❓ The Minister assesses the impact of a proposed Northam sheep livestock selling centre on the Muchea and Katanning facilities. The impact on Muchea is expected to be modest, while Katanning's proposal is of greater concern. Producer support for Northam is not strong.
AnsweredQoN 462Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
(1) What impact will be felt at the Muchea livestock selling centre if a proposed sheep livestock centre is established in Northam, for which a decision to proceed looks like being brought to resolution in the near future? (2) Has the minister any information regarding the level of support by livestock producers for a sheep livestock selling centre based in Northam? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(2) On the basis of the analysis that we have done of the impact of the proposal of the saleyards in Northam on the Muchea saleyards facility, the best idea I can give the member is that the impact would be quite modest. The economics of the Muchea facility are fundamentally built around the cattle industry in any case, although it was anticipated that as many as 900 000 sheep per annum would be sold at Muchea. The impact of the Northam proposal is modest in large part because the numbers of livestock which would be served by the Northam catchment area, which is fundamentally the eastern wheatbelt, are greatly reduced. The numbers of livestock in the eastern wheatbelt were once very significant but are now quite modest. That is not to say that the Northam proposal will not have a significant impact on the development of livestock saleyards or even existing livestock saleyards, but the principal impact, I fear, will be on the proposed new saleyards at Katanning. The impact of reduced sheep availability will clearly be greater in the southern half of the Northam catchment area, because that half is closer to the area of influence of Katanning. The southern half of the eastern wheatbelt contains most of the eastern wheatbelt’s sheep. I am far more concerned for the future of the Shire of Katanning’s proposal than I am for Muchea, which will need to be adjusted to some extent. We will make some capital savings with Muchea. If Northam goes ahead, we will simply trim some of the selling capacity of the sheep end. It really will not make any difference to the ultimate economic outcome. However, it could make a significant difference to Katanning. What was the second component of the question? Hon Bruce Donaldson : Are you aware of how much support there is by livestock producers; has it grown at all or has it stagnated? Hon KIM CHANCE : I do not think there is an enormous amount of support by livestock producers for the Northam proposal. I think the support for the integrated proposal at Muchea remains as strong as it ever was. The questions relating to the Northam and indeed the Moora proposals were carefully considered in the original construct for Muchea. Producers were represented by a range of organisations, but the two major organisations were the WA Farmers’ Federation and the Pastoralists and Graziers’ Association. All organisations supported the Muchea proposition, with the exception, sadly, of my old Merredin zone council of the Farmers’ Federation and, I think, one district committee of the PGA, which would have been the Avon or the Mortlock district committee. Significantly, outside the producing sector of the industry, all those in the livestock selling and transport sectors and the live export sectors, which are very significant users of the facility, expressed 100 per cent support for Muchea. I note that particularly the WA Livestock Salesmen’s Association and the Australian Livestock Transporters Association were vehemently against a split facility, which I had first sought views on because I looked at the possibility of a split facility, with a cattle selling complex at Muchea and a sheep selling complex at Northam. Those two important components of the industry were diametrically opposed to the idea of splitting the facility.
