❓ Hon Peter Foss questions the Minister for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries about the adequacy and application of a $61.1 million package related to old-growth forest policy, clarifying discrepancies in previously indicated figures. The Minister clarifies the funding and its context within the overall budget.
AnsweredQoN 522Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer the minister to page 20 of budget paper No 1, or page 16 of the speech by Hon Nick Griffiths, in which there is a reference to $61.1 million. Hon Tom Stephens: Do you mean you got your first question wrong? The PRESIDENT: Order! Hon PETER FOSS: Wrong speech, right page. Hon Tom Stephens: You got it wrong! Just say to the House that you got it wrong. The PRESIDENT: Order! We will extend question time, if the minister likes, by the extent of his speeches. Hon PETER FOSS: I ask - (1) The amount of $61.1 million appears to be less than the amount that was indicated would be necessary for the package. I think the figure initially used was $76 million. (2) The minister has indicated that he thought the amount of $76 million might not be adequate. How will this money be applied? Does the minister think it will be adequate? How soon will people be able to access that money and how will it be distributed? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for referring me to the correct speech. The page number was right, but it was the Treasurer’s speech and not that of Hon Nick Griffiths. (1)-(2) The amount of $61.1 million is in addition to the financial package that has already been indicated by the Government. I appreciate the question because it gives me the opportunity to clear up what may otherwise have become a misunderstanding. The total package is, as Hon Peter Foss indicates, $132.5 million. The reason that is different from the number with which we are more familiar of $123 million, which is generally the figure I have spoken about, is that for Treasury purposes the $123 million figure became $132.5 million, because in the Treasury context and in the budget context it has been necessary to include a sum of $9 million, which is the royalty revenue forgone as a result of the implementation of the old-growth forest policy.
Hon Tom Stephens: Do you mean you got your first question wrong? The PRESIDENT: Order! Hon PETER FOSS: Wrong speech, right page. Hon Tom Stephens: You got it wrong! Just say to the House that you got it wrong. The PRESIDENT: Order! We will extend question time, if the minister likes, by the extent of his speeches. Hon PETER FOSS: I ask - (1) The amount of $61.1 million appears to be less than the amount that was indicated would be necessary for the package. I think the figure initially used was $76 million. (2) The minister has indicated that he thought the amount of $76 million might not be adequate. How will this money be applied? Does the minister think it will be adequate? How soon will people be able to access that money and how will it be distributed? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for referring me to the correct speech. The page number was right, but it was the Treasurer’s speech and not that of Hon Nick Griffiths. (1)-(2) The amount of $61.1 million is in addition to the financial package that has already been indicated by the Government. I appreciate the question because it gives me the opportunity to clear up what may otherwise have become a misunderstanding. The total package is, as Hon Peter Foss indicates, $132.5 million. The reason that is different from the number with which we are more familiar of $123 million, which is generally the figure I have spoken about, is that for Treasury purposes the $123 million figure became $132.5 million, because in the Treasury context and in the budget context it has been necessary to include a sum of $9 million, which is the royalty revenue forgone as a result of the implementation of the old-growth forest policy.
The PRESIDENT: Order! Hon PETER FOSS: Wrong speech, right page. Hon Tom Stephens: You got it wrong! Just say to the House that you got it wrong. The PRESIDENT: Order! We will extend question time, if the minister likes, by the extent of his speeches. Hon PETER FOSS: I ask - (1) The amount of $61.1 million appears to be less than the amount that was indicated would be necessary for the package. I think the figure initially used was $76 million. (2) The minister has indicated that he thought the amount of $76 million might not be adequate. How will this money be applied? Does the minister think it will be adequate? How soon will people be able to access that money and how will it be distributed? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for referring me to the correct speech. The page number was right, but it was the Treasurer’s speech and not that of Hon Nick Griffiths. (1)-(2) The amount of $61.1 million is in addition to the financial package that has already been indicated by the Government. I appreciate the question because it gives me the opportunity to clear up what may otherwise have become a misunderstanding. The total package is, as Hon Peter Foss indicates, $132.5 million. The reason that is different from the number with which we are more familiar of $123 million, which is generally the figure I have spoken about, is that for Treasury purposes the $123 million figure became $132.5 million, because in the Treasury context and in the budget context it has been necessary to include a sum of $9 million, which is the royalty revenue forgone as a result of the implementation of the old-growth forest policy.
