❓ Hon Peter Foss questions the government's decision to disallow logging in the reserved one per cent of old-growth forest, inquiring about potential increases in logging yields. Hon Kim Chance confirms the decision and explains potential sources for increased yield, including moratorium blocks and step-down volumes.
AnsweredQoN 688Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the newspaper report that the Government has decided that it will not allow logging access to the one per cent of reserved old-growth forest. (1) Is it correct that the Government has made that decision? (2) Does the Government now believe that it will be able to increase logging yields beyond the tentative yields announced earlier this year? (3) If so, what is the basis of that belief and from where will the increase come? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
(1) Yes, I can confirm that that decision has been made about the reserved one per cent of old-growth forest. When the Labor Party announced its old-growth policy during the election campaign, it limited its undertaking to the Western Australian people to reserving 99 per cent of the old-growth forest. The party specifically allowed itself the opportunity to honour contract undertakings by reserving the right to log that 5 500 hectares of old-growth forest. Although those obligations still exist, the Government is satisfied that it can honour them without requiring access to that 5 500 hectares of old-growth forest following indications that there will be significant early step-downs. It has determined that it can do a little better than the undertaking given during the election campaign and move to a 100 per cent reservation. It was always clear that the one per cent reservation was not there for all time; it was there to enable the Government to meet contractual obligations if the need arose. (2) Yes, I have reason to believe that the Government can go beyond those indicative yields, although that is dependent upon decisions made outside of government; that is, it will depend on decisions made during the establishment of a forest management plan. Regrettably, that is not a government decision; it is largely a decision of the Conservation Council of Western Australia and the Environmental Protection Authority. Hon Peter Foss: I hope you mean the commission, not the council. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, that is a very important correction. Hon Barry House: That was a Freudian slip. Hon KIM CHANCE: That part of the question - Hon Peter Foss: Have you just revealed the inner workings of government? Hon KIM CHANCE: No, the slip reflects that the question was put to me outside my portfolio area. The question would be more appropriately directed to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage rather than to me as the Minister for Forestry. I am happy to try to answer that question and I shall explain why. Was that the third part of the question? Hon Peter Foss: Yes. Where will the increase come from? Hon KIM CHANCE: The answer to the third part of the question is - (3) I have explained before in the House that there are three areas from which increased yield could come. Those areas include the parts of the forest that were not taken into account in the calculation of the indicative yield, which are the moratorium blocks - Hon Peter Foss: That is out now. Hon KIM CHANCE: The URS report is out? Hon Peter Foss: No, you have left that out now. Hon KIM CHANCE: No. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a debate. The minister might like to answer the question. Hon KIM CHANCE: Thank you, Mr President. There is a misunderstanding that the one per cent - the 5 500 hectares - took into account the moratorium areas and I believe that misunderstanding arises from the use of the word “moratorium”. In fact, the word “moratorium” applies to two different blocks, for want of a better word. The first moratorium applied to a number of stated blocks that make up the proposed Wellington National Park, which is an area of some 25 000 hectares and therefore considerably larger than the 5 500 that applies to the one per cent. It also applied to a number of other blocks, including Helms, Leach and Palmer. That matter is still under consideration upon the release of the URS report, which we all anxiously await. The second area from which additional yield may come - the member has me on the hop. Hon Peter Foss: They are the national park boundaries. Hon KIM CHANCE: No, that is the third area. I cannot remember the second. Hon Peter Foss: The step-down. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The step-down volumes can be considerable, particularly in karri. A 30 000 cubic metre allocation, for example, for Pemberton, taking account of the step-down volumes, actually becomes 45 000, or a number close to that, all the way through to 2014. The third and separate issue is the matter of the boundaries of the proposed national parks. There is a difference in the policy between those areas that have been described in the policy as the number of hectares that will be reserved and those areas that have been mapped. There are also significant areas in between. In that difference exists the potential for a resolution of boundaries in a more workable manner to make the parks work appropriately and to address any shortfall that might arise from the Conservation Commission’s indication that the volumes in our indicative numbers might not be achievable. I have no reason to believe that will occur; however, there is that option for the Government. The PRESIDENT: I trust the Leader of the House is winding up his answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: Very soon, but it is a big question. The component that the Government does not control is the yield per hectare. It is important for members to understand that a given volume of forest is available for logging. The decisions that will be made outside government essentially relate to the sustainable yield per hectare of that volume of forest. The decision that rests in the Government’s hands - this is very important for members to understand - is the number of hectares available for that sustainable yield to be applied. If, for example, a decision is made that the expected yields, when assessed under ecologically sustainable forest management principles, do not go anywhere near the numbers that we expect are needed by the commercial forest industry, there is the possibility of expanding the number of hectares because of that difference in the two figures relating to reservation.
(1) Is it correct that the Government has made that decision? (2) Does the Government now believe that it will be able to increase logging yields beyond the tentative yields announced earlier this year? (3) If so, what is the basis of that belief and from where will the increase come? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1) Yes, I can confirm that that decision has been made about the reserved one per cent of old-growth forest. When the Labor Party announced its old-growth policy during the election campaign, it limited its undertaking to the Western Australian people to reserving 99 per cent of the old-growth forest. The party specifically allowed itself the opportunity to honour contract undertakings by reserving the right to log that 5 500 hectares of old-growth forest. Although those obligations still exist, the Government is satisfied that it can honour them without requiring access to that 5 500 hectares of old-growth forest following indications that there will be significant early step-downs. It has determined that it can do a little better than the undertaking given during the election campaign and move to a 100 per cent reservation. It was always clear that the one per cent reservation was not there for all time; it was there to enable the Government to meet contractual obligations if the need arose. (2) Yes, I have reason to believe that the Government can go beyond those indicative yields, although that is dependent upon decisions made outside of government; that is, it will depend on decisions made during the establishment of a forest management plan. Regrettably, that is not a government decision; it is largely a decision of the Conservation Council of Western Australia and the Environmental Protection Authority. Hon Peter Foss: I hope you mean the commission, not the council. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, that is a very important correction. Hon Barry House: That was a Freudian slip. Hon KIM CHANCE: That part of the question - Hon Peter Foss: Have you just revealed the inner workings of government? Hon KIM CHANCE: No, the slip reflects that the question was put to me outside my portfolio area. The question would be more appropriately directed to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage rather than to me as the Minister for Forestry. I am happy to try to answer that question and I shall explain why. Was that the third part of the question? Hon Peter Foss: Yes. Where will the increase come from? Hon KIM CHANCE: The answer to the third part of the question is - (3) I have explained before in the House that there are three areas from which increased yield could come. Those areas include the parts of the forest that were not taken into account in the calculation of the indicative yield, which are the moratorium blocks - Hon Peter Foss: That is out now. Hon KIM CHANCE: The URS report is out? Hon Peter Foss: No, you have left that out now. Hon KIM CHANCE: No. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a debate. The minister might like to answer the question. Hon KIM CHANCE: Thank you, Mr President. There is a misunderstanding that the one per cent - the 5 500 hectares - took into account the moratorium areas and I believe that misunderstanding arises from the use of the word “moratorium”. In fact, the word “moratorium” applies to two different blocks, for want of a better word. The first moratorium applied to a number of stated blocks that make up the proposed Wellington National Park, which is an area of some 25 000 hectares and therefore considerably larger than the 5 500 that applies to the one per cent. It also applied to a number of other blocks, including Helms, Leach and Palmer. That matter is still under consideration upon the release of the URS report, which we all anxiously await. The second area from which additional yield may come - the member has me on the hop. Hon Peter Foss: They are the national park boundaries. Hon KIM CHANCE: No, that is the third area. I cannot remember the second. Hon Peter Foss: The step-down. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The step-down volumes can be considerable, particularly in karri. A 30 000 cubic metre allocation, for example, for Pemberton, taking account of the step-down volumes, actually becomes 45 000, or a number close to that, all the way through to 2014. The third and separate issue is the matter of the boundaries of the proposed national parks. There is a difference in the policy between those areas that have been described in the policy as the number of hectares that will be reserved and those areas that have been mapped. There are also significant areas in between. In that difference exists the potential for a resolution of boundaries in a more workable manner to make the parks work appropriately and to address any shortfall that might arise from the Conservation Commission’s indication that the volumes in our indicative numbers might not be achievable. I have no reason to believe that will occur; however, there is that option for the Government. The PRESIDENT: I trust the Leader of the House is winding up his answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: Very soon, but it is a big question. The component that the Government does not control is the yield per hectare. It is important for members to understand that a given volume of forest is available for logging. The decisions that will be made outside government essentially relate to the sustainable yield per hectare of that volume of forest. The decision that rests in the Government’s hands - this is very important for members to understand - is the number of hectares available for that sustainable yield to be applied. If, for example, a decision is made that the expected yields, when assessed under ecologically sustainable forest management principles, do not go anywhere near the numbers that we expect are needed by the commercial forest industry, there is the possibility of expanding the number of hectares because of that difference in the two figures relating to reservation.
(2) Does the Government now believe that it will be able to increase logging yields beyond the tentative yields announced earlier this year? (3) If so, what is the basis of that belief and from where will the increase come? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1) Yes, I can confirm that that decision has been made about the reserved one per cent of old-growth forest. When the Labor Party announced its old-growth policy during the election campaign, it limited its undertaking to the Western Australian people to reserving 99 per cent of the old-growth forest. The party specifically allowed itself the opportunity to honour contract undertakings by reserving the right to log that 5 500 hectares of old-growth forest. Although those obligations still exist, the Government is satisfied that it can honour them without requiring access to that 5 500 hectares of old-growth forest following indications that there will be significant early step-downs. It has determined that it can do a little better than the undertaking given during the election campaign and move to a 100 per cent reservation. It was always clear that the one per cent reservation was not there for all time; it was there to enable the Government to meet contractual obligations if the need arose. (2) Yes, I have reason to believe that the Government can go beyond those indicative yields, although that is dependent upon decisions made outside of government; that is, it will depend on decisions made during the establishment of a forest management plan. Regrettably, that is not a government decision; it is largely a decision of the Conservation Council of Western Australia and the Environmental Protection Authority. Hon Peter Foss: I hope you mean the commission, not the council. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, that is a very important correction. Hon Barry House: That was a Freudian slip. Hon KIM CHANCE: That part of the question - Hon Peter Foss: Have you just revealed the inner workings of government? Hon KIM CHANCE: No, the slip reflects that the question was put to me outside my portfolio area. The question would be more appropriately directed to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage rather than to me as the Minister for Forestry. I am happy to try to answer that question and I shall explain why. Was that the third part of the question? Hon Peter Foss: Yes. Where will the increase come from? Hon KIM CHANCE: The answer to the third part of the question is - (3) I have explained before in the House that there are three areas from which increased yield could come. Those areas include the parts of the forest that were not taken into account in the calculation of the indicative yield, which are the moratorium blocks - Hon Peter Foss: That is out now. Hon KIM CHANCE: The URS report is out? Hon Peter Foss: No, you have left that out now. Hon KIM CHANCE: No. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a debate. The minister might like to answer the question. Hon KIM CHANCE: Thank you, Mr President. There is a misunderstanding that the one per cent - the 5 500 hectares - took into account the moratorium areas and I believe that misunderstanding arises from the use of the word “moratorium”. In fact, the word “moratorium” applies to two different blocks, for want of a better word. The first moratorium applied to a number of stated blocks that make up the proposed Wellington National Park, which is an area of some 25 000 hectares and therefore considerably larger than the 5 500 that applies to the one per cent. It also applied to a number of other blocks, including Helms, Leach and Palmer. That matter is still under consideration upon the release of the URS report, which we all anxiously await. The second area from which additional yield may come - the member has me on the hop. Hon Peter Foss: They are the national park boundaries. Hon KIM CHANCE: No, that is the third area. I cannot remember the second. Hon Peter Foss: The step-down. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The step-down volumes can be considerable, particularly in karri. A 30 000 cubic metre allocation, for example, for Pemberton, taking account of the step-down volumes, actually becomes 45 000, or a number close to that, all the way through to 2014. The third and separate issue is the matter of the boundaries of the proposed national parks. There is a difference in the policy between those areas that have been described in the policy as the number of hectares that will be reserved and those areas that have been mapped. There are also significant areas in between. In that difference exists the potential for a resolution of boundaries in a more workable manner to make the parks work appropriately and to address any shortfall that might arise from the Conservation Commission’s indication that the volumes in our indicative numbers might not be achievable. I have no reason to believe that will occur; however, there is that option for the Government. The PRESIDENT: I trust the Leader of the House is winding up his answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: Very soon, but it is a big question. The component that the Government does not control is the yield per hectare. It is important for members to understand that a given volume of forest is available for logging. The decisions that will be made outside government essentially relate to the sustainable yield per hectare of that volume of forest. The decision that rests in the Government’s hands - this is very important for members to understand - is the number of hectares available for that sustainable yield to be applied. If, for example, a decision is made that the expected yields, when assessed under ecologically sustainable forest management principles, do not go anywhere near the numbers that we expect are needed by the commercial forest industry, there is the possibility of expanding the number of hectares because of that difference in the two figures relating to reservation.
(3) If so, what is the basis of that belief and from where will the increase come? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1) Yes, I can confirm that that decision has been made about the reserved one per cent of old-growth forest. When the Labor Party announced its old-growth policy during the election campaign, it limited its undertaking to the Western Australian people to reserving 99 per cent of the old-growth forest. The party specifically allowed itself the opportunity to honour contract undertakings by reserving the right to log that 5 500 hectares of old-growth forest. Although those obligations still exist, the Government is satisfied that it can honour them without requiring access to that 5 500 hectares of old-growth forest following indications that there will be significant early step-downs. It has determined that it can do a little better than the undertaking given during the election campaign and move to a 100 per cent reservation. It was always clear that the one per cent reservation was not there for all time; it was there to enable the Government to meet contractual obligations if the need arose. (2) Yes, I have reason to believe that the Government can go beyond those indicative yields, although that is dependent upon decisions made outside of government; that is, it will depend on decisions made during the establishment of a forest management plan. Regrettably, that is not a government decision; it is largely a decision of the Conservation Council of Western Australia and the Environmental Protection Authority. Hon Peter Foss: I hope you mean the commission, not the council. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, that is a very important correction. Hon Barry House: That was a Freudian slip. Hon KIM CHANCE: That part of the question - Hon Peter Foss: Have you just revealed the inner workings of government? Hon KIM CHANCE: No, the slip reflects that the question was put to me outside my portfolio area. The question would be more appropriately directed to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage rather than to me as the Minister for Forestry. I am happy to try to answer that question and I shall explain why. Was that the third part of the question? Hon Peter Foss: Yes. Where will the increase come from? Hon KIM CHANCE: The answer to the third part of the question is - (3) I have explained before in the House that there are three areas from which increased yield could come. Those areas include the parts of the forest that were not taken into account in the calculation of the indicative yield, which are the moratorium blocks - Hon Peter Foss: That is out now. Hon KIM CHANCE: The URS report is out? Hon Peter Foss: No, you have left that out now. Hon KIM CHANCE: No. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a debate. The minister might like to answer the question. Hon KIM CHANCE: Thank you, Mr President. There is a misunderstanding that the one per cent - the 5 500 hectares - took into account the moratorium areas and I believe that misunderstanding arises from the use of the word “moratorium”. In fact, the word “moratorium” applies to two different blocks, for want of a better word. The first moratorium applied to a number of stated blocks that make up the proposed Wellington National Park, which is an area of some 25 000 hectares and therefore considerably larger than the 5 500 that applies to the one per cent. It also applied to a number of other blocks, including Helms, Leach and Palmer. That matter is still under consideration upon the release of the URS report, which we all anxiously await. The second area from which additional yield may come - the member has me on the hop. Hon Peter Foss: They are the national park boundaries. Hon KIM CHANCE: No, that is the third area. I cannot remember the second. Hon Peter Foss: The step-down. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The step-down volumes can be considerable, particularly in karri. A 30 000 cubic metre allocation, for example, for Pemberton, taking account of the step-down volumes, actually becomes 45 000, or a number close to that, all the way through to 2014. The third and separate issue is the matter of the boundaries of the proposed national parks. There is a difference in the policy between those areas that have been described in the policy as the number of hectares that will be reserved and those areas that have been mapped. There are also significant areas in between. In that difference exists the potential for a resolution of boundaries in a more workable manner to make the parks work appropriately and to address any shortfall that might arise from the Conservation Commission’s indication that the volumes in our indicative numbers might not be achievable. I have no reason to believe that will occur; however, there is that option for the Government. The PRESIDENT: I trust the Leader of the House is winding up his answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: Very soon, but it is a big question. The component that the Government does not control is the yield per hectare. It is important for members to understand that a given volume of forest is available for logging. The decisions that will be made outside government essentially relate to the sustainable yield per hectare of that volume of forest. The decision that rests in the Government’s hands - this is very important for members to understand - is the number of hectares available for that sustainable yield to be applied. If, for example, a decision is made that the expected yields, when assessed under ecologically sustainable forest management principles, do not go anywhere near the numbers that we expect are needed by the commercial forest industry, there is the possibility of expanding the number of hectares because of that difference in the two figures relating to reservation.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1) Yes, I can confirm that that decision has been made about the reserved one per cent of old-growth forest. When the Labor Party announced its old-growth policy during the election campaign, it limited its undertaking to the Western Australian people to reserving 99 per cent of the old-growth forest. The party specifically allowed itself the opportunity to honour contract undertakings by reserving the right to log that 5 500 hectares of old-growth forest. Although those obligations still exist, the Government is satisfied that it can honour them without requiring access to that 5 500 hectares of old-growth forest following indications that there will be significant early step-downs. It has determined that it can do a little better than the undertaking given during the election campaign and move to a 100 per cent reservation. It was always clear that the one per cent reservation was not there for all time; it was there to enable the Government to meet contractual obligations if the need arose. (2) Yes, I have reason to believe that the Government can go beyond those indicative yields, although that is dependent upon decisions made outside of government; that is, it will depend on decisions made during the establishment of a forest management plan. Regrettably, that is not a government decision; it is largely a decision of the Conservation Council of Western Australia and the Environmental Protection Authority. Hon Peter Foss: I hope you mean the commission, not the council. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, that is a very important correction. Hon Barry House: That was a Freudian slip. Hon KIM CHANCE: That part of the question - Hon Peter Foss: Have you just revealed the inner workings of government? Hon KIM CHANCE: No, the slip reflects that the question was put to me outside my portfolio area. The question would be more appropriately directed to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage rather than to me as the Minister for Forestry. I am happy to try to answer that question and I shall explain why. Was that the third part of the question? Hon Peter Foss: Yes. Where will the increase come from? Hon KIM CHANCE: The answer to the third part of the question is - (3) I have explained before in the House that there are three areas from which increased yield could come. Those areas include the parts of the forest that were not taken into account in the calculation of the indicative yield, which are the moratorium blocks - Hon Peter Foss: That is out now. Hon KIM CHANCE: The URS report is out? Hon Peter Foss: No, you have left that out now. Hon KIM CHANCE: No. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a debate. The minister might like to answer the question. Hon KIM CHANCE: Thank you, Mr President. There is a misunderstanding that the one per cent - the 5 500 hectares - took into account the moratorium areas and I believe that misunderstanding arises from the use of the word “moratorium”. In fact, the word “moratorium” applies to two different blocks, for want of a better word. The first moratorium applied to a number of stated blocks that make up the proposed Wellington National Park, which is an area of some 25 000 hectares and therefore considerably larger than the 5 500 that applies to the one per cent. It also applied to a number of other blocks, including Helms, Leach and Palmer. That matter is still under consideration upon the release of the URS report, which we all anxiously await. The second area from which additional yield may come - the member has me on the hop. Hon Peter Foss: They are the national park boundaries. Hon KIM CHANCE: No, that is the third area. I cannot remember the second. Hon Peter Foss: The step-down. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The step-down volumes can be considerable, particularly in karri. A 30 000 cubic metre allocation, for example, for Pemberton, taking account of the step-down volumes, actually becomes 45 000, or a number close to that, all the way through to 2014. The third and separate issue is the matter of the boundaries of the proposed national parks. There is a difference in the policy between those areas that have been described in the policy as the number of hectares that will be reserved and those areas that have been mapped. There are also significant areas in between. In that difference exists the potential for a resolution of boundaries in a more workable manner to make the parks work appropriately and to address any shortfall that might arise from the Conservation Commission’s indication that the volumes in our indicative numbers might not be achievable. I have no reason to believe that will occur; however, there is that option for the Government. The PRESIDENT: I trust the Leader of the House is winding up his answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: Very soon, but it is a big question. The component that the Government does not control is the yield per hectare. It is important for members to understand that a given volume of forest is available for logging. The decisions that will be made outside government essentially relate to the sustainable yield per hectare of that volume of forest. The decision that rests in the Government’s hands - this is very important for members to understand - is the number of hectares available for that sustainable yield to be applied. If, for example, a decision is made that the expected yields, when assessed under ecologically sustainable forest management principles, do not go anywhere near the numbers that we expect are needed by the commercial forest industry, there is the possibility of expanding the number of hectares because of that difference in the two figures relating to reservation.