(2) Has the minister any information regarding the level of support by livestock producers for a sheep livestock selling centre based in Northam? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(2) On the basis of the analysis that we have done of the impact of the proposal of the saleyards in Northam on the Muchea saleyards facility, the best idea I can give the member is that the impact would be quite modest. The economics of the Muchea facility are fundamentally built around the cattle industry in any case, although it was anticipated that as many as 900 000 sheep per annum would be sold at Muchea. The impact of the Northam proposal is modest in large part because the numbers of livestock which would be served by the Northam catchment area, which is fundamentally the eastern wheatbelt, are greatly reduced. The numbers of livestock in the eastern wheatbelt were once very significant but are now quite modest. That is not to say that the Northam proposal will not have a significant impact on the development of livestock saleyards or even existing livestock saleyards, but the principal impact, I fear, will be on the proposed new saleyards at Katanning. The impact of reduced sheep availability will clearly be greater in the southern half of the Northam catchment area, because that half is closer to the area of influence of Katanning. The southern half of the eastern wheatbelt contains most of the eastern wheatbelt’s sheep. I am far more concerned for the future of the Shire of Katanning’s proposal than I am for Muchea, which will need to be adjusted to some extent. We will make some capital savings with Muchea. If Northam goes ahead, we will simply trim some of the selling capacity of the sheep end. It really will not make any difference to the ultimate economic outcome. However, it could make a significant difference to Katanning. What was the second component of the question? Hon Bruce Donaldson : Are you aware of how much support there is by livestock producers; has it grown at all or has it stagnated? Hon KIM CHANCE : I do not think there is an enormous amount of support by livestock producers for the Northam proposal. I think the support for the integrated proposal at Muchea remains as strong as it ever was. The questions relating to the Northam and indeed the Moora proposals were carefully considered in the original construct for Muchea. Producers were represented by a range of organisations, but the two major organisations were the WA Farmers’ Federation and the Pastoralists and Graziers’ Association. All organisations supported the Muchea proposition, with the exception, sadly, of my old Merredin zone council of the Farmers’ Federation and, I think, one district committee of the PGA, which would have been the Avon or the Mortlock district committee. Significantly, outside the producing sector of the industry, all those in the livestock selling and transport sectors and the live export sectors, which are very significant users of the facility, expressed 100 per cent support for Muchea. I note that particularly the WA Livestock Salesmen’s Association and the Australian Livestock Transporters Association were vehemently against a split facility, which I had first sought views on because I looked at the possibility of a split facility, with a cattle selling complex at Muchea and a sheep selling complex at Northam. Those two important components of the industry were diametrically opposed to the idea of splitting the facility.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(2) On the basis of the analysis that we have done of the impact of the proposal of the saleyards in Northam on the Muchea saleyards facility, the best idea I can give the member is that the impact would be quite modest. The economics of the Muchea facility are fundamentally built around the cattle industry in any case, although it was anticipated that as many as 900 000 sheep per annum would be sold at Muchea. The impact of the Northam proposal is modest in large part because the numbers of livestock which would be served by the Northam catchment area, which is fundamentally the eastern wheatbelt, are greatly reduced. The numbers of livestock in the eastern wheatbelt were once very significant but are now quite modest. That is not to say that the Northam proposal will not have a significant impact on the development of livestock saleyards or even existing livestock saleyards, but the principal impact, I fear, will be on the proposed new saleyards at Katanning. The impact of reduced sheep availability will clearly be greater in the southern half of the Northam catchment area, because that half is closer to the area of influence of Katanning. The southern half of the eastern wheatbelt contains most of the eastern wheatbelt’s sheep. I am far more concerned for the future of the Shire of Katanning’s proposal than I am for Muchea, which will need to be adjusted to some extent. We will make some capital savings with Muchea. If Northam goes ahead, we will simply trim some of the selling capacity of the sheep end. It really will not make any difference to the ultimate economic outcome. However, it could make a significant difference to Katanning. What was the second component of the question? Hon Bruce Donaldson : Are you aware of how much support there is by livestock producers; has it grown at all or has it stagnated? Hon KIM CHANCE : I do not think there is an enormous amount of support by livestock producers for the Northam proposal. I think the support for the integrated proposal at Muchea remains as strong as it ever was. The questions relating to the Northam and indeed the Moora proposals were carefully considered in the original construct for Muchea. Producers were represented by a range of organisations, but the two major organisations were the WA Farmers’ Federation and the Pastoralists and Graziers’ Association. All organisations supported the Muchea proposition, with the exception, sadly, of my old Merredin zone council of the Farmers’ Federation and, I think, one district committee of the PGA, which would have been the Avon or the Mortlock district committee. Significantly, outside the producing sector of the industry, all those in the livestock selling and transport sectors and the live export sectors, which are very significant users of the facility, expressed 100 per cent support for Muchea. I note that particularly the WA Livestock Salesmen’s Association and the Australian Livestock Transporters Association were vehemently against a split facility, which I had first sought views on because I looked at the possibility of a split facility, with a cattle selling complex at Muchea and a sheep selling complex at Northam. Those two important components of the industry were diametrically opposed to the idea of splitting the facility.