Hon PETER FOSS: Wrong speech, right page. Hon Tom Stephens: You got it wrong! Just say to the House that you got it wrong. The PRESIDENT: Order! We will extend question time, if the minister likes, by the extent of his speeches. Hon PETER FOSS: I ask - (1) The amount of $61.1 million appears to be less than the amount that was indicated would be necessary for the package. I think the figure initially used was $76 million. (2) The minister has indicated that he thought the amount of $76 million might not be adequate. How will this money be applied? Does the minister think it will be adequate? How soon will people be able to access that money and how will it be distributed? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for referring me to the correct speech. The page number was right, but it was the Treasurer’s speech and not that of Hon Nick Griffiths. (1)-(2) The amount of $61.1 million is in addition to the financial package that has already been indicated by the Government. I appreciate the question because it gives me the opportunity to clear up what may otherwise have become a misunderstanding. The total package is, as Hon Peter Foss indicates, $132.5 million. The reason that is different from the number with which we are more familiar of $123 million, which is generally the figure I have spoken about, is that for Treasury purposes the $123 million figure became $132.5 million, because in the Treasury context and in the budget context it has been necessary to include a sum of $9 million, which is the royalty revenue forgone as a result of the implementation of the old-growth forest policy.
Hon Tom Stephens: You got it wrong! Just say to the House that you got it wrong. The PRESIDENT: Order! We will extend question time, if the minister likes, by the extent of his speeches. Hon PETER FOSS: I ask - (1) The amount of $61.1 million appears to be less than the amount that was indicated would be necessary for the package. I think the figure initially used was $76 million. (2) The minister has indicated that he thought the amount of $76 million might not be adequate. How will this money be applied? Does the minister think it will be adequate? How soon will people be able to access that money and how will it be distributed? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for referring me to the correct speech. The page number was right, but it was the Treasurer’s speech and not that of Hon Nick Griffiths. (1)-(2) The amount of $61.1 million is in addition to the financial package that has already been indicated by the Government. I appreciate the question because it gives me the opportunity to clear up what may otherwise have become a misunderstanding. The total package is, as Hon Peter Foss indicates, $132.5 million. The reason that is different from the number with which we are more familiar of $123 million, which is generally the figure I have spoken about, is that for Treasury purposes the $123 million figure became $132.5 million, because in the Treasury context and in the budget context it has been necessary to include a sum of $9 million, which is the royalty revenue forgone as a result of the implementation of the old-growth forest policy.
The PRESIDENT: Order! We will extend question time, if the minister likes, by the extent of his speeches. Hon PETER FOSS: I ask - (1) The amount of $61.1 million appears to be less than the amount that was indicated would be necessary for the package. I think the figure initially used was $76 million. (2) The minister has indicated that he thought the amount of $76 million might not be adequate. How will this money be applied? Does the minister think it will be adequate? How soon will people be able to access that money and how will it be distributed? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for referring me to the correct speech. The page number was right, but it was the Treasurer’s speech and not that of Hon Nick Griffiths. (1)-(2) The amount of $61.1 million is in addition to the financial package that has already been indicated by the Government. I appreciate the question because it gives me the opportunity to clear up what may otherwise have become a misunderstanding. The total package is, as Hon Peter Foss indicates, $132.5 million. The reason that is different from the number with which we are more familiar of $123 million, which is generally the figure I have spoken about, is that for Treasury purposes the $123 million figure became $132.5 million, because in the Treasury context and in the budget context it has been necessary to include a sum of $9 million, which is the royalty revenue forgone as a result of the implementation of the old-growth forest policy.
