❓ The Agriculture Protection Board's role is diminishing due to Machinery of Government Taskforce report, shifting focus to quarantine and disease prevention handled by Agriculture Western Australia. The Rural Business Development Corporation's future is limited due to depleted funds.
AnsweredQoN 283Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
What roles will the Agriculture Protection Board and the Rural Business Development Corporation play within Agriculture Western Australia? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
The role of the Agriculture Protection Board is now limited under the terms of the Machinery of Government Taskforce report. Only yesterday I had a conversation on this matter with Ms Keryl Enright, the chairperson of the Agriculture Protection Board. She informed me that she was not particularly fazed by the report, because in her time as chairperson, she has been abolished four times, so she is getting used to it! The Agriculture Protection Board’s role will obviously continue, because altering its status would require legislation. The question of agricultural protection generally has changed markedly over the years. The principal area in which agricultural resource protection is required now is quarantine, such as in controlling bovine spongiform encephalopathy and footrot, as a contractor to the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service, and in prevention of disease, such as Johne’s disease. Those issues have been largely handled by Agriculture Western Australia as a whole, because they are issues of such scale that they require a whole-of-department response. The issues that fall particularly within the jurisdiction of the APB - although the issue of animal health could be argued to fall within that jurisdiction - have become relatively less important in the scale of agricultural resource protection, not because the issues that the APB controls have become less important, but rather because other agricultural resource protection issues have come to dominate. I will be meeting with the board in my office on or about 10 July, and we will go through those matters to determine how best the APB can manage the transition. What I have in mind for the APB is that a working and workable mechanism for consultation with farmers on agriculture protection issues will remain. Although I am saying this prior to my consultation with the board, in my view this function should approximate the ministerial advisory committees under the Fish Resources Management Act. The powers of the APB will be those of a ministerial advisory committee. The other operational issue I am looking forward to implementing is the introduction of regional inspectors and operators, more akin to what country communities have been used to. The PRESIDENT: Order! I trust the minister is bringing his comments to a close. This is turning into a ministerial statement. Hon KIM CHANCE: I am sorry, but it is an issue that requires a response. The PRESIDENT: Lengthy statements of importance should be delivered as ministerial statements. Hon KIM CHANCE: The Rural Business Development Corporation has a limited future as the two funds that it administers, the rural adjustment scheme trust fund No 1 and the rural adjustment scheme trust fund No 2, are now virtually depleted.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: The role of the Agriculture Protection Board is now limited under the terms of the Machinery of Government Taskforce report. Only yesterday I had a conversation on this matter with Ms Keryl Enright, the chairperson of the Agriculture Protection Board. She informed me that she was not particularly fazed by the report, because in her time as chairperson, she has been abolished four times, so she is getting used to it! The Agriculture Protection Board’s role will obviously continue, because altering its status would require legislation. The question of agricultural protection generally has changed markedly over the years. The principal area in which agricultural resource protection is required now is quarantine, such as in controlling bovine spongiform encephalopathy and footrot, as a contractor to the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service, and in prevention of disease, such as Johne’s disease. Those issues have been largely handled by Agriculture Western Australia as a whole, because they are issues of such scale that they require a whole-of-department response. The issues that fall particularly within the jurisdiction of the APB - although the issue of animal health could be argued to fall within that jurisdiction - have become relatively less important in the scale of agricultural resource protection, not because the issues that the APB controls have become less important, but rather because other agricultural resource protection issues have come to dominate. I will be meeting with the board in my office on or about 10 July, and we will go through those matters to determine how best the APB can manage the transition. What I have in mind for the APB is that a working and workable mechanism for consultation with farmers on agriculture protection issues will remain. Although I am saying this prior to my consultation with the board, in my view this function should approximate the ministerial advisory committees under the Fish Resources Management Act. The powers of the APB will be those of a ministerial advisory committee. The other operational issue I am looking forward to implementing is the introduction of regional inspectors and operators, more akin to what country communities have been used to. The PRESIDENT: Order! I trust the minister is bringing his comments to a close. This is turning into a ministerial statement. Hon KIM CHANCE: I am sorry, but it is an issue that requires a response. The PRESIDENT: Lengthy statements of importance should be delivered as ministerial statements. Hon KIM CHANCE: The Rural Business Development Corporation has a limited future as the two funds that it administers, the rural adjustment scheme trust fund No 1 and the rural adjustment scheme trust fund No 2, are now virtually depleted.