(1) Yes, I can confirm that that decision has been made about the reserved one per cent of old-growth forest. When the Labor Party announced its old-growth policy during the election campaign, it limited its undertaking to the Western Australian people to reserving 99 per cent of the old-growth forest. The party specifically allowed itself the opportunity to honour contract undertakings by reserving the right to log that 5 500 hectares of old-growth forest. Although those obligations still exist, the Government is satisfied that it can honour them without requiring access to that 5 500 hectares of old-growth forest following indications that there will be significant early step-downs. It has determined that it can do a little better than the undertaking given during the election campaign and move to a 100 per cent reservation. It was always clear that the one per cent reservation was not there for all time; it was there to enable the Government to meet contractual obligations if the need arose. (2) Yes, I have reason to believe that the Government can go beyond those indicative yields, although that is dependent upon decisions made outside of government; that is, it will depend on decisions made during the establishment of a forest management plan. Regrettably, that is not a government decision; it is largely a decision of the Conservation Council of Western Australia and the Environmental Protection Authority. Hon Peter Foss: I hope you mean the commission, not the council. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, that is a very important correction. Hon Barry House: That was a Freudian slip. Hon KIM CHANCE: That part of the question - Hon Peter Foss: Have you just revealed the inner workings of government? Hon KIM CHANCE: No, the slip reflects that the question was put to me outside my portfolio area. The question would be more appropriately directed to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage rather than to me as the Minister for Forestry. I am happy to try to answer that question and I shall explain why. Was that the third part of the question? Hon Peter Foss: Yes. Where will the increase come from? Hon KIM CHANCE: The answer to the third part of the question is - (3) I have explained before in the House that there are three areas from which increased yield could come. Those areas include the parts of the forest that were not taken into account in the calculation of the indicative yield, which are the moratorium blocks - Hon Peter Foss: That is out now. Hon KIM CHANCE: The URS report is out? Hon Peter Foss: No, you have left that out now. Hon KIM CHANCE: No. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a debate. The minister might like to answer the question. Hon KIM CHANCE: Thank you, Mr President. There is a misunderstanding that the one per cent - the 5 500 hectares - took into account the moratorium areas and I believe that misunderstanding arises from the use of the word “moratorium”. In fact, the word “moratorium” applies to two different blocks, for want of a better word. The first moratorium applied to a number of stated blocks that make up the proposed Wellington National Park, which is an area of some 25 000 hectares and therefore considerably larger than the 5 500 that applies to the one per cent. It also applied to a number of other blocks, including Helms, Leach and Palmer. That matter is still under consideration upon the release of the URS report, which we all anxiously await. The second area from which additional yield may come - the member has me on the hop. Hon Peter Foss: They are the national park boundaries. Hon KIM CHANCE: No, that is the third area. I cannot remember the second. Hon Peter Foss: The step-down. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The step-down volumes can be considerable, particularly in karri. A 30 000 cubic metre allocation, for example, for Pemberton, taking account of the step-down volumes, actually becomes 45 000, or a number close to that, all the way through to 2014. The third and separate issue is the matter of the boundaries of the proposed national parks. There is a difference in the policy between those areas that have been described in the policy as the number of hectares that will be reserved and those areas that have been mapped. There are also significant areas in between. In that difference exists the potential for a resolution of boundaries in a more workable manner to make the parks work appropriately and to address any shortfall that might arise from the Conservation Commission’s indication that the volumes in our indicative numbers might not be achievable. I have no reason to believe that will occur; however, there is that option for the Government. The PRESIDENT: I trust the Leader of the House is winding up his answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: Very soon, but it is a big question. The component that the Government does not control is the yield per hectare. It is important for members to understand that a given volume of forest is available for logging. The decisions that will be made outside government essentially relate to the sustainable yield per hectare of that volume of forest. The decision that rests in the Government’s hands - this is very important for members to understand - is the number of hectares available for that sustainable yield to be applied. If, for example, a decision is made that the expected yields, when assessed under ecologically sustainable forest management principles, do not go anywhere near the numbers that we expect are needed by the commercial forest industry, there is the possibility of expanding the number of hectares because of that difference in the two figures relating to reservation.
(2) Yes, I have reason to believe that the Government can go beyond those indicative yields, although that is dependent upon decisions made outside of government; that is, it will depend on decisions made during the establishment of a forest management plan. Regrettably, that is not a government decision; it is largely a decision of the Conservation Council of Western Australia and the Environmental Protection Authority. Hon Peter Foss: I hope you mean the commission, not the council. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, that is a very important correction. Hon Barry House: That was a Freudian slip. Hon KIM CHANCE: That part of the question - Hon Peter Foss: Have you just revealed the inner workings of government? Hon KIM CHANCE: No, the slip reflects that the question was put to me outside my portfolio area. The question would be more appropriately directed to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage rather than to me as the Minister for Forestry. I am happy to try to answer that question and I shall explain why. Was that the third part of the question? Hon Peter Foss: Yes. Where will the increase come from? Hon KIM CHANCE: The answer to the third part of the question is - (3) I have explained before in the House that there are three areas from which increased yield could come. Those areas include the parts of the forest that were not taken into account in the calculation of the indicative yield, which are the moratorium blocks - Hon Peter Foss: That is out now. Hon KIM CHANCE: The URS report is out? Hon Peter Foss: No, you have left that out now. Hon KIM CHANCE: No. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a debate. The minister might like to answer the question. Hon KIM CHANCE: Thank you, Mr President. There is a misunderstanding that the one per cent - the 5 500 hectares - took into account the moratorium areas and I believe that misunderstanding arises from the use of the word “moratorium”. In fact, the word “moratorium” applies to two different blocks, for want of a better word. The first moratorium applied to a number of stated blocks that make up the proposed Wellington National Park, which is an area of some 25 000 hectares and therefore considerably larger than the 5 500 that applies to the one per cent. It also applied to a number of other blocks, including Helms, Leach and Palmer. That matter is still under consideration upon the release of the URS report, which we all anxiously await. The second area from which additional yield may come - the member has me on the hop. Hon Peter Foss: They are the national park boundaries. Hon KIM CHANCE: No, that is the third area. I cannot remember the second. Hon Peter Foss: The step-down. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The step-down volumes can be considerable, particularly in karri. A 30 000 cubic metre allocation, for example, for Pemberton, taking account of the step-down volumes, actually becomes 45 000, or a number close to that, all the way through to 2014. The third and separate issue is the matter of the boundaries of the proposed national parks. There is a difference in the policy between those areas that have been described in the policy as the number of hectares that will be reserved and those areas that have been mapped. There are also significant areas in between. In that difference exists the potential for a resolution of boundaries in a more workable manner to make the parks work appropriately and to address any shortfall that might arise from the Conservation Commission’s indication that the volumes in our indicative numbers might not be achievable. I have no reason to believe that will occur; however, there is that option for the Government. The PRESIDENT: I trust the Leader of the House is winding up his answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: Very soon, but it is a big question. The component that the Government does not control is the yield per hectare. It is important for members to understand that a given volume of forest is available for logging. The decisions that will be made outside government essentially relate to the sustainable yield per hectare of that volume of forest. The decision that rests in the Government’s hands - this is very important for members to understand - is the number of hectares available for that sustainable yield to be applied. If, for example, a decision is made that the expected yields, when assessed under ecologically sustainable forest management principles, do not go anywhere near the numbers that we expect are needed by the commercial forest industry, there is the possibility of expanding the number of hectares because of that difference in the two figures relating to reservation.
Hon Peter Foss: I hope you mean the commission, not the council. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, that is a very important correction. Hon Barry House: That was a Freudian slip. Hon KIM CHANCE: That part of the question - Hon Peter Foss: Have you just revealed the inner workings of government? Hon KIM CHANCE: No, the slip reflects that the question was put to me outside my portfolio area. The question would be more appropriately directed to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage rather than to me as the Minister for Forestry. I am happy to try to answer that question and I shall explain why. Was that the third part of the question? Hon Peter Foss: Yes. Where will the increase come from? Hon KIM CHANCE: The answer to the third part of the question is - (3) I have explained before in the House that there are three areas from which increased yield could come. Those areas include the parts of the forest that were not taken into account in the calculation of the indicative yield, which are the moratorium blocks - Hon Peter Foss: That is out now. Hon KIM CHANCE: The URS report is out? Hon Peter Foss: No, you have left that out now. Hon KIM CHANCE: No. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a debate. The minister might like to answer the question. Hon KIM CHANCE: Thank you, Mr President. There is a misunderstanding that the one per cent - the 5 500 hectares - took into account the moratorium areas and I believe that misunderstanding arises from the use of the word “moratorium”. In fact, the word “moratorium” applies to two different blocks, for want of a better word. The first moratorium applied to a number of stated blocks that make up the proposed Wellington National Park, which is an area of some 25 000 hectares and therefore considerably larger than the 5 500 that applies to the one per cent. It also applied to a number of other blocks, including Helms, Leach and Palmer. That matter is still under consideration upon the release of the URS report, which we all anxiously await. The second area from which additional yield may come - the member has me on the hop. Hon Peter Foss: They are the national park boundaries. Hon KIM CHANCE: No, that is the third area. I cannot remember the second. Hon Peter Foss: The step-down. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The step-down volumes can be considerable, particularly in karri. A 30 000 cubic metre allocation, for example, for Pemberton, taking account of the step-down volumes, actually becomes 45 000, or a number close to that, all the way through to 2014. The third and separate issue is the matter of the boundaries of the proposed national parks. There is a difference in the policy between those areas that have been described in the policy as the number of hectares that will be reserved and those areas that have been mapped. There are also significant areas in between. In that difference exists the potential for a resolution of boundaries in a more workable manner to make the parks work appropriately and to address any shortfall that might arise from the Conservation Commission’s indication that the volumes in our indicative numbers might not be achievable. I have no reason to believe that will occur; however, there is that option for the Government. The PRESIDENT: I trust the Leader of the House is winding up his answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: Very soon, but it is a big question. The component that the Government does not control is the yield per hectare. It is important for members to understand that a given volume of forest is available for logging. The decisions that will be made outside government essentially relate to the sustainable yield per hectare of that volume of forest. The decision that rests in the Government’s hands - this is very important for members to understand - is the number of hectares available for that sustainable yield to be applied. If, for example, a decision is made that the expected yields, when assessed under ecologically sustainable forest management principles, do not go anywhere near the numbers that we expect are needed by the commercial forest industry, there is the possibility of expanding the number of hectares because of that difference in the two figures relating to reservation.
Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, that is a very important correction. Hon Barry House: That was a Freudian slip. Hon KIM CHANCE: That part of the question - Hon Peter Foss: Have you just revealed the inner workings of government? Hon KIM CHANCE: No, the slip reflects that the question was put to me outside my portfolio area. The question would be more appropriately directed to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage rather than to me as the Minister for Forestry. I am happy to try to answer that question and I shall explain why. Was that the third part of the question? Hon Peter Foss: Yes. Where will the increase come from? Hon KIM CHANCE: The answer to the third part of the question is - (3) I have explained before in the House that there are three areas from which increased yield could come. Those areas include the parts of the forest that were not taken into account in the calculation of the indicative yield, which are the moratorium blocks - Hon Peter Foss: That is out now. Hon KIM CHANCE: The URS report is out? Hon Peter Foss: No, you have left that out now. Hon KIM CHANCE: No. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a debate. The minister might like to answer the question. Hon KIM CHANCE: Thank you, Mr President. There is a misunderstanding that the one per cent - the 5 500 hectares - took into account the moratorium areas and I believe that misunderstanding arises from the use of the word “moratorium”. In fact, the word “moratorium” applies to two different blocks, for want of a better word. The first moratorium applied to a number of stated blocks that make up the proposed Wellington National Park, which is an area of some 25 000 hectares and therefore considerably larger than the 5 500 that applies to the one per cent. It also applied to a number of other blocks, including Helms, Leach and Palmer. That matter is still under consideration upon the release of the URS report, which we all anxiously await. The second area from which additional yield may come - the member has me on the hop. Hon Peter Foss: They are the national park boundaries. Hon KIM CHANCE: No, that is the third area. I cannot remember the second. Hon Peter Foss: The step-down. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The step-down volumes can be considerable, particularly in karri. A 30 000 cubic metre allocation, for example, for Pemberton, taking account of the step-down volumes, actually becomes 45 000, or a number close to that, all the way through to 2014. The third and separate issue is the matter of the boundaries of the proposed national parks. There is a difference in the policy between those areas that have been described in the policy as the number of hectares that will be reserved and those areas that have been mapped. There are also significant areas in between. In that difference exists the potential for a resolution of boundaries in a more workable manner to make the parks work appropriately and to address any shortfall that might arise from the Conservation Commission’s indication that the volumes in our indicative numbers might not be achievable. I have no reason to believe that will occur; however, there is that option for the Government. The PRESIDENT: I trust the Leader of the House is winding up his answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: Very soon, but it is a big question. The component that the Government does not control is the yield per hectare. It is important for members to understand that a given volume of forest is available for logging. The decisions that will be made outside government essentially relate to the sustainable yield per hectare of that volume of forest. The decision that rests in the Government’s hands - this is very important for members to understand - is the number of hectares available for that sustainable yield to be applied. If, for example, a decision is made that the expected yields, when assessed under ecologically sustainable forest management principles, do not go anywhere near the numbers that we expect are needed by the commercial forest industry, there is the possibility of expanding the number of hectares because of that difference in the two figures relating to reservation.
Hon Barry House: That was a Freudian slip. Hon KIM CHANCE: That part of the question - Hon Peter Foss: Have you just revealed the inner workings of government? Hon KIM CHANCE: No, the slip reflects that the question was put to me outside my portfolio area. The question would be more appropriately directed to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage rather than to me as the Minister for Forestry. I am happy to try to answer that question and I shall explain why. Was that the third part of the question? Hon Peter Foss: Yes. Where will the increase come from? Hon KIM CHANCE: The answer to the third part of the question is - (3) I have explained before in the House that there are three areas from which increased yield could come. Those areas include the parts of the forest that were not taken into account in the calculation of the indicative yield, which are the moratorium blocks - Hon Peter Foss: That is out now. Hon KIM CHANCE: The URS report is out? Hon Peter Foss: No, you have left that out now. Hon KIM CHANCE: No. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a debate. The minister might like to answer the question. Hon KIM CHANCE: Thank you, Mr President. There is a misunderstanding that the one per cent - the 5 500 hectares - took into account the moratorium areas and I believe that misunderstanding arises from the use of the word “moratorium”. In fact, the word “moratorium” applies to two different blocks, for want of a better word. The first moratorium applied to a number of stated blocks that make up the proposed Wellington National Park, which is an area of some 25 000 hectares and therefore considerably larger than the 5 500 that applies to the one per cent. It also applied to a number of other blocks, including Helms, Leach and Palmer. That matter is still under consideration upon the release of the URS report, which we all anxiously await. The second area from which additional yield may come - the member has me on the hop. Hon Peter Foss: They are the national park boundaries. Hon KIM CHANCE: No, that is the third area. I cannot remember the second. Hon Peter Foss: The step-down. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The step-down volumes can be considerable, particularly in karri. A 30 000 cubic metre allocation, for example, for Pemberton, taking account of the step-down volumes, actually becomes 45 000, or a number close to that, all the way through to 2014. The third and separate issue is the matter of the boundaries of the proposed national parks. There is a difference in the policy between those areas that have been described in the policy as the number of hectares that will be reserved and those areas that have been mapped. There are also significant areas in between. In that difference exists the potential for a resolution of boundaries in a more workable manner to make the parks work appropriately and to address any shortfall that might arise from the Conservation Commission’s indication that the volumes in our indicative numbers might not be achievable. I have no reason to believe that will occur; however, there is that option for the Government. The PRESIDENT: I trust the Leader of the House is winding up his answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: Very soon, but it is a big question. The component that the Government does not control is the yield per hectare. It is important for members to understand that a given volume of forest is available for logging. The decisions that will be made outside government essentially relate to the sustainable yield per hectare of that volume of forest. The decision that rests in the Government’s hands - this is very important for members to understand - is the number of hectares available for that sustainable yield to be applied. If, for example, a decision is made that the expected yields, when assessed under ecologically sustainable forest management principles, do not go anywhere near the numbers that we expect are needed by the commercial forest industry, there is the possibility of expanding the number of hectares because of that difference in the two figures relating to reservation.