Hon PETER FOSS: I ask - (1) The amount of $61.1 million appears to be less than the amount that was indicated would be necessary for the package. I think the figure initially used was $76 million. (2) The minister has indicated that he thought the amount of $76 million might not be adequate. How will this money be applied? Does the minister think it will be adequate? How soon will people be able to access that money and how will it be distributed? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for referring me to the correct speech. The page number was right, but it was the Treasurer’s speech and not that of Hon Nick Griffiths. (1)-(2) The amount of $61.1 million is in addition to the financial package that has already been indicated by the Government. I appreciate the question because it gives me the opportunity to clear up what may otherwise have become a misunderstanding. The total package is, as Hon Peter Foss indicates, $132.5 million. The reason that is different from the number with which we are more familiar of $123 million, which is generally the figure I have spoken about, is that for Treasury purposes the $123 million figure became $132.5 million, because in the Treasury context and in the budget context it has been necessary to include a sum of $9 million, which is the royalty revenue forgone as a result of the implementation of the old-growth forest policy.
(1) The amount of $61.1 million appears to be less than the amount that was indicated would be necessary for the package. I think the figure initially used was $76 million. (2) The minister has indicated that he thought the amount of $76 million might not be adequate. How will this money be applied? Does the minister think it will be adequate? How soon will people be able to access that money and how will it be distributed? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for referring me to the correct speech. The page number was right, but it was the Treasurer’s speech and not that of Hon Nick Griffiths. (1)-(2) The amount of $61.1 million is in addition to the financial package that has already been indicated by the Government. I appreciate the question because it gives me the opportunity to clear up what may otherwise have become a misunderstanding. The total package is, as Hon Peter Foss indicates, $132.5 million. The reason that is different from the number with which we are more familiar of $123 million, which is generally the figure I have spoken about, is that for Treasury purposes the $123 million figure became $132.5 million, because in the Treasury context and in the budget context it has been necessary to include a sum of $9 million, which is the royalty revenue forgone as a result of the implementation of the old-growth forest policy.
(2) The minister has indicated that he thought the amount of $76 million might not be adequate. How will this money be applied? Does the minister think it will be adequate? How soon will people be able to access that money and how will it be distributed? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for referring me to the correct speech. The page number was right, but it was the Treasurer’s speech and not that of Hon Nick Griffiths. (1)-(2) The amount of $61.1 million is in addition to the financial package that has already been indicated by the Government. I appreciate the question because it gives me the opportunity to clear up what may otherwise have become a misunderstanding. The total package is, as Hon Peter Foss indicates, $132.5 million. The reason that is different from the number with which we are more familiar of $123 million, which is generally the figure I have spoken about, is that for Treasury purposes the $123 million figure became $132.5 million, because in the Treasury context and in the budget context it has been necessary to include a sum of $9 million, which is the royalty revenue forgone as a result of the implementation of the old-growth forest policy.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for referring me to the correct speech. The page number was right, but it was the Treasurer’s speech and not that of Hon Nick Griffiths. (1)-(2) The amount of $61.1 million is in addition to the financial package that has already been indicated by the Government. I appreciate the question because it gives me the opportunity to clear up what may otherwise have become a misunderstanding. The total package is, as Hon Peter Foss indicates, $132.5 million. The reason that is different from the number with which we are more familiar of $123 million, which is generally the figure I have spoken about, is that for Treasury purposes the $123 million figure became $132.5 million, because in the Treasury context and in the budget context it has been necessary to include a sum of $9 million, which is the royalty revenue forgone as a result of the implementation of the old-growth forest policy.
I thank the member for referring me to the correct speech. The page number was right, but it was the Treasurer’s speech and not that of Hon Nick Griffiths. (1)-(2) The amount of $61.1 million is in addition to the financial package that has already been indicated by the Government. I appreciate the question because it gives me the opportunity to clear up what may otherwise have become a misunderstanding. The total package is, as Hon Peter Foss indicates, $132.5 million. The reason that is different from the number with which we are more familiar of $123 million, which is generally the figure I have spoken about, is that for Treasury purposes the $123 million figure became $132.5 million, because in the Treasury context and in the budget context it has been necessary to include a sum of $9 million, which is the royalty revenue forgone as a result of the implementation of the old-growth forest policy.
