❓ Hon. Sharp questions the Minister about timber contract financial security negotiations, seeking details and transparency. The Minister assures eventual public scrutiny but cites ongoing negotiations and company-specific needs as reasons for withholding immediate specifics.
AnsweredQoN 1622Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
My question follows my question without notice 1580 asked earlier this week with regard to financial security for timber contracts. The minister said in response to that question that long-term financial security would depend upon the nature of the negotiation between the proponents and the Government. Can the minister provide the House with details of the negotiations between the proponents and the Government regarding the aspects of the timber companies’ operations and the circumstances under which timber companies could be compensated? If the minister intends to determine that these matters are commercially confidential, how can the minister defend secret deals involving a public resource? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
I do not think it will be a problem, once the arrangements have been made, to provide them, because they are, in essence, a contract between the proponents and the Government, and as such I would think all such contracts would be publicly scrutinised. A precedent for that would be, for example, the agreements currently in place for Nannup Timber Processing Pty Ltd and for the Whittakers mill at Greenbushes. Those arrangements, which are similar to the arrangements that we are likely to have with these proponents, are public knowledge. I did not mean to be elusive in providing the answer to the member. However, one of the reasons that the answer was given in the terms in which it was given is partly that there will be differences between the arrangements depending on the different needs of the various companies, and they will come to the Government with different forms of request for the shape of the financial security arrangements that are relevant to their company. Obviously, some of the companies are very small and will require minor arrangements, if any at all, with the Government; other companies are very large in terms of what we might imagine could come out of a consortium bid group, and the arrangements may be very complex. The contracts will be different. For that reason, it is difficult for me to give the member a cut and dried answer about what I expect may be asked for by those companies. The other reason is that some matters within the broad in-principle decision that has been made by Government are yet to be resolved. Those matters are the precise details of how that offer will be made available to the individual companies. Those matters are well advanced, but they are not entirely finalised. The Government has made an in-principle decision, and we will be working through and analysing what the companies themselves need, and trying to attune that decision to meet their needs.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I do not think it will be a problem, once the arrangements have been made, to provide them, because they are, in essence, a contract between the proponents and the Government, and as such I would think all such contracts would be publicly scrutinised. A precedent for that would be, for example, the agreements currently in place for Nannup Timber Processing Pty Ltd and for the Whittakers mill at Greenbushes. Those arrangements, which are similar to the arrangements that we are likely to have with these proponents, are public knowledge. I did not mean to be elusive in providing the answer to the member. However, one of the reasons that the answer was given in the terms in which it was given is partly that there will be differences between the arrangements depending on the different needs of the various companies, and they will come to the Government with different forms of request for the shape of the financial security arrangements that are relevant to their company. Obviously, some of the companies are very small and will require minor arrangements, if any at all, with the Government; other companies are very large in terms of what we might imagine could come out of a consortium bid group, and the arrangements may be very complex. The contracts will be different. For that reason, it is difficult for me to give the member a cut and dried answer about what I expect may be asked for by those companies. The other reason is that some matters within the broad in-principle decision that has been made by Government are yet to be resolved. Those matters are the precise details of how that offer will be made available to the individual companies. Those matters are well advanced, but they are not entirely finalised. The Government has made an in-principle decision, and we will be working through and analysing what the companies themselves need, and trying to attune that decision to meet their needs.
I do not think it will be a problem, once the arrangements have been made, to provide them, because they are, in essence, a contract between the proponents and the Government, and as such I would think all such contracts would be publicly scrutinised. A precedent for that would be, for example, the agreements currently in place for Nannup Timber Processing Pty Ltd and for the Whittakers mill at Greenbushes. Those arrangements, which are similar to the arrangements that we are likely to have with these proponents, are public knowledge. I did not mean to be elusive in providing the answer to the member. However, one of the reasons that the answer was given in the terms in which it was given is partly that there will be differences between the arrangements depending on the different needs of the various companies, and they will come to the Government with different forms of request for the shape of the financial security arrangements that are relevant to their company. Obviously, some of the companies are very small and will require minor arrangements, if any at all, with the Government; other companies are very large in terms of what we might imagine could come out of a consortium bid group, and the arrangements may be very complex. The contracts will be different. For that reason, it is difficult for me to give the member a cut and dried answer about what I expect may be asked for by those companies. The other reason is that some matters within the broad in-principle decision that has been made by Government are yet to be resolved. Those matters are the precise details of how that offer will be made available to the individual companies. Those matters are well advanced, but they are not entirely finalised. The Government has made an in-principle decision, and we will be working through and analysing what the companies themselves need, and trying to attune that decision to meet their needs.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I do not think it will be a problem, once the arrangements have been made, to provide them, because they are, in essence, a contract between the proponents and the Government, and as such I would think all such contracts would be publicly scrutinised. A precedent for that would be, for example, the agreements currently in place for Nannup Timber Processing Pty Ltd and for the Whittakers mill at Greenbushes. Those arrangements, which are similar to the arrangements that we are likely to have with these proponents, are public knowledge. I did not mean to be elusive in providing the answer to the member. However, one of the reasons that the answer was given in the terms in which it was given is partly that there will be differences between the arrangements depending on the different needs of the various companies, and they will come to the Government with different forms of request for the shape of the financial security arrangements that are relevant to their company. Obviously, some of the companies are very small and will require minor arrangements, if any at all, with the Government; other companies are very large in terms of what we might imagine could come out of a consortium bid group, and the arrangements may be very complex. The contracts will be different. For that reason, it is difficult for me to give the member a cut and dried answer about what I expect may be asked for by those companies. The other reason is that some matters within the broad in-principle decision that has been made by Government are yet to be resolved. Those matters are the precise details of how that offer will be made available to the individual companies. Those matters are well advanced, but they are not entirely finalised. The Government has made an in-principle decision, and we will be working through and analysing what the companies themselves need, and trying to attune that decision to meet their needs.
I do not think it will be a problem, once the arrangements have been made, to provide them, because they are, in essence, a contract between the proponents and the Government, and as such I would think all such contracts would be publicly scrutinised. A precedent for that would be, for example, the agreements currently in place for Nannup Timber Processing Pty Ltd and for the Whittakers mill at Greenbushes. Those arrangements, which are similar to the arrangements that we are likely to have with these proponents, are public knowledge. I did not mean to be elusive in providing the answer to the member. However, one of the reasons that the answer was given in the terms in which it was given is partly that there will be differences between the arrangements depending on the different needs of the various companies, and they will come to the Government with different forms of request for the shape of the financial security arrangements that are relevant to their company. Obviously, some of the companies are very small and will require minor arrangements, if any at all, with the Government; other companies are very large in terms of what we might imagine could come out of a consortium bid group, and the arrangements may be very complex. The contracts will be different. For that reason, it is difficult for me to give the member a cut and dried answer about what I expect may be asked for by those companies. The other reason is that some matters within the broad in-principle decision that has been made by Government are yet to be resolved. Those matters are the precise details of how that offer will be made available to the individual companies. Those matters are well advanced, but they are not entirely finalised. The Government has made an in-principle decision, and we will be working through and analysing what the companies themselves need, and trying to attune that decision to meet their needs.
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.