Hon KIM CHANCE: That part of the question - Hon Peter Foss: Have you just revealed the inner workings of government? Hon KIM CHANCE: No, the slip reflects that the question was put to me outside my portfolio area. The question would be more appropriately directed to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage rather than to me as the Minister for Forestry. I am happy to try to answer that question and I shall explain why. Was that the third part of the question? Hon Peter Foss: Yes. Where will the increase come from? Hon KIM CHANCE: The answer to the third part of the question is - (3) I have explained before in the House that there are three areas from which increased yield could come. Those areas include the parts of the forest that were not taken into account in the calculation of the indicative yield, which are the moratorium blocks - Hon Peter Foss: That is out now. Hon KIM CHANCE: The URS report is out? Hon Peter Foss: No, you have left that out now. Hon KIM CHANCE: No. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a debate. The minister might like to answer the question. Hon KIM CHANCE: Thank you, Mr President. There is a misunderstanding that the one per cent - the 5 500 hectares - took into account the moratorium areas and I believe that misunderstanding arises from the use of the word “moratorium”. In fact, the word “moratorium” applies to two different blocks, for want of a better word. The first moratorium applied to a number of stated blocks that make up the proposed Wellington National Park, which is an area of some 25 000 hectares and therefore considerably larger than the 5 500 that applies to the one per cent. It also applied to a number of other blocks, including Helms, Leach and Palmer. That matter is still under consideration upon the release of the URS report, which we all anxiously await. The second area from which additional yield may come - the member has me on the hop. Hon Peter Foss: They are the national park boundaries. Hon KIM CHANCE: No, that is the third area. I cannot remember the second. Hon Peter Foss: The step-down. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The step-down volumes can be considerable, particularly in karri. A 30 000 cubic metre allocation, for example, for Pemberton, taking account of the step-down volumes, actually becomes 45 000, or a number close to that, all the way through to 2014. The third and separate issue is the matter of the boundaries of the proposed national parks. There is a difference in the policy between those areas that have been described in the policy as the number of hectares that will be reserved and those areas that have been mapped. There are also significant areas in between. In that difference exists the potential for a resolution of boundaries in a more workable manner to make the parks work appropriately and to address any shortfall that might arise from the Conservation Commission’s indication that the volumes in our indicative numbers might not be achievable. I have no reason to believe that will occur; however, there is that option for the Government. The PRESIDENT: I trust the Leader of the House is winding up his answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: Very soon, but it is a big question. The component that the Government does not control is the yield per hectare. It is important for members to understand that a given volume of forest is available for logging. The decisions that will be made outside government essentially relate to the sustainable yield per hectare of that volume of forest. The decision that rests in the Government’s hands - this is very important for members to understand - is the number of hectares available for that sustainable yield to be applied. If, for example, a decision is made that the expected yields, when assessed under ecologically sustainable forest management principles, do not go anywhere near the numbers that we expect are needed by the commercial forest industry, there is the possibility of expanding the number of hectares because of that difference in the two figures relating to reservation.
Hon Peter Foss: Have you just revealed the inner workings of government? Hon KIM CHANCE: No, the slip reflects that the question was put to me outside my portfolio area. The question would be more appropriately directed to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage rather than to me as the Minister for Forestry. I am happy to try to answer that question and I shall explain why. Was that the third part of the question? Hon Peter Foss: Yes. Where will the increase come from? Hon KIM CHANCE: The answer to the third part of the question is - (3) I have explained before in the House that there are three areas from which increased yield could come. Those areas include the parts of the forest that were not taken into account in the calculation of the indicative yield, which are the moratorium blocks - Hon Peter Foss: That is out now. Hon KIM CHANCE: The URS report is out? Hon Peter Foss: No, you have left that out now. Hon KIM CHANCE: No. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a debate. The minister might like to answer the question. Hon KIM CHANCE: Thank you, Mr President. There is a misunderstanding that the one per cent - the 5 500 hectares - took into account the moratorium areas and I believe that misunderstanding arises from the use of the word “moratorium”. In fact, the word “moratorium” applies to two different blocks, for want of a better word. The first moratorium applied to a number of stated blocks that make up the proposed Wellington National Park, which is an area of some 25 000 hectares and therefore considerably larger than the 5 500 that applies to the one per cent. It also applied to a number of other blocks, including Helms, Leach and Palmer. That matter is still under consideration upon the release of the URS report, which we all anxiously await. The second area from which additional yield may come - the member has me on the hop. Hon Peter Foss: They are the national park boundaries. Hon KIM CHANCE: No, that is the third area. I cannot remember the second. Hon Peter Foss: The step-down. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The step-down volumes can be considerable, particularly in karri. A 30 000 cubic metre allocation, for example, for Pemberton, taking account of the step-down volumes, actually becomes 45 000, or a number close to that, all the way through to 2014. The third and separate issue is the matter of the boundaries of the proposed national parks. There is a difference in the policy between those areas that have been described in the policy as the number of hectares that will be reserved and those areas that have been mapped. There are also significant areas in between. In that difference exists the potential for a resolution of boundaries in a more workable manner to make the parks work appropriately and to address any shortfall that might arise from the Conservation Commission’s indication that the volumes in our indicative numbers might not be achievable. I have no reason to believe that will occur; however, there is that option for the Government. The PRESIDENT: I trust the Leader of the House is winding up his answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: Very soon, but it is a big question. The component that the Government does not control is the yield per hectare. It is important for members to understand that a given volume of forest is available for logging. The decisions that will be made outside government essentially relate to the sustainable yield per hectare of that volume of forest. The decision that rests in the Government’s hands - this is very important for members to understand - is the number of hectares available for that sustainable yield to be applied. If, for example, a decision is made that the expected yields, when assessed under ecologically sustainable forest management principles, do not go anywhere near the numbers that we expect are needed by the commercial forest industry, there is the possibility of expanding the number of hectares because of that difference in the two figures relating to reservation.
Hon KIM CHANCE: No, the slip reflects that the question was put to me outside my portfolio area. The question would be more appropriately directed to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage rather than to me as the Minister for Forestry. I am happy to try to answer that question and I shall explain why. Was that the third part of the question? Hon Peter Foss: Yes. Where will the increase come from? Hon KIM CHANCE: The answer to the third part of the question is - (3) I have explained before in the House that there are three areas from which increased yield could come. Those areas include the parts of the forest that were not taken into account in the calculation of the indicative yield, which are the moratorium blocks - Hon Peter Foss: That is out now. Hon KIM CHANCE: The URS report is out? Hon Peter Foss: No, you have left that out now. Hon KIM CHANCE: No. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a debate. The minister might like to answer the question. Hon KIM CHANCE: Thank you, Mr President. There is a misunderstanding that the one per cent - the 5 500 hectares - took into account the moratorium areas and I believe that misunderstanding arises from the use of the word “moratorium”. In fact, the word “moratorium” applies to two different blocks, for want of a better word. The first moratorium applied to a number of stated blocks that make up the proposed Wellington National Park, which is an area of some 25 000 hectares and therefore considerably larger than the 5 500 that applies to the one per cent. It also applied to a number of other blocks, including Helms, Leach and Palmer. That matter is still under consideration upon the release of the URS report, which we all anxiously await. The second area from which additional yield may come - the member has me on the hop. Hon Peter Foss: They are the national park boundaries. Hon KIM CHANCE: No, that is the third area. I cannot remember the second. Hon Peter Foss: The step-down. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The step-down volumes can be considerable, particularly in karri. A 30 000 cubic metre allocation, for example, for Pemberton, taking account of the step-down volumes, actually becomes 45 000, or a number close to that, all the way through to 2014. The third and separate issue is the matter of the boundaries of the proposed national parks. There is a difference in the policy between those areas that have been described in the policy as the number of hectares that will be reserved and those areas that have been mapped. There are also significant areas in between. In that difference exists the potential for a resolution of boundaries in a more workable manner to make the parks work appropriately and to address any shortfall that might arise from the Conservation Commission’s indication that the volumes in our indicative numbers might not be achievable. I have no reason to believe that will occur; however, there is that option for the Government. The PRESIDENT: I trust the Leader of the House is winding up his answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: Very soon, but it is a big question. The component that the Government does not control is the yield per hectare. It is important for members to understand that a given volume of forest is available for logging. The decisions that will be made outside government essentially relate to the sustainable yield per hectare of that volume of forest. The decision that rests in the Government’s hands - this is very important for members to understand - is the number of hectares available for that sustainable yield to be applied. If, for example, a decision is made that the expected yields, when assessed under ecologically sustainable forest management principles, do not go anywhere near the numbers that we expect are needed by the commercial forest industry, there is the possibility of expanding the number of hectares because of that difference in the two figures relating to reservation.
Hon Peter Foss: Yes. Where will the increase come from? Hon KIM CHANCE: The answer to the third part of the question is - (3) I have explained before in the House that there are three areas from which increased yield could come. Those areas include the parts of the forest that were not taken into account in the calculation of the indicative yield, which are the moratorium blocks - Hon Peter Foss: That is out now. Hon KIM CHANCE: The URS report is out? Hon Peter Foss: No, you have left that out now. Hon KIM CHANCE: No. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a debate. The minister might like to answer the question. Hon KIM CHANCE: Thank you, Mr President. There is a misunderstanding that the one per cent - the 5 500 hectares - took into account the moratorium areas and I believe that misunderstanding arises from the use of the word “moratorium”. In fact, the word “moratorium” applies to two different blocks, for want of a better word. The first moratorium applied to a number of stated blocks that make up the proposed Wellington National Park, which is an area of some 25 000 hectares and therefore considerably larger than the 5 500 that applies to the one per cent. It also applied to a number of other blocks, including Helms, Leach and Palmer. That matter is still under consideration upon the release of the URS report, which we all anxiously await. The second area from which additional yield may come - the member has me on the hop. Hon Peter Foss: They are the national park boundaries. Hon KIM CHANCE: No, that is the third area. I cannot remember the second. Hon Peter Foss: The step-down. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The step-down volumes can be considerable, particularly in karri. A 30 000 cubic metre allocation, for example, for Pemberton, taking account of the step-down volumes, actually becomes 45 000, or a number close to that, all the way through to 2014. The third and separate issue is the matter of the boundaries of the proposed national parks. There is a difference in the policy between those areas that have been described in the policy as the number of hectares that will be reserved and those areas that have been mapped. There are also significant areas in between. In that difference exists the potential for a resolution of boundaries in a more workable manner to make the parks work appropriately and to address any shortfall that might arise from the Conservation Commission’s indication that the volumes in our indicative numbers might not be achievable. I have no reason to believe that will occur; however, there is that option for the Government. The PRESIDENT: I trust the Leader of the House is winding up his answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: Very soon, but it is a big question. The component that the Government does not control is the yield per hectare. It is important for members to understand that a given volume of forest is available for logging. The decisions that will be made outside government essentially relate to the sustainable yield per hectare of that volume of forest. The decision that rests in the Government’s hands - this is very important for members to understand - is the number of hectares available for that sustainable yield to be applied. If, for example, a decision is made that the expected yields, when assessed under ecologically sustainable forest management principles, do not go anywhere near the numbers that we expect are needed by the commercial forest industry, there is the possibility of expanding the number of hectares because of that difference in the two figures relating to reservation.
Hon KIM CHANCE: The answer to the third part of the question is - (3) I have explained before in the House that there are three areas from which increased yield could come. Those areas include the parts of the forest that were not taken into account in the calculation of the indicative yield, which are the moratorium blocks - Hon Peter Foss: That is out now. Hon KIM CHANCE: The URS report is out? Hon Peter Foss: No, you have left that out now. Hon KIM CHANCE: No. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a debate. The minister might like to answer the question. Hon KIM CHANCE: Thank you, Mr President. There is a misunderstanding that the one per cent - the 5 500 hectares - took into account the moratorium areas and I believe that misunderstanding arises from the use of the word “moratorium”. In fact, the word “moratorium” applies to two different blocks, for want of a better word. The first moratorium applied to a number of stated blocks that make up the proposed Wellington National Park, which is an area of some 25 000 hectares and therefore considerably larger than the 5 500 that applies to the one per cent. It also applied to a number of other blocks, including Helms, Leach and Palmer. That matter is still under consideration upon the release of the URS report, which we all anxiously await. The second area from which additional yield may come - the member has me on the hop. Hon Peter Foss: They are the national park boundaries. Hon KIM CHANCE: No, that is the third area. I cannot remember the second. Hon Peter Foss: The step-down. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The step-down volumes can be considerable, particularly in karri. A 30 000 cubic metre allocation, for example, for Pemberton, taking account of the step-down volumes, actually becomes 45 000, or a number close to that, all the way through to 2014. The third and separate issue is the matter of the boundaries of the proposed national parks. There is a difference in the policy between those areas that have been described in the policy as the number of hectares that will be reserved and those areas that have been mapped. There are also significant areas in between. In that difference exists the potential for a resolution of boundaries in a more workable manner to make the parks work appropriately and to address any shortfall that might arise from the Conservation Commission’s indication that the volumes in our indicative numbers might not be achievable. I have no reason to believe that will occur; however, there is that option for the Government. The PRESIDENT: I trust the Leader of the House is winding up his answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: Very soon, but it is a big question. The component that the Government does not control is the yield per hectare. It is important for members to understand that a given volume of forest is available for logging. The decisions that will be made outside government essentially relate to the sustainable yield per hectare of that volume of forest. The decision that rests in the Government’s hands - this is very important for members to understand - is the number of hectares available for that sustainable yield to be applied. If, for example, a decision is made that the expected yields, when assessed under ecologically sustainable forest management principles, do not go anywhere near the numbers that we expect are needed by the commercial forest industry, there is the possibility of expanding the number of hectares because of that difference in the two figures relating to reservation.
(3) I have explained before in the House that there are three areas from which increased yield could come. Those areas include the parts of the forest that were not taken into account in the calculation of the indicative yield, which are the moratorium blocks - Hon Peter Foss: That is out now. Hon KIM CHANCE: The URS report is out? Hon Peter Foss: No, you have left that out now. Hon KIM CHANCE: No. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a debate. The minister might like to answer the question. Hon KIM CHANCE: Thank you, Mr President. There is a misunderstanding that the one per cent - the 5 500 hectares - took into account the moratorium areas and I believe that misunderstanding arises from the use of the word “moratorium”. In fact, the word “moratorium” applies to two different blocks, for want of a better word. The first moratorium applied to a number of stated blocks that make up the proposed Wellington National Park, which is an area of some 25 000 hectares and therefore considerably larger than the 5 500 that applies to the one per cent. It also applied to a number of other blocks, including Helms, Leach and Palmer. That matter is still under consideration upon the release of the URS report, which we all anxiously await. The second area from which additional yield may come - the member has me on the hop. Hon Peter Foss: They are the national park boundaries. Hon KIM CHANCE: No, that is the third area. I cannot remember the second. Hon Peter Foss: The step-down. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The step-down volumes can be considerable, particularly in karri. A 30 000 cubic metre allocation, for example, for Pemberton, taking account of the step-down volumes, actually becomes 45 000, or a number close to that, all the way through to 2014. The third and separate issue is the matter of the boundaries of the proposed national parks. There is a difference in the policy between those areas that have been described in the policy as the number of hectares that will be reserved and those areas that have been mapped. There are also significant areas in between. In that difference exists the potential for a resolution of boundaries in a more workable manner to make the parks work appropriately and to address any shortfall that might arise from the Conservation Commission’s indication that the volumes in our indicative numbers might not be achievable. I have no reason to believe that will occur; however, there is that option for the Government. The PRESIDENT: I trust the Leader of the House is winding up his answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: Very soon, but it is a big question. The component that the Government does not control is the yield per hectare. It is important for members to understand that a given volume of forest is available for logging. The decisions that will be made outside government essentially relate to the sustainable yield per hectare of that volume of forest. The decision that rests in the Government’s hands - this is very important for members to understand - is the number of hectares available for that sustainable yield to be applied. If, for example, a decision is made that the expected yields, when assessed under ecologically sustainable forest management principles, do not go anywhere near the numbers that we expect are needed by the commercial forest industry, there is the possibility of expanding the number of hectares because of that difference in the two figures relating to reservation.
Hon Peter Foss: That is out now. Hon KIM CHANCE: The URS report is out? Hon Peter Foss: No, you have left that out now. Hon KIM CHANCE: No. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a debate. The minister might like to answer the question. Hon KIM CHANCE: Thank you, Mr President. There is a misunderstanding that the one per cent - the 5 500 hectares - took into account the moratorium areas and I believe that misunderstanding arises from the use of the word “moratorium”. In fact, the word “moratorium” applies to two different blocks, for want of a better word. The first moratorium applied to a number of stated blocks that make up the proposed Wellington National Park, which is an area of some 25 000 hectares and therefore considerably larger than the 5 500 that applies to the one per cent. It also applied to a number of other blocks, including Helms, Leach and Palmer. That matter is still under consideration upon the release of the URS report, which we all anxiously await. The second area from which additional yield may come - the member has me on the hop. Hon Peter Foss: They are the national park boundaries. Hon KIM CHANCE: No, that is the third area. I cannot remember the second. Hon Peter Foss: The step-down. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The step-down volumes can be considerable, particularly in karri. A 30 000 cubic metre allocation, for example, for Pemberton, taking account of the step-down volumes, actually becomes 45 000, or a number close to that, all the way through to 2014. The third and separate issue is the matter of the boundaries of the proposed national parks. There is a difference in the policy between those areas that have been described in the policy as the number of hectares that will be reserved and those areas that have been mapped. There are also significant areas in between. In that difference exists the potential for a resolution of boundaries in a more workable manner to make the parks work appropriately and to address any shortfall that might arise from the Conservation Commission’s indication that the volumes in our indicative numbers might not be achievable. I have no reason to believe that will occur; however, there is that option for the Government. The PRESIDENT: I trust the Leader of the House is winding up his answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: Very soon, but it is a big question. The component that the Government does not control is the yield per hectare. It is important for members to understand that a given volume of forest is available for logging. The decisions that will be made outside government essentially relate to the sustainable yield per hectare of that volume of forest. The decision that rests in the Government’s hands - this is very important for members to understand - is the number of hectares available for that sustainable yield to be applied. If, for example, a decision is made that the expected yields, when assessed under ecologically sustainable forest management principles, do not go anywhere near the numbers that we expect are needed by the commercial forest industry, there is the possibility of expanding the number of hectares because of that difference in the two figures relating to reservation.