(1)-(2) The amount of $61.1 million is in addition to the financial package that has already been indicated by the Government. I appreciate the question because it gives me the opportunity to clear up what may otherwise have become a misunderstanding. The total package is, as Hon Peter Foss indicates, $132.5 million. The reason that is different from the number with which we are more familiar of $123 million, which is generally the figure I have spoken about, is that for Treasury purposes the $123 million figure became $132.5 million, because in the Treasury context and in the budget context it has been necessary to include a sum of $9 million, which is the royalty revenue forgone as a result of the implementation of the old-growth forest policy.
Hon Tom Stephens: Do you mean you got your first question wrong? The PRESIDENT: Order! Hon PETER FOSS: Wrong speech, right page. Hon Tom Stephens: You got it wrong! Just say to the House that you got it wrong. The PRESIDENT: Order! We will extend question time, if the minister likes, by the extent of his speeches. Hon PETER FOSS: I ask - (1) The amount of $61.1 million appears to be less than the amount that was indicated would be necessary for the package. I think the figure initially used was $76 million. (2) The minister has indicated that he thought the amount of $76 million might not be adequate. How will this money be applied? Does the minister think it will be adequate? How soon will people be able to access that money and how will it be distributed? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for referring me to the correct speech. The page number was right, but it was the Treasurer’s speech and not that of Hon Nick Griffiths. (1)-(2) The amount of $61.1 million is in addition to the financial package that has already been indicated by the Government. I appreciate the question because it gives me the opportunity to clear up what may otherwise have become a misunderstanding. The total package is, as Hon Peter Foss indicates, $132.5 million. The reason that is different from the number with which we are more familiar of $123 million, which is generally the figure I have spoken about, is that for Treasury purposes the $123 million figure became $132.5 million, because in the Treasury context and in the budget context it has been necessary to include a sum of $9 million, which is the royalty revenue forgone as a result of the implementation of the old-growth forest policy.
The PRESIDENT: Order! Hon PETER FOSS: Wrong speech, right page. Hon Tom Stephens: You got it wrong! Just say to the House that you got it wrong. The PRESIDENT: Order! We will extend question time, if the minister likes, by the extent of his speeches. Hon PETER FOSS: I ask - (1) The amount of $61.1 million appears to be less than the amount that was indicated would be necessary for the package. I think the figure initially used was $76 million. (2) The minister has indicated that he thought the amount of $76 million might not be adequate. How will this money be applied? Does the minister think it will be adequate? How soon will people be able to access that money and how will it be distributed? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for referring me to the correct speech. The page number was right, but it was the Treasurer’s speech and not that of Hon Nick Griffiths. (1)-(2) The amount of $61.1 million is in addition to the financial package that has already been indicated by the Government. I appreciate the question because it gives me the opportunity to clear up what may otherwise have become a misunderstanding. The total package is, as Hon Peter Foss indicates, $132.5 million. The reason that is different from the number with which we are more familiar of $123 million, which is generally the figure I have spoken about, is that for Treasury purposes the $123 million figure became $132.5 million, because in the Treasury context and in the budget context it has been necessary to include a sum of $9 million, which is the royalty revenue forgone as a result of the implementation of the old-growth forest policy.