The role of the Agriculture Protection Board is now limited under the terms of the Machinery of Government Taskforce report. Only yesterday I had a conversation on this matter with Ms Keryl Enright, the chairperson of the Agriculture Protection Board. She informed me that she was not particularly fazed by the report, because in her time as chairperson, she has been abolished four times, so she is getting used to it! The Agriculture Protection Board’s role will obviously continue, because altering its status would require legislation. The question of agricultural protection generally has changed markedly over the years. The principal area in which agricultural resource protection is required now is quarantine, such as in controlling bovine spongiform encephalopathy and footrot, as a contractor to the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service, and in prevention of disease, such as Johne’s disease. Those issues have been largely handled by Agriculture Western Australia as a whole, because they are issues of such scale that they require a whole-of-department response. The issues that fall particularly within the jurisdiction of the APB - although the issue of animal health could be argued to fall within that jurisdiction - have become relatively less important in the scale of agricultural resource protection, not because the issues that the APB controls have become less important, but rather because other agricultural resource protection issues have come to dominate. I will be meeting with the board in my office on or about 10 July, and we will go through those matters to determine how best the APB can manage the transition. What I have in mind for the APB is that a working and workable mechanism for consultation with farmers on agriculture protection issues will remain. Although I am saying this prior to my consultation with the board, in my view this function should approximate the ministerial advisory committees under the Fish Resources Management Act. The powers of the APB will be those of a ministerial advisory committee. The other operational issue I am looking forward to implementing is the introduction of regional inspectors and operators, more akin to what country communities have been used to. The PRESIDENT: Order! I trust the minister is bringing his comments to a close. This is turning into a ministerial statement. Hon KIM CHANCE: I am sorry, but it is an issue that requires a response. The PRESIDENT: Lengthy statements of importance should be delivered as ministerial statements. Hon KIM CHANCE: The Rural Business Development Corporation has a limited future as the two funds that it administers, the rural adjustment scheme trust fund No 1 and the rural adjustment scheme trust fund No 2, are now virtually depleted.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I trust the minister is bringing his comments to a close. This is turning into a ministerial statement. Hon KIM CHANCE: I am sorry, but it is an issue that requires a response. The PRESIDENT: Lengthy statements of importance should be delivered as ministerial statements. Hon KIM CHANCE: The Rural Business Development Corporation has a limited future as the two funds that it administers, the rural adjustment scheme trust fund No 1 and the rural adjustment scheme trust fund No 2, are now virtually depleted.
Hon KIM CHANCE: I am sorry, but it is an issue that requires a response. The PRESIDENT: Lengthy statements of importance should be delivered as ministerial statements. Hon KIM CHANCE: The Rural Business Development Corporation has a limited future as the two funds that it administers, the rural adjustment scheme trust fund No 1 and the rural adjustment scheme trust fund No 2, are now virtually depleted.
The PRESIDENT: Lengthy statements of importance should be delivered as ministerial statements. Hon KIM CHANCE: The Rural Business Development Corporation has a limited future as the two funds that it administers, the rural adjustment scheme trust fund No 1 and the rural adjustment scheme trust fund No 2, are now virtually depleted.
Hon KIM CHANCE: The Rural Business Development Corporation has a limited future as the two funds that it administers, the rural adjustment scheme trust fund No 1 and the rural adjustment scheme trust fund No 2, are now virtually depleted.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: The role of the Agriculture Protection Board is now limited under the terms of the Machinery of Government Taskforce report. Only yesterday I had a conversation on this matter with Ms Keryl Enright, the chairperson of the Agriculture Protection Board. She informed me that she was not particularly fazed by the report, because in her time as chairperson, she has been abolished four times, so she is getting used to it! The Agriculture Protection Board’s role will obviously continue, because altering its status would require legislation. The question of agricultural protection generally has changed markedly over the years. The principal area in which agricultural resource protection is required now is quarantine, such as in controlling bovine spongiform encephalopathy and footrot, as a contractor to the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service, and in prevention of disease, such as Johne’s disease. Those issues have been largely handled by Agriculture Western Australia as a whole, because they are issues of such scale that they require a whole-of-department response. The issues that fall particularly within the jurisdiction of the APB - although the issue of animal health could be argued to fall within that jurisdiction - have become relatively less important in the scale of agricultural resource protection, not because the issues that the APB controls have become less important, but rather because other agricultural resource protection issues have come to dominate. I will be meeting with the board in my office on or about 10 July, and we will go through those matters to determine how best the APB can manage the transition. What I have in mind for the APB is that a working and workable mechanism for consultation with farmers on agriculture protection issues will remain. Although I am saying this prior to my consultation with the board, in my view this function should approximate the ministerial advisory committees under the Fish Resources Management Act. The powers of the APB will be those of a ministerial advisory committee. The other operational issue I am looking forward to implementing is the introduction of regional inspectors and operators, more akin to what country communities have been used to. The PRESIDENT: Order! I trust the minister is bringing his comments to a close. This is turning into a ministerial statement. Hon KIM CHANCE: I am sorry, but it is an issue that requires a response. The PRESIDENT: Lengthy statements of importance should be delivered as ministerial statements. Hon KIM CHANCE: The Rural Business Development Corporation has a limited future as the two funds that it administers, the rural adjustment scheme trust fund No 1 and the rural adjustment scheme trust fund No 2, are now virtually depleted.