Hon KIM CHANCE: The URS report is out? Hon Peter Foss: No, you have left that out now. Hon KIM CHANCE: No. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a debate. The minister might like to answer the question. Hon KIM CHANCE: Thank you, Mr President. There is a misunderstanding that the one per cent - the 5 500 hectares - took into account the moratorium areas and I believe that misunderstanding arises from the use of the word “moratorium”. In fact, the word “moratorium” applies to two different blocks, for want of a better word. The first moratorium applied to a number of stated blocks that make up the proposed Wellington National Park, which is an area of some 25 000 hectares and therefore considerably larger than the 5 500 that applies to the one per cent. It also applied to a number of other blocks, including Helms, Leach and Palmer. That matter is still under consideration upon the release of the URS report, which we all anxiously await. The second area from which additional yield may come - the member has me on the hop. Hon Peter Foss: They are the national park boundaries. Hon KIM CHANCE: No, that is the third area. I cannot remember the second. Hon Peter Foss: The step-down. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The step-down volumes can be considerable, particularly in karri. A 30 000 cubic metre allocation, for example, for Pemberton, taking account of the step-down volumes, actually becomes 45 000, or a number close to that, all the way through to 2014. The third and separate issue is the matter of the boundaries of the proposed national parks. There is a difference in the policy between those areas that have been described in the policy as the number of hectares that will be reserved and those areas that have been mapped. There are also significant areas in between. In that difference exists the potential for a resolution of boundaries in a more workable manner to make the parks work appropriately and to address any shortfall that might arise from the Conservation Commission’s indication that the volumes in our indicative numbers might not be achievable. I have no reason to believe that will occur; however, there is that option for the Government. The PRESIDENT: I trust the Leader of the House is winding up his answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: Very soon, but it is a big question. The component that the Government does not control is the yield per hectare. It is important for members to understand that a given volume of forest is available for logging. The decisions that will be made outside government essentially relate to the sustainable yield per hectare of that volume of forest. The decision that rests in the Government’s hands - this is very important for members to understand - is the number of hectares available for that sustainable yield to be applied. If, for example, a decision is made that the expected yields, when assessed under ecologically sustainable forest management principles, do not go anywhere near the numbers that we expect are needed by the commercial forest industry, there is the possibility of expanding the number of hectares because of that difference in the two figures relating to reservation.
Hon Peter Foss: No, you have left that out now. Hon KIM CHANCE: No. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a debate. The minister might like to answer the question. Hon KIM CHANCE: Thank you, Mr President. There is a misunderstanding that the one per cent - the 5 500 hectares - took into account the moratorium areas and I believe that misunderstanding arises from the use of the word “moratorium”. In fact, the word “moratorium” applies to two different blocks, for want of a better word. The first moratorium applied to a number of stated blocks that make up the proposed Wellington National Park, which is an area of some 25 000 hectares and therefore considerably larger than the 5 500 that applies to the one per cent. It also applied to a number of other blocks, including Helms, Leach and Palmer. That matter is still under consideration upon the release of the URS report, which we all anxiously await. The second area from which additional yield may come - the member has me on the hop. Hon Peter Foss: They are the national park boundaries. Hon KIM CHANCE: No, that is the third area. I cannot remember the second. Hon Peter Foss: The step-down. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The step-down volumes can be considerable, particularly in karri. A 30 000 cubic metre allocation, for example, for Pemberton, taking account of the step-down volumes, actually becomes 45 000, or a number close to that, all the way through to 2014. The third and separate issue is the matter of the boundaries of the proposed national parks. There is a difference in the policy between those areas that have been described in the policy as the number of hectares that will be reserved and those areas that have been mapped. There are also significant areas in between. In that difference exists the potential for a resolution of boundaries in a more workable manner to make the parks work appropriately and to address any shortfall that might arise from the Conservation Commission’s indication that the volumes in our indicative numbers might not be achievable. I have no reason to believe that will occur; however, there is that option for the Government. The PRESIDENT: I trust the Leader of the House is winding up his answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: Very soon, but it is a big question. The component that the Government does not control is the yield per hectare. It is important for members to understand that a given volume of forest is available for logging. The decisions that will be made outside government essentially relate to the sustainable yield per hectare of that volume of forest. The decision that rests in the Government’s hands - this is very important for members to understand - is the number of hectares available for that sustainable yield to be applied. If, for example, a decision is made that the expected yields, when assessed under ecologically sustainable forest management principles, do not go anywhere near the numbers that we expect are needed by the commercial forest industry, there is the possibility of expanding the number of hectares because of that difference in the two figures relating to reservation.
Hon KIM CHANCE: No. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a debate. The minister might like to answer the question. Hon KIM CHANCE: Thank you, Mr President. There is a misunderstanding that the one per cent - the 5 500 hectares - took into account the moratorium areas and I believe that misunderstanding arises from the use of the word “moratorium”. In fact, the word “moratorium” applies to two different blocks, for want of a better word. The first moratorium applied to a number of stated blocks that make up the proposed Wellington National Park, which is an area of some 25 000 hectares and therefore considerably larger than the 5 500 that applies to the one per cent. It also applied to a number of other blocks, including Helms, Leach and Palmer. That matter is still under consideration upon the release of the URS report, which we all anxiously await. The second area from which additional yield may come - the member has me on the hop. Hon Peter Foss: They are the national park boundaries. Hon KIM CHANCE: No, that is the third area. I cannot remember the second. Hon Peter Foss: The step-down. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The step-down volumes can be considerable, particularly in karri. A 30 000 cubic metre allocation, for example, for Pemberton, taking account of the step-down volumes, actually becomes 45 000, or a number close to that, all the way through to 2014. The third and separate issue is the matter of the boundaries of the proposed national parks. There is a difference in the policy between those areas that have been described in the policy as the number of hectares that will be reserved and those areas that have been mapped. There are also significant areas in between. In that difference exists the potential for a resolution of boundaries in a more workable manner to make the parks work appropriately and to address any shortfall that might arise from the Conservation Commission’s indication that the volumes in our indicative numbers might not be achievable. I have no reason to believe that will occur; however, there is that option for the Government. The PRESIDENT: I trust the Leader of the House is winding up his answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: Very soon, but it is a big question. The component that the Government does not control is the yield per hectare. It is important for members to understand that a given volume of forest is available for logging. The decisions that will be made outside government essentially relate to the sustainable yield per hectare of that volume of forest. The decision that rests in the Government’s hands - this is very important for members to understand - is the number of hectares available for that sustainable yield to be applied. If, for example, a decision is made that the expected yields, when assessed under ecologically sustainable forest management principles, do not go anywhere near the numbers that we expect are needed by the commercial forest industry, there is the possibility of expanding the number of hectares because of that difference in the two figures relating to reservation.
The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a debate. The minister might like to answer the question. Hon KIM CHANCE: Thank you, Mr President. There is a misunderstanding that the one per cent - the 5 500 hectares - took into account the moratorium areas and I believe that misunderstanding arises from the use of the word “moratorium”. In fact, the word “moratorium” applies to two different blocks, for want of a better word. The first moratorium applied to a number of stated blocks that make up the proposed Wellington National Park, which is an area of some 25 000 hectares and therefore considerably larger than the 5 500 that applies to the one per cent. It also applied to a number of other blocks, including Helms, Leach and Palmer. That matter is still under consideration upon the release of the URS report, which we all anxiously await. The second area from which additional yield may come - the member has me on the hop. Hon Peter Foss: They are the national park boundaries. Hon KIM CHANCE: No, that is the third area. I cannot remember the second. Hon Peter Foss: The step-down. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The step-down volumes can be considerable, particularly in karri. A 30 000 cubic metre allocation, for example, for Pemberton, taking account of the step-down volumes, actually becomes 45 000, or a number close to that, all the way through to 2014. The third and separate issue is the matter of the boundaries of the proposed national parks. There is a difference in the policy between those areas that have been described in the policy as the number of hectares that will be reserved and those areas that have been mapped. There are also significant areas in between. In that difference exists the potential for a resolution of boundaries in a more workable manner to make the parks work appropriately and to address any shortfall that might arise from the Conservation Commission’s indication that the volumes in our indicative numbers might not be achievable. I have no reason to believe that will occur; however, there is that option for the Government. The PRESIDENT: I trust the Leader of the House is winding up his answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: Very soon, but it is a big question. The component that the Government does not control is the yield per hectare. It is important for members to understand that a given volume of forest is available for logging. The decisions that will be made outside government essentially relate to the sustainable yield per hectare of that volume of forest. The decision that rests in the Government’s hands - this is very important for members to understand - is the number of hectares available for that sustainable yield to be applied. If, for example, a decision is made that the expected yields, when assessed under ecologically sustainable forest management principles, do not go anywhere near the numbers that we expect are needed by the commercial forest industry, there is the possibility of expanding the number of hectares because of that difference in the two figures relating to reservation.
Hon KIM CHANCE: Thank you, Mr President. There is a misunderstanding that the one per cent - the 5 500 hectares - took into account the moratorium areas and I believe that misunderstanding arises from the use of the word “moratorium”. In fact, the word “moratorium” applies to two different blocks, for want of a better word. The first moratorium applied to a number of stated blocks that make up the proposed Wellington National Park, which is an area of some 25 000 hectares and therefore considerably larger than the 5 500 that applies to the one per cent. It also applied to a number of other blocks, including Helms, Leach and Palmer. That matter is still under consideration upon the release of the URS report, which we all anxiously await. The second area from which additional yield may come - the member has me on the hop. Hon Peter Foss: They are the national park boundaries. Hon KIM CHANCE: No, that is the third area. I cannot remember the second. Hon Peter Foss: The step-down. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The step-down volumes can be considerable, particularly in karri. A 30 000 cubic metre allocation, for example, for Pemberton, taking account of the step-down volumes, actually becomes 45 000, or a number close to that, all the way through to 2014. The third and separate issue is the matter of the boundaries of the proposed national parks. There is a difference in the policy between those areas that have been described in the policy as the number of hectares that will be reserved and those areas that have been mapped. There are also significant areas in between. In that difference exists the potential for a resolution of boundaries in a more workable manner to make the parks work appropriately and to address any shortfall that might arise from the Conservation Commission’s indication that the volumes in our indicative numbers might not be achievable. I have no reason to believe that will occur; however, there is that option for the Government. The PRESIDENT: I trust the Leader of the House is winding up his answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: Very soon, but it is a big question. The component that the Government does not control is the yield per hectare. It is important for members to understand that a given volume of forest is available for logging. The decisions that will be made outside government essentially relate to the sustainable yield per hectare of that volume of forest. The decision that rests in the Government’s hands - this is very important for members to understand - is the number of hectares available for that sustainable yield to be applied. If, for example, a decision is made that the expected yields, when assessed under ecologically sustainable forest management principles, do not go anywhere near the numbers that we expect are needed by the commercial forest industry, there is the possibility of expanding the number of hectares because of that difference in the two figures relating to reservation.
The second area from which additional yield may come - the member has me on the hop. Hon Peter Foss: They are the national park boundaries. Hon KIM CHANCE: No, that is the third area. I cannot remember the second. Hon Peter Foss: The step-down. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The step-down volumes can be considerable, particularly in karri. A 30 000 cubic metre allocation, for example, for Pemberton, taking account of the step-down volumes, actually becomes 45 000, or a number close to that, all the way through to 2014. The third and separate issue is the matter of the boundaries of the proposed national parks. There is a difference in the policy between those areas that have been described in the policy as the number of hectares that will be reserved and those areas that have been mapped. There are also significant areas in between. In that difference exists the potential for a resolution of boundaries in a more workable manner to make the parks work appropriately and to address any shortfall that might arise from the Conservation Commission’s indication that the volumes in our indicative numbers might not be achievable. I have no reason to believe that will occur; however, there is that option for the Government. The PRESIDENT: I trust the Leader of the House is winding up his answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: Very soon, but it is a big question. The component that the Government does not control is the yield per hectare. It is important for members to understand that a given volume of forest is available for logging. The decisions that will be made outside government essentially relate to the sustainable yield per hectare of that volume of forest. The decision that rests in the Government’s hands - this is very important for members to understand - is the number of hectares available for that sustainable yield to be applied. If, for example, a decision is made that the expected yields, when assessed under ecologically sustainable forest management principles, do not go anywhere near the numbers that we expect are needed by the commercial forest industry, there is the possibility of expanding the number of hectares because of that difference in the two figures relating to reservation.
Hon Peter Foss: They are the national park boundaries. Hon KIM CHANCE: No, that is the third area. I cannot remember the second. Hon Peter Foss: The step-down. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The step-down volumes can be considerable, particularly in karri. A 30 000 cubic metre allocation, for example, for Pemberton, taking account of the step-down volumes, actually becomes 45 000, or a number close to that, all the way through to 2014. The third and separate issue is the matter of the boundaries of the proposed national parks. There is a difference in the policy between those areas that have been described in the policy as the number of hectares that will be reserved and those areas that have been mapped. There are also significant areas in between. In that difference exists the potential for a resolution of boundaries in a more workable manner to make the parks work appropriately and to address any shortfall that might arise from the Conservation Commission’s indication that the volumes in our indicative numbers might not be achievable. I have no reason to believe that will occur; however, there is that option for the Government. The PRESIDENT: I trust the Leader of the House is winding up his answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: Very soon, but it is a big question. The component that the Government does not control is the yield per hectare. It is important for members to understand that a given volume of forest is available for logging. The decisions that will be made outside government essentially relate to the sustainable yield per hectare of that volume of forest. The decision that rests in the Government’s hands - this is very important for members to understand - is the number of hectares available for that sustainable yield to be applied. If, for example, a decision is made that the expected yields, when assessed under ecologically sustainable forest management principles, do not go anywhere near the numbers that we expect are needed by the commercial forest industry, there is the possibility of expanding the number of hectares because of that difference in the two figures relating to reservation.
Hon KIM CHANCE: No, that is the third area. I cannot remember the second. Hon Peter Foss: The step-down. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The step-down volumes can be considerable, particularly in karri. A 30 000 cubic metre allocation, for example, for Pemberton, taking account of the step-down volumes, actually becomes 45 000, or a number close to that, all the way through to 2014. The third and separate issue is the matter of the boundaries of the proposed national parks. There is a difference in the policy between those areas that have been described in the policy as the number of hectares that will be reserved and those areas that have been mapped. There are also significant areas in between. In that difference exists the potential for a resolution of boundaries in a more workable manner to make the parks work appropriately and to address any shortfall that might arise from the Conservation Commission’s indication that the volumes in our indicative numbers might not be achievable. I have no reason to believe that will occur; however, there is that option for the Government. The PRESIDENT: I trust the Leader of the House is winding up his answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: Very soon, but it is a big question. The component that the Government does not control is the yield per hectare. It is important for members to understand that a given volume of forest is available for logging. The decisions that will be made outside government essentially relate to the sustainable yield per hectare of that volume of forest. The decision that rests in the Government’s hands - this is very important for members to understand - is the number of hectares available for that sustainable yield to be applied. If, for example, a decision is made that the expected yields, when assessed under ecologically sustainable forest management principles, do not go anywhere near the numbers that we expect are needed by the commercial forest industry, there is the possibility of expanding the number of hectares because of that difference in the two figures relating to reservation.
Hon Peter Foss: The step-down. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The step-down volumes can be considerable, particularly in karri. A 30 000 cubic metre allocation, for example, for Pemberton, taking account of the step-down volumes, actually becomes 45 000, or a number close to that, all the way through to 2014. The third and separate issue is the matter of the boundaries of the proposed national parks. There is a difference in the policy between those areas that have been described in the policy as the number of hectares that will be reserved and those areas that have been mapped. There are also significant areas in between. In that difference exists the potential for a resolution of boundaries in a more workable manner to make the parks work appropriately and to address any shortfall that might arise from the Conservation Commission’s indication that the volumes in our indicative numbers might not be achievable. I have no reason to believe that will occur; however, there is that option for the Government. The PRESIDENT: I trust the Leader of the House is winding up his answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: Very soon, but it is a big question. The component that the Government does not control is the yield per hectare. It is important for members to understand that a given volume of forest is available for logging. The decisions that will be made outside government essentially relate to the sustainable yield per hectare of that volume of forest. The decision that rests in the Government’s hands - this is very important for members to understand - is the number of hectares available for that sustainable yield to be applied. If, for example, a decision is made that the expected yields, when assessed under ecologically sustainable forest management principles, do not go anywhere near the numbers that we expect are needed by the commercial forest industry, there is the possibility of expanding the number of hectares because of that difference in the two figures relating to reservation.
Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The step-down volumes can be considerable, particularly in karri. A 30 000 cubic metre allocation, for example, for Pemberton, taking account of the step-down volumes, actually becomes 45 000, or a number close to that, all the way through to 2014. The third and separate issue is the matter of the boundaries of the proposed national parks. There is a difference in the policy between those areas that have been described in the policy as the number of hectares that will be reserved and those areas that have been mapped. There are also significant areas in between. In that difference exists the potential for a resolution of boundaries in a more workable manner to make the parks work appropriately and to address any shortfall that might arise from the Conservation Commission’s indication that the volumes in our indicative numbers might not be achievable. I have no reason to believe that will occur; however, there is that option for the Government. The PRESIDENT: I trust the Leader of the House is winding up his answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: Very soon, but it is a big question. The component that the Government does not control is the yield per hectare. It is important for members to understand that a given volume of forest is available for logging. The decisions that will be made outside government essentially relate to the sustainable yield per hectare of that volume of forest. The decision that rests in the Government’s hands - this is very important for members to understand - is the number of hectares available for that sustainable yield to be applied. If, for example, a decision is made that the expected yields, when assessed under ecologically sustainable forest management principles, do not go anywhere near the numbers that we expect are needed by the commercial forest industry, there is the possibility of expanding the number of hectares because of that difference in the two figures relating to reservation.
The third and separate issue is the matter of the boundaries of the proposed national parks. There is a difference in the policy between those areas that have been described in the policy as the number of hectares that will be reserved and those areas that have been mapped. There are also significant areas in between. In that difference exists the potential for a resolution of boundaries in a more workable manner to make the parks work appropriately and to address any shortfall that might arise from the Conservation Commission’s indication that the volumes in our indicative numbers might not be achievable. I have no reason to believe that will occur; however, there is that option for the Government. The PRESIDENT: I trust the Leader of the House is winding up his answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: Very soon, but it is a big question. The component that the Government does not control is the yield per hectare. It is important for members to understand that a given volume of forest is available for logging. The decisions that will be made outside government essentially relate to the sustainable yield per hectare of that volume of forest. The decision that rests in the Government’s hands - this is very important for members to understand - is the number of hectares available for that sustainable yield to be applied. If, for example, a decision is made that the expected yields, when assessed under ecologically sustainable forest management principles, do not go anywhere near the numbers that we expect are needed by the commercial forest industry, there is the possibility of expanding the number of hectares because of that difference in the two figures relating to reservation.