Hon PETER FOSS: Wrong speech, right page. Hon Tom Stephens: You got it wrong! Just say to the House that you got it wrong. The PRESIDENT: Order! We will extend question time, if the minister likes, by the extent of his speeches. Hon PETER FOSS: I ask - (1) The amount of $61.1 million appears to be less than the amount that was indicated would be necessary for the package. I think the figure initially used was $76 million. (2) The minister has indicated that he thought the amount of $76 million might not be adequate. How will this money be applied? Does the minister think it will be adequate? How soon will people be able to access that money and how will it be distributed? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for referring me to the correct speech. The page number was right, but it was the Treasurer’s speech and not that of Hon Nick Griffiths. (1)-(2) The amount of $61.1 million is in addition to the financial package that has already been indicated by the Government. I appreciate the question because it gives me the opportunity to clear up what may otherwise have become a misunderstanding. The total package is, as Hon Peter Foss indicates, $132.5 million. The reason that is different from the number with which we are more familiar of $123 million, which is generally the figure I have spoken about, is that for Treasury purposes the $123 million figure became $132.5 million, because in the Treasury context and in the budget context it has been necessary to include a sum of $9 million, which is the royalty revenue forgone as a result of the implementation of the old-growth forest policy.
Hon Tom Stephens: You got it wrong! Just say to the House that you got it wrong. The PRESIDENT: Order! We will extend question time, if the minister likes, by the extent of his speeches. Hon PETER FOSS: I ask - (1) The amount of $61.1 million appears to be less than the amount that was indicated would be necessary for the package. I think the figure initially used was $76 million. (2) The minister has indicated that he thought the amount of $76 million might not be adequate. How will this money be applied? Does the minister think it will be adequate? How soon will people be able to access that money and how will it be distributed? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for referring me to the correct speech. The page number was right, but it was the Treasurer’s speech and not that of Hon Nick Griffiths. (1)-(2) The amount of $61.1 million is in addition to the financial package that has already been indicated by the Government. I appreciate the question because it gives me the opportunity to clear up what may otherwise have become a misunderstanding. The total package is, as Hon Peter Foss indicates, $132.5 million. The reason that is different from the number with which we are more familiar of $123 million, which is generally the figure I have spoken about, is that for Treasury purposes the $123 million figure became $132.5 million, because in the Treasury context and in the budget context it has been necessary to include a sum of $9 million, which is the royalty revenue forgone as a result of the implementation of the old-growth forest policy.
The PRESIDENT: Order! We will extend question time, if the minister likes, by the extent of his speeches. Hon PETER FOSS: I ask - (1) The amount of $61.1 million appears to be less than the amount that was indicated would be necessary for the package. I think the figure initially used was $76 million. (2) The minister has indicated that he thought the amount of $76 million might not be adequate. How will this money be applied? Does the minister think it will be adequate? How soon will people be able to access that money and how will it be distributed? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for referring me to the correct speech. The page number was right, but it was the Treasurer’s speech and not that of Hon Nick Griffiths. (1)-(2) The amount of $61.1 million is in addition to the financial package that has already been indicated by the Government. I appreciate the question because it gives me the opportunity to clear up what may otherwise have become a misunderstanding. The total package is, as Hon Peter Foss indicates, $132.5 million. The reason that is different from the number with which we are more familiar of $123 million, which is generally the figure I have spoken about, is that for Treasury purposes the $123 million figure became $132.5 million, because in the Treasury context and in the budget context it has been necessary to include a sum of $9 million, which is the royalty revenue forgone as a result of the implementation of the old-growth forest policy.
Hon PETER FOSS: I ask - (1) The amount of $61.1 million appears to be less than the amount that was indicated would be necessary for the package. I think the figure initially used was $76 million. (2) The minister has indicated that he thought the amount of $76 million might not be adequate. How will this money be applied? Does the minister think it will be adequate? How soon will people be able to access that money and how will it be distributed? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for referring me to the correct speech. The page number was right, but it was the Treasurer’s speech and not that of Hon Nick Griffiths. (1)-(2) The amount of $61.1 million is in addition to the financial package that has already been indicated by the Government. I appreciate the question because it gives me the opportunity to clear up what may otherwise have become a misunderstanding. The total package is, as Hon Peter Foss indicates, $132.5 million. The reason that is different from the number with which we are more familiar of $123 million, which is generally the figure I have spoken about, is that for Treasury purposes the $123 million figure became $132.5 million, because in the Treasury context and in the budget context it has been necessary to include a sum of $9 million, which is the royalty revenue forgone as a result of the implementation of the old-growth forest policy.