The role of the Agriculture Protection Board is now limited under the terms of the Machinery of Government Taskforce report. Only yesterday I had a conversation on this matter with Ms Keryl Enright, the chairperson of the Agriculture Protection Board. She informed me that she was not particularly fazed by the report, because in her time as chairperson, she has been abolished four times, so she is getting used to it! The Agriculture Protection Board’s role will obviously continue, because altering its status would require legislation. The question of agricultural protection generally has changed markedly over the years. The principal area in which agricultural resource protection is required now is quarantine, such as in controlling bovine spongiform encephalopathy and footrot, as a contractor to the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service, and in prevention of disease, such as Johne’s disease. Those issues have been largely handled by Agriculture Western Australia as a whole, because they are issues of such scale that they require a whole-of-department response. The issues that fall particularly within the jurisdiction of the APB - although the issue of animal health could be argued to fall within that jurisdiction - have become relatively less important in the scale of agricultural resource protection, not because the issues that the APB controls have become less important, but rather because other agricultural resource protection issues have come to dominate. I will be meeting with the board in my office on or about 10 July, and we will go through those matters to determine how best the APB can manage the transition. What I have in mind for the APB is that a working and workable mechanism for consultation with farmers on agriculture protection issues will remain. Although I am saying this prior to my consultation with the board, in my view this function should approximate the ministerial advisory committees under the Fish Resources Management Act. The powers of the APB will be those of a ministerial advisory committee. The other operational issue I am looking forward to implementing is the introduction of regional inspectors and operators, more akin to what country communities have been used to. The PRESIDENT: Order! I trust the minister is bringing his comments to a close. This is turning into a ministerial statement. Hon KIM CHANCE: I am sorry, but it is an issue that requires a response. The PRESIDENT: Lengthy statements of importance should be delivered as ministerial statements. Hon KIM CHANCE: The Rural Business Development Corporation has a limited future as the two funds that it administers, the rural adjustment scheme trust fund No 1 and the rural adjustment scheme trust fund No 2, are now virtually depleted.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I trust the minister is bringing his comments to a close. This is turning into a ministerial statement. Hon KIM CHANCE: I am sorry, but it is an issue that requires a response. The PRESIDENT: Lengthy statements of importance should be delivered as ministerial statements. Hon KIM CHANCE: The Rural Business Development Corporation has a limited future as the two funds that it administers, the rural adjustment scheme trust fund No 1 and the rural adjustment scheme trust fund No 2, are now virtually depleted.
Hon KIM CHANCE: I am sorry, but it is an issue that requires a response. The PRESIDENT: Lengthy statements of importance should be delivered as ministerial statements. Hon KIM CHANCE: The Rural Business Development Corporation has a limited future as the two funds that it administers, the rural adjustment scheme trust fund No 1 and the rural adjustment scheme trust fund No 2, are now virtually depleted.
The PRESIDENT: Lengthy statements of importance should be delivered as ministerial statements. Hon KIM CHANCE: The Rural Business Development Corporation has a limited future as the two funds that it administers, the rural adjustment scheme trust fund No 1 and the rural adjustment scheme trust fund No 2, are now virtually depleted.
Hon KIM CHANCE: The Rural Business Development Corporation has a limited future as the two funds that it administers, the rural adjustment scheme trust fund No 1 and the rural adjustment scheme trust fund No 2, are now virtually depleted.
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.