The PRESIDENT: I trust the Leader of the House is winding up his answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: Very soon, but it is a big question. The component that the Government does not control is the yield per hectare. It is important for members to understand that a given volume of forest is available for logging. The decisions that will be made outside government essentially relate to the sustainable yield per hectare of that volume of forest. The decision that rests in the Government’s hands - this is very important for members to understand - is the number of hectares available for that sustainable yield to be applied. If, for example, a decision is made that the expected yields, when assessed under ecologically sustainable forest management principles, do not go anywhere near the numbers that we expect are needed by the commercial forest industry, there is the possibility of expanding the number of hectares because of that difference in the two figures relating to reservation.
Hon KIM CHANCE: Very soon, but it is a big question. The component that the Government does not control is the yield per hectare. It is important for members to understand that a given volume of forest is available for logging. The decisions that will be made outside government essentially relate to the sustainable yield per hectare of that volume of forest. The decision that rests in the Government’s hands - this is very important for members to understand - is the number of hectares available for that sustainable yield to be applied. If, for example, a decision is made that the expected yields, when assessed under ecologically sustainable forest management principles, do not go anywhere near the numbers that we expect are needed by the commercial forest industry, there is the possibility of expanding the number of hectares because of that difference in the two figures relating to reservation.
The component that the Government does not control is the yield per hectare. It is important for members to understand that a given volume of forest is available for logging. The decisions that will be made outside government essentially relate to the sustainable yield per hectare of that volume of forest. The decision that rests in the Government’s hands - this is very important for members to understand - is the number of hectares available for that sustainable yield to be applied. If, for example, a decision is made that the expected yields, when assessed under ecologically sustainable forest management principles, do not go anywhere near the numbers that we expect are needed by the commercial forest industry, there is the possibility of expanding the number of hectares because of that difference in the two figures relating to reservation.
(1) Is it correct that the Government has made that decision? (2) Does the Government now believe that it will be able to increase logging yields beyond the tentative yields announced earlier this year? (3) If so, what is the basis of that belief and from where will the increase come? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1) Yes, I can confirm that that decision has been made about the reserved one per cent of old-growth forest. When the Labor Party announced its old-growth policy during the election campaign, it limited its undertaking to the Western Australian people to reserving 99 per cent of the old-growth forest. The party specifically allowed itself the opportunity to honour contract undertakings by reserving the right to log that 5 500 hectares of old-growth forest. Although those obligations still exist, the Government is satisfied that it can honour them without requiring access to that 5 500 hectares of old-growth forest following indications that there will be significant early step-downs. It has determined that it can do a little better than the undertaking given during the election campaign and move to a 100 per cent reservation. It was always clear that the one per cent reservation was not there for all time; it was there to enable the Government to meet contractual obligations if the need arose. (2) Yes, I have reason to believe that the Government can go beyond those indicative yields, although that is dependent upon decisions made outside of government; that is, it will depend on decisions made during the establishment of a forest management plan. Regrettably, that is not a government decision; it is largely a decision of the Conservation Council of Western Australia and the Environmental Protection Authority. Hon Peter Foss: I hope you mean the commission, not the council. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, that is a very important correction. Hon Barry House: That was a Freudian slip. Hon KIM CHANCE: That part of the question - Hon Peter Foss: Have you just revealed the inner workings of government? Hon KIM CHANCE: No, the slip reflects that the question was put to me outside my portfolio area. The question would be more appropriately directed to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage rather than to me as the Minister for Forestry. I am happy to try to answer that question and I shall explain why. Was that the third part of the question? Hon Peter Foss: Yes. Where will the increase come from? Hon KIM CHANCE: The answer to the third part of the question is - (3) I have explained before in the House that there are three areas from which increased yield could come. Those areas include the parts of the forest that were not taken into account in the calculation of the indicative yield, which are the moratorium blocks - Hon Peter Foss: That is out now. Hon KIM CHANCE: The URS report is out? Hon Peter Foss: No, you have left that out now. Hon KIM CHANCE: No. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a debate. The minister might like to answer the question. Hon KIM CHANCE: Thank you, Mr President. There is a misunderstanding that the one per cent - the 5 500 hectares - took into account the moratorium areas and I believe that misunderstanding arises from the use of the word “moratorium”. In fact, the word “moratorium” applies to two different blocks, for want of a better word. The first moratorium applied to a number of stated blocks that make up the proposed Wellington National Park, which is an area of some 25 000 hectares and therefore considerably larger than the 5 500 that applies to the one per cent. It also applied to a number of other blocks, including Helms, Leach and Palmer. That matter is still under consideration upon the release of the URS report, which we all anxiously await. The second area from which additional yield may come - the member has me on the hop. Hon Peter Foss: They are the national park boundaries. Hon KIM CHANCE: No, that is the third area. I cannot remember the second. Hon Peter Foss: The step-down. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The step-down volumes can be considerable, particularly in karri. A 30 000 cubic metre allocation, for example, for Pemberton, taking account of the step-down volumes, actually becomes 45 000, or a number close to that, all the way through to 2014. The third and separate issue is the matter of the boundaries of the proposed national parks. There is a difference in the policy between those areas that have been described in the policy as the number of hectares that will be reserved and those areas that have been mapped. There are also significant areas in between. In that difference exists the potential for a resolution of boundaries in a more workable manner to make the parks work appropriately and to address any shortfall that might arise from the Conservation Commission’s indication that the volumes in our indicative numbers might not be achievable. I have no reason to believe that will occur; however, there is that option for the Government. The PRESIDENT: I trust the Leader of the House is winding up his answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: Very soon, but it is a big question. The component that the Government does not control is the yield per hectare. It is important for members to understand that a given volume of forest is available for logging. The decisions that will be made outside government essentially relate to the sustainable yield per hectare of that volume of forest. The decision that rests in the Government’s hands - this is very important for members to understand - is the number of hectares available for that sustainable yield to be applied. If, for example, a decision is made that the expected yields, when assessed under ecologically sustainable forest management principles, do not go anywhere near the numbers that we expect are needed by the commercial forest industry, there is the possibility of expanding the number of hectares because of that difference in the two figures relating to reservation.
(2) Does the Government now believe that it will be able to increase logging yields beyond the tentative yields announced earlier this year? (3) If so, what is the basis of that belief and from where will the increase come? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1) Yes, I can confirm that that decision has been made about the reserved one per cent of old-growth forest. When the Labor Party announced its old-growth policy during the election campaign, it limited its undertaking to the Western Australian people to reserving 99 per cent of the old-growth forest. The party specifically allowed itself the opportunity to honour contract undertakings by reserving the right to log that 5 500 hectares of old-growth forest. Although those obligations still exist, the Government is satisfied that it can honour them without requiring access to that 5 500 hectares of old-growth forest following indications that there will be significant early step-downs. It has determined that it can do a little better than the undertaking given during the election campaign and move to a 100 per cent reservation. It was always clear that the one per cent reservation was not there for all time; it was there to enable the Government to meet contractual obligations if the need arose. (2) Yes, I have reason to believe that the Government can go beyond those indicative yields, although that is dependent upon decisions made outside of government; that is, it will depend on decisions made during the establishment of a forest management plan. Regrettably, that is not a government decision; it is largely a decision of the Conservation Council of Western Australia and the Environmental Protection Authority. Hon Peter Foss: I hope you mean the commission, not the council. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, that is a very important correction. Hon Barry House: That was a Freudian slip. Hon KIM CHANCE: That part of the question - Hon Peter Foss: Have you just revealed the inner workings of government? Hon KIM CHANCE: No, the slip reflects that the question was put to me outside my portfolio area. The question would be more appropriately directed to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage rather than to me as the Minister for Forestry. I am happy to try to answer that question and I shall explain why. Was that the third part of the question? Hon Peter Foss: Yes. Where will the increase come from? Hon KIM CHANCE: The answer to the third part of the question is - (3) I have explained before in the House that there are three areas from which increased yield could come. Those areas include the parts of the forest that were not taken into account in the calculation of the indicative yield, which are the moratorium blocks - Hon Peter Foss: That is out now. Hon KIM CHANCE: The URS report is out? Hon Peter Foss: No, you have left that out now. Hon KIM CHANCE: No. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a debate. The minister might like to answer the question. Hon KIM CHANCE: Thank you, Mr President. There is a misunderstanding that the one per cent - the 5 500 hectares - took into account the moratorium areas and I believe that misunderstanding arises from the use of the word “moratorium”. In fact, the word “moratorium” applies to two different blocks, for want of a better word. The first moratorium applied to a number of stated blocks that make up the proposed Wellington National Park, which is an area of some 25 000 hectares and therefore considerably larger than the 5 500 that applies to the one per cent. It also applied to a number of other blocks, including Helms, Leach and Palmer. That matter is still under consideration upon the release of the URS report, which we all anxiously await. The second area from which additional yield may come - the member has me on the hop. Hon Peter Foss: They are the national park boundaries. Hon KIM CHANCE: No, that is the third area. I cannot remember the second. Hon Peter Foss: The step-down. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The step-down volumes can be considerable, particularly in karri. A 30 000 cubic metre allocation, for example, for Pemberton, taking account of the step-down volumes, actually becomes 45 000, or a number close to that, all the way through to 2014. The third and separate issue is the matter of the boundaries of the proposed national parks. There is a difference in the policy between those areas that have been described in the policy as the number of hectares that will be reserved and those areas that have been mapped. There are also significant areas in between. In that difference exists the potential for a resolution of boundaries in a more workable manner to make the parks work appropriately and to address any shortfall that might arise from the Conservation Commission’s indication that the volumes in our indicative numbers might not be achievable. I have no reason to believe that will occur; however, there is that option for the Government. The PRESIDENT: I trust the Leader of the House is winding up his answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: Very soon, but it is a big question. The component that the Government does not control is the yield per hectare. It is important for members to understand that a given volume of forest is available for logging. The decisions that will be made outside government essentially relate to the sustainable yield per hectare of that volume of forest. The decision that rests in the Government’s hands - this is very important for members to understand - is the number of hectares available for that sustainable yield to be applied. If, for example, a decision is made that the expected yields, when assessed under ecologically sustainable forest management principles, do not go anywhere near the numbers that we expect are needed by the commercial forest industry, there is the possibility of expanding the number of hectares because of that difference in the two figures relating to reservation.
(3) If so, what is the basis of that belief and from where will the increase come? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1) Yes, I can confirm that that decision has been made about the reserved one per cent of old-growth forest. When the Labor Party announced its old-growth policy during the election campaign, it limited its undertaking to the Western Australian people to reserving 99 per cent of the old-growth forest. The party specifically allowed itself the opportunity to honour contract undertakings by reserving the right to log that 5 500 hectares of old-growth forest. Although those obligations still exist, the Government is satisfied that it can honour them without requiring access to that 5 500 hectares of old-growth forest following indications that there will be significant early step-downs. It has determined that it can do a little better than the undertaking given during the election campaign and move to a 100 per cent reservation. It was always clear that the one per cent reservation was not there for all time; it was there to enable the Government to meet contractual obligations if the need arose. (2) Yes, I have reason to believe that the Government can go beyond those indicative yields, although that is dependent upon decisions made outside of government; that is, it will depend on decisions made during the establishment of a forest management plan. Regrettably, that is not a government decision; it is largely a decision of the Conservation Council of Western Australia and the Environmental Protection Authority. Hon Peter Foss: I hope you mean the commission, not the council. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, that is a very important correction. Hon Barry House: That was a Freudian slip. Hon KIM CHANCE: That part of the question - Hon Peter Foss: Have you just revealed the inner workings of government? Hon KIM CHANCE: No, the slip reflects that the question was put to me outside my portfolio area. The question would be more appropriately directed to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage rather than to me as the Minister for Forestry. I am happy to try to answer that question and I shall explain why. Was that the third part of the question? Hon Peter Foss: Yes. Where will the increase come from? Hon KIM CHANCE: The answer to the third part of the question is - (3) I have explained before in the House that there are three areas from which increased yield could come. Those areas include the parts of the forest that were not taken into account in the calculation of the indicative yield, which are the moratorium blocks - Hon Peter Foss: That is out now. Hon KIM CHANCE: The URS report is out? Hon Peter Foss: No, you have left that out now. Hon KIM CHANCE: No. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a debate. The minister might like to answer the question. Hon KIM CHANCE: Thank you, Mr President. There is a misunderstanding that the one per cent - the 5 500 hectares - took into account the moratorium areas and I believe that misunderstanding arises from the use of the word “moratorium”. In fact, the word “moratorium” applies to two different blocks, for want of a better word. The first moratorium applied to a number of stated blocks that make up the proposed Wellington National Park, which is an area of some 25 000 hectares and therefore considerably larger than the 5 500 that applies to the one per cent. It also applied to a number of other blocks, including Helms, Leach and Palmer. That matter is still under consideration upon the release of the URS report, which we all anxiously await. The second area from which additional yield may come - the member has me on the hop. Hon Peter Foss: They are the national park boundaries. Hon KIM CHANCE: No, that is the third area. I cannot remember the second. Hon Peter Foss: The step-down. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The step-down volumes can be considerable, particularly in karri. A 30 000 cubic metre allocation, for example, for Pemberton, taking account of the step-down volumes, actually becomes 45 000, or a number close to that, all the way through to 2014. The third and separate issue is the matter of the boundaries of the proposed national parks. There is a difference in the policy between those areas that have been described in the policy as the number of hectares that will be reserved and those areas that have been mapped. There are also significant areas in between. In that difference exists the potential for a resolution of boundaries in a more workable manner to make the parks work appropriately and to address any shortfall that might arise from the Conservation Commission’s indication that the volumes in our indicative numbers might not be achievable. I have no reason to believe that will occur; however, there is that option for the Government. The PRESIDENT: I trust the Leader of the House is winding up his answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: Very soon, but it is a big question. The component that the Government does not control is the yield per hectare. It is important for members to understand that a given volume of forest is available for logging. The decisions that will be made outside government essentially relate to the sustainable yield per hectare of that volume of forest. The decision that rests in the Government’s hands - this is very important for members to understand - is the number of hectares available for that sustainable yield to be applied. If, for example, a decision is made that the expected yields, when assessed under ecologically sustainable forest management principles, do not go anywhere near the numbers that we expect are needed by the commercial forest industry, there is the possibility of expanding the number of hectares because of that difference in the two figures relating to reservation.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1) Yes, I can confirm that that decision has been made about the reserved one per cent of old-growth forest. When the Labor Party announced its old-growth policy during the election campaign, it limited its undertaking to the Western Australian people to reserving 99 per cent of the old-growth forest. The party specifically allowed itself the opportunity to honour contract undertakings by reserving the right to log that 5 500 hectares of old-growth forest. Although those obligations still exist, the Government is satisfied that it can honour them without requiring access to that 5 500 hectares of old-growth forest following indications that there will be significant early step-downs. It has determined that it can do a little better than the undertaking given during the election campaign and move to a 100 per cent reservation. It was always clear that the one per cent reservation was not there for all time; it was there to enable the Government to meet contractual obligations if the need arose. (2) Yes, I have reason to believe that the Government can go beyond those indicative yields, although that is dependent upon decisions made outside of government; that is, it will depend on decisions made during the establishment of a forest management plan. Regrettably, that is not a government decision; it is largely a decision of the Conservation Council of Western Australia and the Environmental Protection Authority. Hon Peter Foss: I hope you mean the commission, not the council. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, that is a very important correction. Hon Barry House: That was a Freudian slip. Hon KIM CHANCE: That part of the question - Hon Peter Foss: Have you just revealed the inner workings of government? Hon KIM CHANCE: No, the slip reflects that the question was put to me outside my portfolio area. The question would be more appropriately directed to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage rather than to me as the Minister for Forestry. I am happy to try to answer that question and I shall explain why. Was that the third part of the question? Hon Peter Foss: Yes. Where will the increase come from? Hon KIM CHANCE: The answer to the third part of the question is - (3) I have explained before in the House that there are three areas from which increased yield could come. Those areas include the parts of the forest that were not taken into account in the calculation of the indicative yield, which are the moratorium blocks - Hon Peter Foss: That is out now. Hon KIM CHANCE: The URS report is out? Hon Peter Foss: No, you have left that out now. Hon KIM CHANCE: No. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a debate. The minister might like to answer the question. Hon KIM CHANCE: Thank you, Mr President. There is a misunderstanding that the one per cent - the 5 500 hectares - took into account the moratorium areas and I believe that misunderstanding arises from the use of the word “moratorium”. In fact, the word “moratorium” applies to two different blocks, for want of a better word. The first moratorium applied to a number of stated blocks that make up the proposed Wellington National Park, which is an area of some 25 000 hectares and therefore considerably larger than the 5 500 that applies to the one per cent. It also applied to a number of other blocks, including Helms, Leach and Palmer. That matter is still under consideration upon the release of the URS report, which we all anxiously await. The second area from which additional yield may come - the member has me on the hop. Hon Peter Foss: They are the national park boundaries. Hon KIM CHANCE: No, that is the third area. I cannot remember the second. Hon Peter Foss: The step-down. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The step-down volumes can be considerable, particularly in karri. A 30 000 cubic metre allocation, for example, for Pemberton, taking account of the step-down volumes, actually becomes 45 000, or a number close to that, all the way through to 2014. The third and separate issue is the matter of the boundaries of the proposed national parks. There is a difference in the policy between those areas that have been described in the policy as the number of hectares that will be reserved and those areas that have been mapped. There are also significant areas in between. In that difference exists the potential for a resolution of boundaries in a more workable manner to make the parks work appropriately and to address any shortfall that might arise from the Conservation Commission’s indication that the volumes in our indicative numbers might not be achievable. I have no reason to believe that will occur; however, there is that option for the Government. The PRESIDENT: I trust the Leader of the House is winding up his answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: Very soon, but it is a big question. The component that the Government does not control is the yield per hectare. It is important for members to understand that a given volume of forest is available for logging. The decisions that will be made outside government essentially relate to the sustainable yield per hectare of that volume of forest. The decision that rests in the Government’s hands - this is very important for members to understand - is the number of hectares available for that sustainable yield to be applied. If, for example, a decision is made that the expected yields, when assessed under ecologically sustainable forest management principles, do not go anywhere near the numbers that we expect are needed by the commercial forest industry, there is the possibility of expanding the number of hectares because of that difference in the two figures relating to reservation.