(1) The amount of $61.1 million appears to be less than the amount that was indicated would be necessary for the package. I think the figure initially used was $76 million. (2) The minister has indicated that he thought the amount of $76 million might not be adequate. How will this money be applied? Does the minister think it will be adequate? How soon will people be able to access that money and how will it be distributed? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for referring me to the correct speech. The page number was right, but it was the Treasurer’s speech and not that of Hon Nick Griffiths. (1)-(2) The amount of $61.1 million is in addition to the financial package that has already been indicated by the Government. I appreciate the question because it gives me the opportunity to clear up what may otherwise have become a misunderstanding. The total package is, as Hon Peter Foss indicates, $132.5 million. The reason that is different from the number with which we are more familiar of $123 million, which is generally the figure I have spoken about, is that for Treasury purposes the $123 million figure became $132.5 million, because in the Treasury context and in the budget context it has been necessary to include a sum of $9 million, which is the royalty revenue forgone as a result of the implementation of the old-growth forest policy.
(2) The minister has indicated that he thought the amount of $76 million might not be adequate. How will this money be applied? Does the minister think it will be adequate? How soon will people be able to access that money and how will it be distributed? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for referring me to the correct speech. The page number was right, but it was the Treasurer’s speech and not that of Hon Nick Griffiths. (1)-(2) The amount of $61.1 million is in addition to the financial package that has already been indicated by the Government. I appreciate the question because it gives me the opportunity to clear up what may otherwise have become a misunderstanding. The total package is, as Hon Peter Foss indicates, $132.5 million. The reason that is different from the number with which we are more familiar of $123 million, which is generally the figure I have spoken about, is that for Treasury purposes the $123 million figure became $132.5 million, because in the Treasury context and in the budget context it has been necessary to include a sum of $9 million, which is the royalty revenue forgone as a result of the implementation of the old-growth forest policy.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for referring me to the correct speech. The page number was right, but it was the Treasurer’s speech and not that of Hon Nick Griffiths. (1)-(2) The amount of $61.1 million is in addition to the financial package that has already been indicated by the Government. I appreciate the question because it gives me the opportunity to clear up what may otherwise have become a misunderstanding. The total package is, as Hon Peter Foss indicates, $132.5 million. The reason that is different from the number with which we are more familiar of $123 million, which is generally the figure I have spoken about, is that for Treasury purposes the $123 million figure became $132.5 million, because in the Treasury context and in the budget context it has been necessary to include a sum of $9 million, which is the royalty revenue forgone as a result of the implementation of the old-growth forest policy.
I thank the member for referring me to the correct speech. The page number was right, but it was the Treasurer’s speech and not that of Hon Nick Griffiths. (1)-(2) The amount of $61.1 million is in addition to the financial package that has already been indicated by the Government. I appreciate the question because it gives me the opportunity to clear up what may otherwise have become a misunderstanding. The total package is, as Hon Peter Foss indicates, $132.5 million. The reason that is different from the number with which we are more familiar of $123 million, which is generally the figure I have spoken about, is that for Treasury purposes the $123 million figure became $132.5 million, because in the Treasury context and in the budget context it has been necessary to include a sum of $9 million, which is the royalty revenue forgone as a result of the implementation of the old-growth forest policy.
(1)-(2) The amount of $61.1 million is in addition to the financial package that has already been indicated by the Government. I appreciate the question because it gives me the opportunity to clear up what may otherwise have become a misunderstanding. The total package is, as Hon Peter Foss indicates, $132.5 million. The reason that is different from the number with which we are more familiar of $123 million, which is generally the figure I have spoken about, is that for Treasury purposes the $123 million figure became $132.5 million, because in the Treasury context and in the budget context it has been necessary to include a sum of $9 million, which is the royalty revenue forgone as a result of the implementation of the old-growth forest policy.
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.