the minister has answered the question, he has answered the question. Hon KIM CHANCE: I have nearly finished. Obviously, the value to the Government and to the industry as a whole of an earlier exit is higher than it is if nothing is gained in terms of the total sharing of the available volumes once the contract period has finished. Once the contract period has finished, the sawmiller effectively has nothing to sell because he has no contract. In answer to the last part of the question, we did it to maximise the value of the business exit payment to all parties.
Yes, we did encourage sawmillers to act on the offer before the end of the current month. I indicated to millers that the earlier some of these offers were accepted, the better as far as we were concerned. Obviously, we could be more flexible with the earlier exit payments. The member may be aware that we are planning to reduce the quantum of the exit payments in time, because the value of the exit payment to the Government falls as it gets closer to the end of the contract period. At the end of 2003 there will be no value in it at all for the Government. That would mean they would have used - Hon Peter Foss: There is a legitimate expectation even though they did not have contractual rights - The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a committee stage. If the minister has answered the question, he has answered the question. Hon KIM CHANCE: I have nearly finished. Obviously, the value to the Government and to the industry as a whole of an earlier exit is higher than it is if nothing is gained in terms of the total sharing of the available volumes once the contract period has finished. Once the contract period has finished, the sawmiller effectively has nothing to sell because he has no contract. In answer to the last part of the question, we did it to maximise the value of the business exit payment to all parties.
Hon Peter Foss: There is a legitimate expectation even though they did not have contractual rights - The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a committee stage. If the minister has answered the question, he has answered the question. Hon KIM CHANCE: I have nearly finished. Obviously, the value to the Government and to the industry as a whole of an earlier exit is higher than it is if nothing is gained in terms of the total sharing of the available volumes once the contract period has finished. Once the contract period has finished, the sawmiller effectively has nothing to sell because he has no contract. In answer to the last part of the question, we did it to maximise the value of the business exit payment to all parties.
The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a committee stage. If the minister has answered the question, he has answered the question. Hon KIM CHANCE: I have nearly finished. Obviously, the value to the Government and to the industry as a whole of an earlier exit is higher than it is if nothing is gained in terms of the total sharing of the available volumes once the contract period has finished. Once the contract period has finished, the sawmiller effectively has nothing to sell because he has no contract. In answer to the last part of the question, we did it to maximise the value of the business exit payment to all parties.
Hon KIM CHANCE: I have nearly finished. Obviously, the value to the Government and to the industry as a whole of an earlier exit is higher than it is if nothing is gained in terms of the total sharing of the available volumes once the contract period has finished. Once the contract period has finished, the sawmiller effectively has nothing to sell because he has no contract. In answer to the last part of the question, we did it to maximise the value of the business exit payment to all parties.
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.