(1) Yes, I can confirm that that decision has been made about the reserved one per cent of old-growth forest. When the Labor Party announced its old-growth policy during the election campaign, it limited its undertaking to the Western Australian people to reserving 99 per cent of the old-growth forest. The party specifically allowed itself the opportunity to honour contract undertakings by reserving the right to log that 5 500 hectares of old-growth forest. Although those obligations still exist, the Government is satisfied that it can honour them without requiring access to that 5 500 hectares of old-growth forest following indications that there will be significant early step-downs. It has determined that it can do a little better than the undertaking given during the election campaign and move to a 100 per cent reservation. It was always clear that the one per cent reservation was not there for all time; it was there to enable the Government to meet contractual obligations if the need arose. (2) Yes, I have reason to believe that the Government can go beyond those indicative yields, although that is dependent upon decisions made outside of government; that is, it will depend on decisions made during the establishment of a forest management plan. Regrettably, that is not a government decision; it is largely a decision of the Conservation Council of Western Australia and the Environmental Protection Authority. Hon Peter Foss: I hope you mean the commission, not the council. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, that is a very important correction. Hon Barry House: That was a Freudian slip. Hon KIM CHANCE: That part of the question - Hon Peter Foss: Have you just revealed the inner workings of government? Hon KIM CHANCE: No, the slip reflects that the question was put to me outside my portfolio area. The question would be more appropriately directed to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage rather than to me as the Minister for Forestry. I am happy to try to answer that question and I shall explain why. Was that the third part of the question? Hon Peter Foss: Yes. Where will the increase come from? Hon KIM CHANCE: The answer to the third part of the question is - (3) I have explained before in the House that there are three areas from which increased yield could come. Those areas include the parts of the forest that were not taken into account in the calculation of the indicative yield, which are the moratorium blocks - Hon Peter Foss: That is out now. Hon KIM CHANCE: The URS report is out? Hon Peter Foss: No, you have left that out now. Hon KIM CHANCE: No. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a debate. The minister might like to answer the question. Hon KIM CHANCE: Thank you, Mr President. There is a misunderstanding that the one per cent - the 5 500 hectares - took into account the moratorium areas and I believe that misunderstanding arises from the use of the word “moratorium”. In fact, the word “moratorium” applies to two different blocks, for want of a better word. The first moratorium applied to a number of stated blocks that make up the proposed Wellington National Park, which is an area of some 25 000 hectares and therefore considerably larger than the 5 500 that applies to the one per cent. It also applied to a number of other blocks, including Helms, Leach and Palmer. That matter is still under consideration upon the release of the URS report, which we all anxiously await. The second area from which additional yield may come - the member has me on the hop. Hon Peter Foss: They are the national park boundaries. Hon KIM CHANCE: No, that is the third area. I cannot remember the second. Hon Peter Foss: The step-down. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The step-down volumes can be considerable, particularly in karri. A 30 000 cubic metre allocation, for example, for Pemberton, taking account of the step-down volumes, actually becomes 45 000, or a number close to that, all the way through to 2014. The third and separate issue is the matter of the boundaries of the proposed national parks. There is a difference in the policy between those areas that have been described in the policy as the number of hectares that will be reserved and those areas that have been mapped. There are also significant areas in between. In that difference exists the potential for a resolution of boundaries in a more workable manner to make the parks work appropriately and to address any shortfall that might arise from the Conservation Commission’s indication that the volumes in our indicative numbers might not be achievable. I have no reason to believe that will occur; however, there is that option for the Government. The PRESIDENT: I trust the Leader of the House is winding up his answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: Very soon, but it is a big question. The component that the Government does not control is the yield per hectare. It is important for members to understand that a given volume of forest is available for logging. The decisions that will be made outside government essentially relate to the sustainable yield per hectare of that volume of forest. The decision that rests in the Government’s hands - this is very important for members to understand - is the number of hectares available for that sustainable yield to be applied. If, for example, a decision is made that the expected yields, when assessed under ecologically sustainable forest management principles, do not go anywhere near the numbers that we expect are needed by the commercial forest industry, there is the possibility of expanding the number of hectares because of that difference in the two figures relating to reservation.
(2) Yes, I have reason to believe that the Government can go beyond those indicative yields, although that is dependent upon decisions made outside of government; that is, it will depend on decisions made during the establishment of a forest management plan. Regrettably, that is not a government decision; it is largely a decision of the Conservation Council of Western Australia and the Environmental Protection Authority. Hon Peter Foss: I hope you mean the commission, not the council. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, that is a very important correction. Hon Barry House: That was a Freudian slip. Hon KIM CHANCE: That part of the question - Hon Peter Foss: Have you just revealed the inner workings of government? Hon KIM CHANCE: No, the slip reflects that the question was put to me outside my portfolio area. The question would be more appropriately directed to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage rather than to me as the Minister for Forestry. I am happy to try to answer that question and I shall explain why. Was that the third part of the question? Hon Peter Foss: Yes. Where will the increase come from? Hon KIM CHANCE: The answer to the third part of the question is - (3) I have explained before in the House that there are three areas from which increased yield could come. Those areas include the parts of the forest that were not taken into account in the calculation of the indicative yield, which are the moratorium blocks - Hon Peter Foss: That is out now. Hon KIM CHANCE: The URS report is out? Hon Peter Foss: No, you have left that out now. Hon KIM CHANCE: No. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a debate. The minister might like to answer the question. Hon KIM CHANCE: Thank you, Mr President. There is a misunderstanding that the one per cent - the 5 500 hectares - took into account the moratorium areas and I believe that misunderstanding arises from the use of the word “moratorium”. In fact, the word “moratorium” applies to two different blocks, for want of a better word. The first moratorium applied to a number of stated blocks that make up the proposed Wellington National Park, which is an area of some 25 000 hectares and therefore considerably larger than the 5 500 that applies to the one per cent. It also applied to a number of other blocks, including Helms, Leach and Palmer. That matter is still under consideration upon the release of the URS report, which we all anxiously await. The second area from which additional yield may come - the member has me on the hop. Hon Peter Foss: They are the national park boundaries. Hon KIM CHANCE: No, that is the third area. I cannot remember the second. Hon Peter Foss: The step-down. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The step-down volumes can be considerable, particularly in karri. A 30 000 cubic metre allocation, for example, for Pemberton, taking account of the step-down volumes, actually becomes 45 000, or a number close to that, all the way through to 2014. The third and separate issue is the matter of the boundaries of the proposed national parks. There is a difference in the policy between those areas that have been described in the policy as the number of hectares that will be reserved and those areas that have been mapped. There are also significant areas in between. In that difference exists the potential for a resolution of boundaries in a more workable manner to make the parks work appropriately and to address any shortfall that might arise from the Conservation Commission’s indication that the volumes in our indicative numbers might not be achievable. I have no reason to believe that will occur; however, there is that option for the Government. The PRESIDENT: I trust the Leader of the House is winding up his answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: Very soon, but it is a big question. The component that the Government does not control is the yield per hectare. It is important for members to understand that a given volume of forest is available for logging. The decisions that will be made outside government essentially relate to the sustainable yield per hectare of that volume of forest. The decision that rests in the Government’s hands - this is very important for members to understand - is the number of hectares available for that sustainable yield to be applied. If, for example, a decision is made that the expected yields, when assessed under ecologically sustainable forest management principles, do not go anywhere near the numbers that we expect are needed by the commercial forest industry, there is the possibility of expanding the number of hectares because of that difference in the two figures relating to reservation.
Hon Peter Foss: I hope you mean the commission, not the council. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, that is a very important correction. Hon Barry House: That was a Freudian slip. Hon KIM CHANCE: That part of the question - Hon Peter Foss: Have you just revealed the inner workings of government? Hon KIM CHANCE: No, the slip reflects that the question was put to me outside my portfolio area. The question would be more appropriately directed to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage rather than to me as the Minister for Forestry. I am happy to try to answer that question and I shall explain why. Was that the third part of the question? Hon Peter Foss: Yes. Where will the increase come from? Hon KIM CHANCE: The answer to the third part of the question is - (3) I have explained before in the House that there are three areas from which increased yield could come. Those areas include the parts of the forest that were not taken into account in the calculation of the indicative yield, which are the moratorium blocks - Hon Peter Foss: That is out now. Hon KIM CHANCE: The URS report is out? Hon Peter Foss: No, you have left that out now. Hon KIM CHANCE: No. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a debate. The minister might like to answer the question. Hon KIM CHANCE: Thank you, Mr President. There is a misunderstanding that the one per cent - the 5 500 hectares - took into account the moratorium areas and I believe that misunderstanding arises from the use of the word “moratorium”. In fact, the word “moratorium” applies to two different blocks, for want of a better word. The first moratorium applied to a number of stated blocks that make up the proposed Wellington National Park, which is an area of some 25 000 hectares and therefore considerably larger than the 5 500 that applies to the one per cent. It also applied to a number of other blocks, including Helms, Leach and Palmer. That matter is still under consideration upon the release of the URS report, which we all anxiously await. The second area from which additional yield may come - the member has me on the hop. Hon Peter Foss: They are the national park boundaries. Hon KIM CHANCE: No, that is the third area. I cannot remember the second. Hon Peter Foss: The step-down. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The step-down volumes can be considerable, particularly in karri. A 30 000 cubic metre allocation, for example, for Pemberton, taking account of the step-down volumes, actually becomes 45 000, or a number close to that, all the way through to 2014. The third and separate issue is the matter of the boundaries of the proposed national parks. There is a difference in the policy between those areas that have been described in the policy as the number of hectares that will be reserved and those areas that have been mapped. There are also significant areas in between. In that difference exists the potential for a resolution of boundaries in a more workable manner to make the parks work appropriately and to address any shortfall that might arise from the Conservation Commission’s indication that the volumes in our indicative numbers might not be achievable. I have no reason to believe that will occur; however, there is that option for the Government. The PRESIDENT: I trust the Leader of the House is winding up his answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: Very soon, but it is a big question. The component that the Government does not control is the yield per hectare. It is important for members to understand that a given volume of forest is available for logging. The decisions that will be made outside government essentially relate to the sustainable yield per hectare of that volume of forest. The decision that rests in the Government’s hands - this is very important for members to understand - is the number of hectares available for that sustainable yield to be applied. If, for example, a decision is made that the expected yields, when assessed under ecologically sustainable forest management principles, do not go anywhere near the numbers that we expect are needed by the commercial forest industry, there is the possibility of expanding the number of hectares because of that difference in the two figures relating to reservation.
Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, that is a very important correction. Hon Barry House: That was a Freudian slip. Hon KIM CHANCE: That part of the question - Hon Peter Foss: Have you just revealed the inner workings of government? Hon KIM CHANCE: No, the slip reflects that the question was put to me outside my portfolio area. The question would be more appropriately directed to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage rather than to me as the Minister for Forestry. I am happy to try to answer that question and I shall explain why. Was that the third part of the question? Hon Peter Foss: Yes. Where will the increase come from? Hon KIM CHANCE: The answer to the third part of the question is - (3) I have explained before in the House that there are three areas from which increased yield could come. Those areas include the parts of the forest that were not taken into account in the calculation of the indicative yield, which are the moratorium blocks - Hon Peter Foss: That is out now. Hon KIM CHANCE: The URS report is out? Hon Peter Foss: No, you have left that out now. Hon KIM CHANCE: No. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a debate. The minister might like to answer the question. Hon KIM CHANCE: Thank you, Mr President. There is a misunderstanding that the one per cent - the 5 500 hectares - took into account the moratorium areas and I believe that misunderstanding arises from the use of the word “moratorium”. In fact, the word “moratorium” applies to two different blocks, for want of a better word. The first moratorium applied to a number of stated blocks that make up the proposed Wellington National Park, which is an area of some 25 000 hectares and therefore considerably larger than the 5 500 that applies to the one per cent. It also applied to a number of other blocks, including Helms, Leach and Palmer. That matter is still under consideration upon the release of the URS report, which we all anxiously await. The second area from which additional yield may come - the member has me on the hop. Hon Peter Foss: They are the national park boundaries. Hon KIM CHANCE: No, that is the third area. I cannot remember the second. Hon Peter Foss: The step-down. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The step-down volumes can be considerable, particularly in karri. A 30 000 cubic metre allocation, for example, for Pemberton, taking account of the step-down volumes, actually becomes 45 000, or a number close to that, all the way through to 2014. The third and separate issue is the matter of the boundaries of the proposed national parks. There is a difference in the policy between those areas that have been described in the policy as the number of hectares that will be reserved and those areas that have been mapped. There are also significant areas in between. In that difference exists the potential for a resolution of boundaries in a more workable manner to make the parks work appropriately and to address any shortfall that might arise from the Conservation Commission’s indication that the volumes in our indicative numbers might not be achievable. I have no reason to believe that will occur; however, there is that option for the Government. The PRESIDENT: I trust the Leader of the House is winding up his answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: Very soon, but it is a big question. The component that the Government does not control is the yield per hectare. It is important for members to understand that a given volume of forest is available for logging. The decisions that will be made outside government essentially relate to the sustainable yield per hectare of that volume of forest. The decision that rests in the Government’s hands - this is very important for members to understand - is the number of hectares available for that sustainable yield to be applied. If, for example, a decision is made that the expected yields, when assessed under ecologically sustainable forest management principles, do not go anywhere near the numbers that we expect are needed by the commercial forest industry, there is the possibility of expanding the number of hectares because of that difference in the two figures relating to reservation.
Hon Barry House: That was a Freudian slip. Hon KIM CHANCE: That part of the question - Hon Peter Foss: Have you just revealed the inner workings of government? Hon KIM CHANCE: No, the slip reflects that the question was put to me outside my portfolio area. The question would be more appropriately directed to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage rather than to me as the Minister for Forestry. I am happy to try to answer that question and I shall explain why. Was that the third part of the question? Hon Peter Foss: Yes. Where will the increase come from? Hon KIM CHANCE: The answer to the third part of the question is - (3) I have explained before in the House that there are three areas from which increased yield could come. Those areas include the parts of the forest that were not taken into account in the calculation of the indicative yield, which are the moratorium blocks - Hon Peter Foss: That is out now. Hon KIM CHANCE: The URS report is out? Hon Peter Foss: No, you have left that out now. Hon KIM CHANCE: No. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a debate. The minister might like to answer the question. Hon KIM CHANCE: Thank you, Mr President. There is a misunderstanding that the one per cent - the 5 500 hectares - took into account the moratorium areas and I believe that misunderstanding arises from the use of the word “moratorium”. In fact, the word “moratorium” applies to two different blocks, for want of a better word. The first moratorium applied to a number of stated blocks that make up the proposed Wellington National Park, which is an area of some 25 000 hectares and therefore considerably larger than the 5 500 that applies to the one per cent. It also applied to a number of other blocks, including Helms, Leach and Palmer. That matter is still under consideration upon the release of the URS report, which we all anxiously await. The second area from which additional yield may come - the member has me on the hop. Hon Peter Foss: They are the national park boundaries. Hon KIM CHANCE: No, that is the third area. I cannot remember the second. Hon Peter Foss: The step-down. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The step-down volumes can be considerable, particularly in karri. A 30 000 cubic metre allocation, for example, for Pemberton, taking account of the step-down volumes, actually becomes 45 000, or a number close to that, all the way through to 2014. The third and separate issue is the matter of the boundaries of the proposed national parks. There is a difference in the policy between those areas that have been described in the policy as the number of hectares that will be reserved and those areas that have been mapped. There are also significant areas in between. In that difference exists the potential for a resolution of boundaries in a more workable manner to make the parks work appropriately and to address any shortfall that might arise from the Conservation Commission’s indication that the volumes in our indicative numbers might not be achievable. I have no reason to believe that will occur; however, there is that option for the Government. The PRESIDENT: I trust the Leader of the House is winding up his answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: Very soon, but it is a big question. The component that the Government does not control is the yield per hectare. It is important for members to understand that a given volume of forest is available for logging. The decisions that will be made outside government essentially relate to the sustainable yield per hectare of that volume of forest. The decision that rests in the Government’s hands - this is very important for members to understand - is the number of hectares available for that sustainable yield to be applied. If, for example, a decision is made that the expected yields, when assessed under ecologically sustainable forest management principles, do not go anywhere near the numbers that we expect are needed by the commercial forest industry, there is the possibility of expanding the number of hectares because of that difference in the two figures relating to reservation.
Hon KIM CHANCE: That part of the question - Hon Peter Foss: Have you just revealed the inner workings of government? Hon KIM CHANCE: No, the slip reflects that the question was put to me outside my portfolio area. The question would be more appropriately directed to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage rather than to me as the Minister for Forestry. I am happy to try to answer that question and I shall explain why. Was that the third part of the question? Hon Peter Foss: Yes. Where will the increase come from? Hon KIM CHANCE: The answer to the third part of the question is - (3) I have explained before in the House that there are three areas from which increased yield could come. Those areas include the parts of the forest that were not taken into account in the calculation of the indicative yield, which are the moratorium blocks - Hon Peter Foss: That is out now. Hon KIM CHANCE: The URS report is out? Hon Peter Foss: No, you have left that out now. Hon KIM CHANCE: No. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a debate. The minister might like to answer the question. Hon KIM CHANCE: Thank you, Mr President. There is a misunderstanding that the one per cent - the 5 500 hectares - took into account the moratorium areas and I believe that misunderstanding arises from the use of the word “moratorium”. In fact, the word “moratorium” applies to two different blocks, for want of a better word. The first moratorium applied to a number of stated blocks that make up the proposed Wellington National Park, which is an area of some 25 000 hectares and therefore considerably larger than the 5 500 that applies to the one per cent. It also applied to a number of other blocks, including Helms, Leach and Palmer. That matter is still under consideration upon the release of the URS report, which we all anxiously await. The second area from which additional yield may come - the member has me on the hop. Hon Peter Foss: They are the national park boundaries. Hon KIM CHANCE: No, that is the third area. I cannot remember the second. Hon Peter Foss: The step-down. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The step-down volumes can be considerable, particularly in karri. A 30 000 cubic metre allocation, for example, for Pemberton, taking account of the step-down volumes, actually becomes 45 000, or a number close to that, all the way through to 2014. The third and separate issue is the matter of the boundaries of the proposed national parks. There is a difference in the policy between those areas that have been described in the policy as the number of hectares that will be reserved and those areas that have been mapped. There are also significant areas in between. In that difference exists the potential for a resolution of boundaries in a more workable manner to make the parks work appropriately and to address any shortfall that might arise from the Conservation Commission’s indication that the volumes in our indicative numbers might not be achievable. I have no reason to believe that will occur; however, there is that option for the Government. The PRESIDENT: I trust the Leader of the House is winding up his answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: Very soon, but it is a big question. The component that the Government does not control is the yield per hectare. It is important for members to understand that a given volume of forest is available for logging. The decisions that will be made outside government essentially relate to the sustainable yield per hectare of that volume of forest. The decision that rests in the Government’s hands - this is very important for members to understand - is the number of hectares available for that sustainable yield to be applied. If, for example, a decision is made that the expected yields, when assessed under ecologically sustainable forest management principles, do not go anywhere near the numbers that we expect are needed by the commercial forest industry, there is the possibility of expanding the number of hectares because of that difference in the two figures relating to reservation.
Hon Peter Foss: Have you just revealed the inner workings of government? Hon KIM CHANCE: No, the slip reflects that the question was put to me outside my portfolio area. The question would be more appropriately directed to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage rather than to me as the Minister for Forestry. I am happy to try to answer that question and I shall explain why. Was that the third part of the question? Hon Peter Foss: Yes. Where will the increase come from? Hon KIM CHANCE: The answer to the third part of the question is - (3) I have explained before in the House that there are three areas from which increased yield could come. Those areas include the parts of the forest that were not taken into account in the calculation of the indicative yield, which are the moratorium blocks - Hon Peter Foss: That is out now. Hon KIM CHANCE: The URS report is out? Hon Peter Foss: No, you have left that out now. Hon KIM CHANCE: No. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a debate. The minister might like to answer the question. Hon KIM CHANCE: Thank you, Mr President. There is a misunderstanding that the one per cent - the 5 500 hectares - took into account the moratorium areas and I believe that misunderstanding arises from the use of the word “moratorium”. In fact, the word “moratorium” applies to two different blocks, for want of a better word. The first moratorium applied to a number of stated blocks that make up the proposed Wellington National Park, which is an area of some 25 000 hectares and therefore considerably larger than the 5 500 that applies to the one per cent. It also applied to a number of other blocks, including Helms, Leach and Palmer. That matter is still under consideration upon the release of the URS report, which we all anxiously await. The second area from which additional yield may come - the member has me on the hop. Hon Peter Foss: They are the national park boundaries. Hon KIM CHANCE: No, that is the third area. I cannot remember the second. Hon Peter Foss: The step-down. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The step-down volumes can be considerable, particularly in karri. A 30 000 cubic metre allocation, for example, for Pemberton, taking account of the step-down volumes, actually becomes 45 000, or a number close to that, all the way through to 2014. The third and separate issue is the matter of the boundaries of the proposed national parks. There is a difference in the policy between those areas that have been described in the policy as the number of hectares that will be reserved and those areas that have been mapped. There are also significant areas in between. In that difference exists the potential for a resolution of boundaries in a more workable manner to make the parks work appropriately and to address any shortfall that might arise from the Conservation Commission’s indication that the volumes in our indicative numbers might not be achievable. I have no reason to believe that will occur; however, there is that option for the Government. The PRESIDENT: I trust the Leader of the House is winding up his answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: Very soon, but it is a big question. The component that the Government does not control is the yield per hectare. It is important for members to understand that a given volume of forest is available for logging. The decisions that will be made outside government essentially relate to the sustainable yield per hectare of that volume of forest. The decision that rests in the Government’s hands - this is very important for members to understand - is the number of hectares available for that sustainable yield to be applied. If, for example, a decision is made that the expected yields, when assessed under ecologically sustainable forest management principles, do not go anywhere near the numbers that we expect are needed by the commercial forest industry, there is the possibility of expanding the number of hectares because of that difference in the two figures relating to reservation.
Hon KIM CHANCE: No, the slip reflects that the question was put to me outside my portfolio area. The question would be more appropriately directed to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage rather than to me as the Minister for Forestry. I am happy to try to answer that question and I shall explain why. Was that the third part of the question? Hon Peter Foss: Yes. Where will the increase come from? Hon KIM CHANCE: The answer to the third part of the question is - (3) I have explained before in the House that there are three areas from which increased yield could come. Those areas include the parts of the forest that were not taken into account in the calculation of the indicative yield, which are the moratorium blocks - Hon Peter Foss: That is out now. Hon KIM CHANCE: The URS report is out? Hon Peter Foss: No, you have left that out now. Hon KIM CHANCE: No. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a debate. The minister might like to answer the question. Hon KIM CHANCE: Thank you, Mr President. There is a misunderstanding that the one per cent - the 5 500 hectares - took into account the moratorium areas and I believe that misunderstanding arises from the use of the word “moratorium”. In fact, the word “moratorium” applies to two different blocks, for want of a better word. The first moratorium applied to a number of stated blocks that make up the proposed Wellington National Park, which is an area of some 25 000 hectares and therefore considerably larger than the 5 500 that applies to the one per cent. It also applied to a number of other blocks, including Helms, Leach and Palmer. That matter is still under consideration upon the release of the URS report, which we all anxiously await. The second area from which additional yield may come - the member has me on the hop. Hon Peter Foss: They are the national park boundaries. Hon KIM CHANCE: No, that is the third area. I cannot remember the second. Hon Peter Foss: The step-down. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The step-down volumes can be considerable, particularly in karri. A 30 000 cubic metre allocation, for example, for Pemberton, taking account of the step-down volumes, actually becomes 45 000, or a number close to that, all the way through to 2014. The third and separate issue is the matter of the boundaries of the proposed national parks. There is a difference in the policy between those areas that have been described in the policy as the number of hectares that will be reserved and those areas that have been mapped. There are also significant areas in between. In that difference exists the potential for a resolution of boundaries in a more workable manner to make the parks work appropriately and to address any shortfall that might arise from the Conservation Commission’s indication that the volumes in our indicative numbers might not be achievable. I have no reason to believe that will occur; however, there is that option for the Government. The PRESIDENT: I trust the Leader of the House is winding up his answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: Very soon, but it is a big question. The component that the Government does not control is the yield per hectare. It is important for members to understand that a given volume of forest is available for logging. The decisions that will be made outside government essentially relate to the sustainable yield per hectare of that volume of forest. The decision that rests in the Government’s hands - this is very important for members to understand - is the number of hectares available for that sustainable yield to be applied. If, for example, a decision is made that the expected yields, when assessed under ecologically sustainable forest management principles, do not go anywhere near the numbers that we expect are needed by the commercial forest industry, there is the possibility of expanding the number of hectares because of that difference in the two figures relating to reservation.
Hon Peter Foss: Yes. Where will the increase come from? Hon KIM CHANCE: The answer to the third part of the question is - (3) I have explained before in the House that there are three areas from which increased yield could come. Those areas include the parts of the forest that were not taken into account in the calculation of the indicative yield, which are the moratorium blocks - Hon Peter Foss: That is out now. Hon KIM CHANCE: The URS report is out? Hon Peter Foss: No, you have left that out now. Hon KIM CHANCE: No. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a debate. The minister might like to answer the question. Hon KIM CHANCE: Thank you, Mr President. There is a misunderstanding that the one per cent - the 5 500 hectares - took into account the moratorium areas and I believe that misunderstanding arises from the use of the word “moratorium”. In fact, the word “moratorium” applies to two different blocks, for want of a better word. The first moratorium applied to a number of stated blocks that make up the proposed Wellington National Park, which is an area of some 25 000 hectares and therefore considerably larger than the 5 500 that applies to the one per cent. It also applied to a number of other blocks, including Helms, Leach and Palmer. That matter is still under consideration upon the release of the URS report, which we all anxiously await. The second area from which additional yield may come - the member has me on the hop. Hon Peter Foss: They are the national park boundaries. Hon KIM CHANCE: No, that is the third area. I cannot remember the second. Hon Peter Foss: The step-down. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The step-down volumes can be considerable, particularly in karri. A 30 000 cubic metre allocation, for example, for Pemberton, taking account of the step-down volumes, actually becomes 45 000, or a number close to that, all the way through to 2014. The third and separate issue is the matter of the boundaries of the proposed national parks. There is a difference in the policy between those areas that have been described in the policy as the number of hectares that will be reserved and those areas that have been mapped. There are also significant areas in between. In that difference exists the potential for a resolution of boundaries in a more workable manner to make the parks work appropriately and to address any shortfall that might arise from the Conservation Commission’s indication that the volumes in our indicative numbers might not be achievable. I have no reason to believe that will occur; however, there is that option for the Government. The PRESIDENT: I trust the Leader of the House is winding up his answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: Very soon, but it is a big question. The component that the Government does not control is the yield per hectare. It is important for members to understand that a given volume of forest is available for logging. The decisions that will be made outside government essentially relate to the sustainable yield per hectare of that volume of forest. The decision that rests in the Government’s hands - this is very important for members to understand - is the number of hectares available for that sustainable yield to be applied. If, for example, a decision is made that the expected yields, when assessed under ecologically sustainable forest management principles, do not go anywhere near the numbers that we expect are needed by the commercial forest industry, there is the possibility of expanding the number of hectares because of that difference in the two figures relating to reservation.
Hon KIM CHANCE: The answer to the third part of the question is - (3) I have explained before in the House that there are three areas from which increased yield could come. Those areas include the parts of the forest that were not taken into account in the calculation of the indicative yield, which are the moratorium blocks - Hon Peter Foss: That is out now. Hon KIM CHANCE: The URS report is out? Hon Peter Foss: No, you have left that out now. Hon KIM CHANCE: No. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a debate. The minister might like to answer the question. Hon KIM CHANCE: Thank you, Mr President. There is a misunderstanding that the one per cent - the 5 500 hectares - took into account the moratorium areas and I believe that misunderstanding arises from the use of the word “moratorium”. In fact, the word “moratorium” applies to two different blocks, for want of a better word. The first moratorium applied to a number of stated blocks that make up the proposed Wellington National Park, which is an area of some 25 000 hectares and therefore considerably larger than the 5 500 that applies to the one per cent. It also applied to a number of other blocks, including Helms, Leach and Palmer. That matter is still under consideration upon the release of the URS report, which we all anxiously await. The second area from which additional yield may come - the member has me on the hop. Hon Peter Foss: They are the national park boundaries. Hon KIM CHANCE: No, that is the third area. I cannot remember the second. Hon Peter Foss: The step-down. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The step-down volumes can be considerable, particularly in karri. A 30 000 cubic metre allocation, for example, for Pemberton, taking account of the step-down volumes, actually becomes 45 000, or a number close to that, all the way through to 2014. The third and separate issue is the matter of the boundaries of the proposed national parks. There is a difference in the policy between those areas that have been described in the policy as the number of hectares that will be reserved and those areas that have been mapped. There are also significant areas in between. In that difference exists the potential for a resolution of boundaries in a more workable manner to make the parks work appropriately and to address any shortfall that might arise from the Conservation Commission’s indication that the volumes in our indicative numbers might not be achievable. I have no reason to believe that will occur; however, there is that option for the Government. The PRESIDENT: I trust the Leader of the House is winding up his answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: Very soon, but it is a big question. The component that the Government does not control is the yield per hectare. It is important for members to understand that a given volume of forest is available for logging. The decisions that will be made outside government essentially relate to the sustainable yield per hectare of that volume of forest. The decision that rests in the Government’s hands - this is very important for members to understand - is the number of hectares available for that sustainable yield to be applied. If, for example, a decision is made that the expected yields, when assessed under ecologically sustainable forest management principles, do not go anywhere near the numbers that we expect are needed by the commercial forest industry, there is the possibility of expanding the number of hectares because of that difference in the two figures relating to reservation.
(3) I have explained before in the House that there are three areas from which increased yield could come. Those areas include the parts of the forest that were not taken into account in the calculation of the indicative yield, which are the moratorium blocks - Hon Peter Foss: That is out now. Hon KIM CHANCE: The URS report is out? Hon Peter Foss: No, you have left that out now. Hon KIM CHANCE: No. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a debate. The minister might like to answer the question. Hon KIM CHANCE: Thank you, Mr President. There is a misunderstanding that the one per cent - the 5 500 hectares - took into account the moratorium areas and I believe that misunderstanding arises from the use of the word “moratorium”. In fact, the word “moratorium” applies to two different blocks, for want of a better word. The first moratorium applied to a number of stated blocks that make up the proposed Wellington National Park, which is an area of some 25 000 hectares and therefore considerably larger than the 5 500 that applies to the one per cent. It also applied to a number of other blocks, including Helms, Leach and Palmer. That matter is still under consideration upon the release of the URS report, which we all anxiously await. The second area from which additional yield may come - the member has me on the hop. Hon Peter Foss: They are the national park boundaries. Hon KIM CHANCE: No, that is the third area. I cannot remember the second. Hon Peter Foss: The step-down. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The step-down volumes can be considerable, particularly in karri. A 30 000 cubic metre allocation, for example, for Pemberton, taking account of the step-down volumes, actually becomes 45 000, or a number close to that, all the way through to 2014. The third and separate issue is the matter of the boundaries of the proposed national parks. There is a difference in the policy between those areas that have been described in the policy as the number of hectares that will be reserved and those areas that have been mapped. There are also significant areas in between. In that difference exists the potential for a resolution of boundaries in a more workable manner to make the parks work appropriately and to address any shortfall that might arise from the Conservation Commission’s indication that the volumes in our indicative numbers might not be achievable. I have no reason to believe that will occur; however, there is that option for the Government. The PRESIDENT: I trust the Leader of the House is winding up his answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: Very soon, but it is a big question. The component that the Government does not control is the yield per hectare. It is important for members to understand that a given volume of forest is available for logging. The decisions that will be made outside government essentially relate to the sustainable yield per hectare of that volume of forest. The decision that rests in the Government’s hands - this is very important for members to understand - is the number of hectares available for that sustainable yield to be applied. If, for example, a decision is made that the expected yields, when assessed under ecologically sustainable forest management principles, do not go anywhere near the numbers that we expect are needed by the commercial forest industry, there is the possibility of expanding the number of hectares because of that difference in the two figures relating to reservation.
Hon Peter Foss: That is out now. Hon KIM CHANCE: The URS report is out? Hon Peter Foss: No, you have left that out now. Hon KIM CHANCE: No. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a debate. The minister might like to answer the question. Hon KIM CHANCE: Thank you, Mr President. There is a misunderstanding that the one per cent - the 5 500 hectares - took into account the moratorium areas and I believe that misunderstanding arises from the use of the word “moratorium”. In fact, the word “moratorium” applies to two different blocks, for want of a better word. The first moratorium applied to a number of stated blocks that make up the proposed Wellington National Park, which is an area of some 25 000 hectares and therefore considerably larger than the 5 500 that applies to the one per cent. It also applied to a number of other blocks, including Helms, Leach and Palmer. That matter is still under consideration upon the release of the URS report, which we all anxiously await. The second area from which additional yield may come - the member has me on the hop. Hon Peter Foss: They are the national park boundaries. Hon KIM CHANCE: No, that is the third area. I cannot remember the second. Hon Peter Foss: The step-down. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The step-down volumes can be considerable, particularly in karri. A 30 000 cubic metre allocation, for example, for Pemberton, taking account of the step-down volumes, actually becomes 45 000, or a number close to that, all the way through to 2014. The third and separate issue is the matter of the boundaries of the proposed national parks. There is a difference in the policy between those areas that have been described in the policy as the number of hectares that will be reserved and those areas that have been mapped. There are also significant areas in between. In that difference exists the potential for a resolution of boundaries in a more workable manner to make the parks work appropriately and to address any shortfall that might arise from the Conservation Commission’s indication that the volumes in our indicative numbers might not be achievable. I have no reason to believe that will occur; however, there is that option for the Government. The PRESIDENT: I trust the Leader of the House is winding up his answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: Very soon, but it is a big question. The component that the Government does not control is the yield per hectare. It is important for members to understand that a given volume of forest is available for logging. The decisions that will be made outside government essentially relate to the sustainable yield per hectare of that volume of forest. The decision that rests in the Government’s hands - this is very important for members to understand - is the number of hectares available for that sustainable yield to be applied. If, for example, a decision is made that the expected yields, when assessed under ecologically sustainable forest management principles, do not go anywhere near the numbers that we expect are needed by the commercial forest industry, there is the possibility of expanding the number of hectares because of that difference in the two figures relating to reservation.
Hon KIM CHANCE: The URS report is out? Hon Peter Foss: No, you have left that out now. Hon KIM CHANCE: No. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a debate. The minister might like to answer the question. Hon KIM CHANCE: Thank you, Mr President. There is a misunderstanding that the one per cent - the 5 500 hectares - took into account the moratorium areas and I believe that misunderstanding arises from the use of the word “moratorium”. In fact, the word “moratorium” applies to two different blocks, for want of a better word. The first moratorium applied to a number of stated blocks that make up the proposed Wellington National Park, which is an area of some 25 000 hectares and therefore considerably larger than the 5 500 that applies to the one per cent. It also applied to a number of other blocks, including Helms, Leach and Palmer. That matter is still under consideration upon the release of the URS report, which we all anxiously await. The second area from which additional yield may come - the member has me on the hop. Hon Peter Foss: They are the national park boundaries. Hon KIM CHANCE: No, that is the third area. I cannot remember the second. Hon Peter Foss: The step-down. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The step-down volumes can be considerable, particularly in karri. A 30 000 cubic metre allocation, for example, for Pemberton, taking account of the step-down volumes, actually becomes 45 000, or a number close to that, all the way through to 2014. The third and separate issue is the matter of the boundaries of the proposed national parks. There is a difference in the policy between those areas that have been described in the policy as the number of hectares that will be reserved and those areas that have been mapped. There are also significant areas in between. In that difference exists the potential for a resolution of boundaries in a more workable manner to make the parks work appropriately and to address any shortfall that might arise from the Conservation Commission’s indication that the volumes in our indicative numbers might not be achievable. I have no reason to believe that will occur; however, there is that option for the Government. The PRESIDENT: I trust the Leader of the House is winding up his answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: Very soon, but it is a big question. The component that the Government does not control is the yield per hectare. It is important for members to understand that a given volume of forest is available for logging. The decisions that will be made outside government essentially relate to the sustainable yield per hectare of that volume of forest. The decision that rests in the Government’s hands - this is very important for members to understand - is the number of hectares available for that sustainable yield to be applied. If, for example, a decision is made that the expected yields, when assessed under ecologically sustainable forest management principles, do not go anywhere near the numbers that we expect are needed by the commercial forest industry, there is the possibility of expanding the number of hectares because of that difference in the two figures relating to reservation.
Hon Peter Foss: No, you have left that out now. Hon KIM CHANCE: No. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a debate. The minister might like to answer the question. Hon KIM CHANCE: Thank you, Mr President. There is a misunderstanding that the one per cent - the 5 500 hectares - took into account the moratorium areas and I believe that misunderstanding arises from the use of the word “moratorium”. In fact, the word “moratorium” applies to two different blocks, for want of a better word. The first moratorium applied to a number of stated blocks that make up the proposed Wellington National Park, which is an area of some 25 000 hectares and therefore considerably larger than the 5 500 that applies to the one per cent. It also applied to a number of other blocks, including Helms, Leach and Palmer. That matter is still under consideration upon the release of the URS report, which we all anxiously await. The second area from which additional yield may come - the member has me on the hop. Hon Peter Foss: They are the national park boundaries. Hon KIM CHANCE: No, that is the third area. I cannot remember the second. Hon Peter Foss: The step-down. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The step-down volumes can be considerable, particularly in karri. A 30 000 cubic metre allocation, for example, for Pemberton, taking account of the step-down volumes, actually becomes 45 000, or a number close to that, all the way through to 2014. The third and separate issue is the matter of the boundaries of the proposed national parks. There is a difference in the policy between those areas that have been described in the policy as the number of hectares that will be reserved and those areas that have been mapped. There are also significant areas in between. In that difference exists the potential for a resolution of boundaries in a more workable manner to make the parks work appropriately and to address any shortfall that might arise from the Conservation Commission’s indication that the volumes in our indicative numbers might not be achievable. I have no reason to believe that will occur; however, there is that option for the Government. The PRESIDENT: I trust the Leader of the House is winding up his answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: Very soon, but it is a big question. The component that the Government does not control is the yield per hectare. It is important for members to understand that a given volume of forest is available for logging. The decisions that will be made outside government essentially relate to the sustainable yield per hectare of that volume of forest. The decision that rests in the Government’s hands - this is very important for members to understand - is the number of hectares available for that sustainable yield to be applied. If, for example, a decision is made that the expected yields, when assessed under ecologically sustainable forest management principles, do not go anywhere near the numbers that we expect are needed by the commercial forest industry, there is the possibility of expanding the number of hectares because of that difference in the two figures relating to reservation.
Hon KIM CHANCE: No. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a debate. The minister might like to answer the question. Hon KIM CHANCE: Thank you, Mr President. There is a misunderstanding that the one per cent - the 5 500 hectares - took into account the moratorium areas and I believe that misunderstanding arises from the use of the word “moratorium”. In fact, the word “moratorium” applies to two different blocks, for want of a better word. The first moratorium applied to a number of stated blocks that make up the proposed Wellington National Park, which is an area of some 25 000 hectares and therefore considerably larger than the 5 500 that applies to the one per cent. It also applied to a number of other blocks, including Helms, Leach and Palmer. That matter is still under consideration upon the release of the URS report, which we all anxiously await. The second area from which additional yield may come - the member has me on the hop. Hon Peter Foss: They are the national park boundaries. Hon KIM CHANCE: No, that is the third area. I cannot remember the second. Hon Peter Foss: The step-down. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The step-down volumes can be considerable, particularly in karri. A 30 000 cubic metre allocation, for example, for Pemberton, taking account of the step-down volumes, actually becomes 45 000, or a number close to that, all the way through to 2014. The third and separate issue is the matter of the boundaries of the proposed national parks. There is a difference in the policy between those areas that have been described in the policy as the number of hectares that will be reserved and those areas that have been mapped. There are also significant areas in between. In that difference exists the potential for a resolution of boundaries in a more workable manner to make the parks work appropriately and to address any shortfall that might arise from the Conservation Commission’s indication that the volumes in our indicative numbers might not be achievable. I have no reason to believe that will occur; however, there is that option for the Government. The PRESIDENT: I trust the Leader of the House is winding up his answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: Very soon, but it is a big question. The component that the Government does not control is the yield per hectare. It is important for members to understand that a given volume of forest is available for logging. The decisions that will be made outside government essentially relate to the sustainable yield per hectare of that volume of forest. The decision that rests in the Government’s hands - this is very important for members to understand - is the number of hectares available for that sustainable yield to be applied. If, for example, a decision is made that the expected yields, when assessed under ecologically sustainable forest management principles, do not go anywhere near the numbers that we expect are needed by the commercial forest industry, there is the possibility of expanding the number of hectares because of that difference in the two figures relating to reservation.
The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a debate. The minister might like to answer the question. Hon KIM CHANCE: Thank you, Mr President. There is a misunderstanding that the one per cent - the 5 500 hectares - took into account the moratorium areas and I believe that misunderstanding arises from the use of the word “moratorium”. In fact, the word “moratorium” applies to two different blocks, for want of a better word. The first moratorium applied to a number of stated blocks that make up the proposed Wellington National Park, which is an area of some 25 000 hectares and therefore considerably larger than the 5 500 that applies to the one per cent. It also applied to a number of other blocks, including Helms, Leach and Palmer. That matter is still under consideration upon the release of the URS report, which we all anxiously await. The second area from which additional yield may come - the member has me on the hop. Hon Peter Foss: They are the national park boundaries. Hon KIM CHANCE: No, that is the third area. I cannot remember the second. Hon Peter Foss: The step-down. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The step-down volumes can be considerable, particularly in karri. A 30 000 cubic metre allocation, for example, for Pemberton, taking account of the step-down volumes, actually becomes 45 000, or a number close to that, all the way through to 2014. The third and separate issue is the matter of the boundaries of the proposed national parks. There is a difference in the policy between those areas that have been described in the policy as the number of hectares that will be reserved and those areas that have been mapped. There are also significant areas in between. In that difference exists the potential for a resolution of boundaries in a more workable manner to make the parks work appropriately and to address any shortfall that might arise from the Conservation Commission’s indication that the volumes in our indicative numbers might not be achievable. I have no reason to believe that will occur; however, there is that option for the Government. The PRESIDENT: I trust the Leader of the House is winding up his answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: Very soon, but it is a big question. The component that the Government does not control is the yield per hectare. It is important for members to understand that a given volume of forest is available for logging. The decisions that will be made outside government essentially relate to the sustainable yield per hectare of that volume of forest. The decision that rests in the Government’s hands - this is very important for members to understand - is the number of hectares available for that sustainable yield to be applied. If, for example, a decision is made that the expected yields, when assessed under ecologically sustainable forest management principles, do not go anywhere near the numbers that we expect are needed by the commercial forest industry, there is the possibility of expanding the number of hectares because of that difference in the two figures relating to reservation.
Hon KIM CHANCE: Thank you, Mr President. There is a misunderstanding that the one per cent - the 5 500 hectares - took into account the moratorium areas and I believe that misunderstanding arises from the use of the word “moratorium”. In fact, the word “moratorium” applies to two different blocks, for want of a better word. The first moratorium applied to a number of stated blocks that make up the proposed Wellington National Park, which is an area of some 25 000 hectares and therefore considerably larger than the 5 500 that applies to the one per cent. It also applied to a number of other blocks, including Helms, Leach and Palmer. That matter is still under consideration upon the release of the URS report, which we all anxiously await. The second area from which additional yield may come - the member has me on the hop. Hon Peter Foss: They are the national park boundaries. Hon KIM CHANCE: No, that is the third area. I cannot remember the second. Hon Peter Foss: The step-down. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The step-down volumes can be considerable, particularly in karri. A 30 000 cubic metre allocation, for example, for Pemberton, taking account of the step-down volumes, actually becomes 45 000, or a number close to that, all the way through to 2014. The third and separate issue is the matter of the boundaries of the proposed national parks. There is a difference in the policy between those areas that have been described in the policy as the number of hectares that will be reserved and those areas that have been mapped. There are also significant areas in between. In that difference exists the potential for a resolution of boundaries in a more workable manner to make the parks work appropriately and to address any shortfall that might arise from the Conservation Commission’s indication that the volumes in our indicative numbers might not be achievable. I have no reason to believe that will occur; however, there is that option for the Government. The PRESIDENT: I trust the Leader of the House is winding up his answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: Very soon, but it is a big question. The component that the Government does not control is the yield per hectare. It is important for members to understand that a given volume of forest is available for logging. The decisions that will be made outside government essentially relate to the sustainable yield per hectare of that volume of forest. The decision that rests in the Government’s hands - this is very important for members to understand - is the number of hectares available for that sustainable yield to be applied. If, for example, a decision is made that the expected yields, when assessed under ecologically sustainable forest management principles, do not go anywhere near the numbers that we expect are needed by the commercial forest industry, there is the possibility of expanding the number of hectares because of that difference in the two figures relating to reservation.
The second area from which additional yield may come - the member has me on the hop. Hon Peter Foss: They are the national park boundaries. Hon KIM CHANCE: No, that is the third area. I cannot remember the second. Hon Peter Foss: The step-down. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The step-down volumes can be considerable, particularly in karri. A 30 000 cubic metre allocation, for example, for Pemberton, taking account of the step-down volumes, actually becomes 45 000, or a number close to that, all the way through to 2014. The third and separate issue is the matter of the boundaries of the proposed national parks. There is a difference in the policy between those areas that have been described in the policy as the number of hectares that will be reserved and those areas that have been mapped. There are also significant areas in between. In that difference exists the potential for a resolution of boundaries in a more workable manner to make the parks work appropriately and to address any shortfall that might arise from the Conservation Commission’s indication that the volumes in our indicative numbers might not be achievable. I have no reason to believe that will occur; however, there is that option for the Government. The PRESIDENT: I trust the Leader of the House is winding up his answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: Very soon, but it is a big question. The component that the Government does not control is the yield per hectare. It is important for members to understand that a given volume of forest is available for logging. The decisions that will be made outside government essentially relate to the sustainable yield per hectare of that volume of forest. The decision that rests in the Government’s hands - this is very important for members to understand - is the number of hectares available for that sustainable yield to be applied. If, for example, a decision is made that the expected yields, when assessed under ecologically sustainable forest management principles, do not go anywhere near the numbers that we expect are needed by the commercial forest industry, there is the possibility of expanding the number of hectares because of that difference in the two figures relating to reservation.
Hon Peter Foss: They are the national park boundaries. Hon KIM CHANCE: No, that is the third area. I cannot remember the second. Hon Peter Foss: The step-down. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The step-down volumes can be considerable, particularly in karri. A 30 000 cubic metre allocation, for example, for Pemberton, taking account of the step-down volumes, actually becomes 45 000, or a number close to that, all the way through to 2014. The third and separate issue is the matter of the boundaries of the proposed national parks. There is a difference in the policy between those areas that have been described in the policy as the number of hectares that will be reserved and those areas that have been mapped. There are also significant areas in between. In that difference exists the potential for a resolution of boundaries in a more workable manner to make the parks work appropriately and to address any shortfall that might arise from the Conservation Commission’s indication that the volumes in our indicative numbers might not be achievable. I have no reason to believe that will occur; however, there is that option for the Government. The PRESIDENT: I trust the Leader of the House is winding up his answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: Very soon, but it is a big question. The component that the Government does not control is the yield per hectare. It is important for members to understand that a given volume of forest is available for logging. The decisions that will be made outside government essentially relate to the sustainable yield per hectare of that volume of forest. The decision that rests in the Government’s hands - this is very important for members to understand - is the number of hectares available for that sustainable yield to be applied. If, for example, a decision is made that the expected yields, when assessed under ecologically sustainable forest management principles, do not go anywhere near the numbers that we expect are needed by the commercial forest industry, there is the possibility of expanding the number of hectares because of that difference in the two figures relating to reservation.
Hon KIM CHANCE: No, that is the third area. I cannot remember the second. Hon Peter Foss: The step-down. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The step-down volumes can be considerable, particularly in karri. A 30 000 cubic metre allocation, for example, for Pemberton, taking account of the step-down volumes, actually becomes 45 000, or a number close to that, all the way through to 2014. The third and separate issue is the matter of the boundaries of the proposed national parks. There is a difference in the policy between those areas that have been described in the policy as the number of hectares that will be reserved and those areas that have been mapped. There are also significant areas in between. In that difference exists the potential for a resolution of boundaries in a more workable manner to make the parks work appropriately and to address any shortfall that might arise from the Conservation Commission’s indication that the volumes in our indicative numbers might not be achievable. I have no reason to believe that will occur; however, there is that option for the Government. The PRESIDENT: I trust the Leader of the House is winding up his answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: Very soon, but it is a big question. The component that the Government does not control is the yield per hectare. It is important for members to understand that a given volume of forest is available for logging. The decisions that will be made outside government essentially relate to the sustainable yield per hectare of that volume of forest. The decision that rests in the Government’s hands - this is very important for members to understand - is the number of hectares available for that sustainable yield to be applied. If, for example, a decision is made that the expected yields, when assessed under ecologically sustainable forest management principles, do not go anywhere near the numbers that we expect are needed by the commercial forest industry, there is the possibility of expanding the number of hectares because of that difference in the two figures relating to reservation.
Hon Peter Foss: The step-down. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The step-down volumes can be considerable, particularly in karri. A 30 000 cubic metre allocation, for example, for Pemberton, taking account of the step-down volumes, actually becomes 45 000, or a number close to that, all the way through to 2014. The third and separate issue is the matter of the boundaries of the proposed national parks. There is a difference in the policy between those areas that have been described in the policy as the number of hectares that will be reserved and those areas that have been mapped. There are also significant areas in between. In that difference exists the potential for a resolution of boundaries in a more workable manner to make the parks work appropriately and to address any shortfall that might arise from the Conservation Commission’s indication that the volumes in our indicative numbers might not be achievable. I have no reason to believe that will occur; however, there is that option for the Government. The PRESIDENT: I trust the Leader of the House is winding up his answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: Very soon, but it is a big question. The component that the Government does not control is the yield per hectare. It is important for members to understand that a given volume of forest is available for logging. The decisions that will be made outside government essentially relate to the sustainable yield per hectare of that volume of forest. The decision that rests in the Government’s hands - this is very important for members to understand - is the number of hectares available for that sustainable yield to be applied. If, for example, a decision is made that the expected yields, when assessed under ecologically sustainable forest management principles, do not go anywhere near the numbers that we expect are needed by the commercial forest industry, there is the possibility of expanding the number of hectares because of that difference in the two figures relating to reservation.
Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The step-down volumes can be considerable, particularly in karri. A 30 000 cubic metre allocation, for example, for Pemberton, taking account of the step-down volumes, actually becomes 45 000, or a number close to that, all the way through to 2014. The third and separate issue is the matter of the boundaries of the proposed national parks. There is a difference in the policy between those areas that have been described in the policy as the number of hectares that will be reserved and those areas that have been mapped. There are also significant areas in between. In that difference exists the potential for a resolution of boundaries in a more workable manner to make the parks work appropriately and to address any shortfall that might arise from the Conservation Commission’s indication that the volumes in our indicative numbers might not be achievable. I have no reason to believe that will occur; however, there is that option for the Government. The PRESIDENT: I trust the Leader of the House is winding up his answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: Very soon, but it is a big question. The component that the Government does not control is the yield per hectare. It is important for members to understand that a given volume of forest is available for logging. The decisions that will be made outside government essentially relate to the sustainable yield per hectare of that volume of forest. The decision that rests in the Government’s hands - this is very important for members to understand - is the number of hectares available for that sustainable yield to be applied. If, for example, a decision is made that the expected yields, when assessed under ecologically sustainable forest management principles, do not go anywhere near the numbers that we expect are needed by the commercial forest industry, there is the possibility of expanding the number of hectares because of that difference in the two figures relating to reservation.
The third and separate issue is the matter of the boundaries of the proposed national parks. There is a difference in the policy between those areas that have been described in the policy as the number of hectares that will be reserved and those areas that have been mapped. There are also significant areas in between. In that difference exists the potential for a resolution of boundaries in a more workable manner to make the parks work appropriately and to address any shortfall that might arise from the Conservation Commission’s indication that the volumes in our indicative numbers might not be achievable. I have no reason to believe that will occur; however, there is that option for the Government. The PRESIDENT: I trust the Leader of the House is winding up his answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: Very soon, but it is a big question. The component that the Government does not control is the yield per hectare. It is important for members to understand that a given volume of forest is available for logging. The decisions that will be made outside government essentially relate to the sustainable yield per hectare of that volume of forest. The decision that rests in the Government’s hands - this is very important for members to understand - is the number of hectares available for that sustainable yield to be applied. If, for example, a decision is made that the expected yields, when assessed under ecologically sustainable forest management principles, do not go anywhere near the numbers that we expect are needed by the commercial forest industry, there is the possibility of expanding the number of hectares because of that difference in the two figures relating to reservation.
The PRESIDENT: I trust the Leader of the House is winding up his answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: Very soon, but it is a big question. The component that the Government does not control is the yield per hectare. It is important for members to understand that a given volume of forest is available for logging. The decisions that will be made outside government essentially relate to the sustainable yield per hectare of that volume of forest. The decision that rests in the Government’s hands - this is very important for members to understand - is the number of hectares available for that sustainable yield to be applied. If, for example, a decision is made that the expected yields, when assessed under ecologically sustainable forest management principles, do not go anywhere near the numbers that we expect are needed by the commercial forest industry, there is the possibility of expanding the number of hectares because of that difference in the two figures relating to reservation.
Hon KIM CHANCE: Very soon, but it is a big question. The component that the Government does not control is the yield per hectare. It is important for members to understand that a given volume of forest is available for logging. The decisions that will be made outside government essentially relate to the sustainable yield per hectare of that volume of forest. The decision that rests in the Government’s hands - this is very important for members to understand - is the number of hectares available for that sustainable yield to be applied. If, for example, a decision is made that the expected yields, when assessed under ecologically sustainable forest management principles, do not go anywhere near the numbers that we expect are needed by the commercial forest industry, there is the possibility of expanding the number of hectares because of that difference in the two figures relating to reservation.
The component that the Government does not control is the yield per hectare. It is important for members to understand that a given volume of forest is available for logging. The decisions that will be made outside government essentially relate to the sustainable yield per hectare of that volume of forest. The decision that rests in the Government’s hands - this is very important for members to understand - is the number of hectares available for that sustainable yield to be applied. If, for example, a decision is made that the expected yields, when assessed under ecologically sustainable forest management principles, do not go anywhere near the numbers that we expect are needed by the commercial forest industry, there is the possibility of expanding the number of hectares because of that difference in the two figures relating to reservation.
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.