(1)-(2) On the basis of the analysis that we have done of the impact of the proposal of the saleyards in Northam on the Muchea saleyards facility, the best idea I can give the member is that the impact would be quite modest. The economics of the Muchea facility are fundamentally built around the cattle industry in any case, although it was anticipated that as many as 900 000 sheep per annum would be sold at Muchea. The impact of the Northam proposal is modest in large part because the numbers of livestock which would be served by the Northam catchment area, which is fundamentally the eastern wheatbelt, are greatly reduced. The numbers of livestock in the eastern wheatbelt were once very significant but are now quite modest. That is not to say that the Northam proposal will not have a significant impact on the development of livestock saleyards or even existing livestock saleyards, but the principal impact, I fear, will be on the proposed new saleyards at Katanning. The impact of reduced sheep availability will clearly be greater in the southern half of the Northam catchment area, because that half is closer to the area of influence of Katanning. The southern half of the eastern wheatbelt contains most of the eastern wheatbelt’s sheep. I am far more concerned for the future of the Shire of Katanning’s proposal than I am for Muchea, which will need to be adjusted to some extent. We will make some capital savings with Muchea. If Northam goes ahead, we will simply trim some of the selling capacity of the sheep end. It really will not make any difference to the ultimate economic outcome. However, it could make a significant difference to Katanning. What was the second component of the question? Hon Bruce Donaldson : Are you aware of how much support there is by livestock producers; has it grown at all or has it stagnated? Hon KIM CHANCE : I do not think there is an enormous amount of support by livestock producers for the Northam proposal. I think the support for the integrated proposal at Muchea remains as strong as it ever was. The questions relating to the Northam and indeed the Moora proposals were carefully considered in the original construct for Muchea. Producers were represented by a range of organisations, but the two major organisations were the WA Farmers’ Federation and the Pastoralists and Graziers’ Association. All organisations supported the Muchea proposition, with the exception, sadly, of my old Merredin zone council of the Farmers’ Federation and, I think, one district committee of the PGA, which would have been the Avon or the Mortlock district committee. Significantly, outside the producing sector of the industry, all those in the livestock selling and transport sectors and the live export sectors, which are very significant users of the facility, expressed 100 per cent support for Muchea. I note that particularly the WA Livestock Salesmen’s Association and the Australian Livestock Transporters Association were vehemently against a split facility, which I had first sought views on because I looked at the possibility of a split facility, with a cattle selling complex at Muchea and a sheep selling complex at Northam. Those two important components of the industry were diametrically opposed to the idea of splitting the facility.
Hon Bruce Donaldson : Are you aware of how much support there is by livestock producers; has it grown at all or has it stagnated? Hon KIM CHANCE : I do not think there is an enormous amount of support by livestock producers for the Northam proposal. I think the support for the integrated proposal at Muchea remains as strong as it ever was. The questions relating to the Northam and indeed the Moora proposals were carefully considered in the original construct for Muchea. Producers were represented by a range of organisations, but the two major organisations were the WA Farmers’ Federation and the Pastoralists and Graziers’ Association. All organisations supported the Muchea proposition, with the exception, sadly, of my old Merredin zone council of the Farmers’ Federation and, I think, one district committee of the PGA, which would have been the Avon or the Mortlock district committee. Significantly, outside the producing sector of the industry, all those in the livestock selling and transport sectors and the live export sectors, which are very significant users of the facility, expressed 100 per cent support for Muchea. I note that particularly the WA Livestock Salesmen’s Association and the Australian Livestock Transporters Association were vehemently against a split facility, which I had first sought views on because I looked at the possibility of a split facility, with a cattle selling complex at Muchea and a sheep selling complex at Northam. Those two important components of the industry were diametrically opposed to the idea of splitting the facility.
Hon KIM CHANCE : I do not think there is an enormous amount of support by livestock producers for the Northam proposal. I think the support for the integrated proposal at Muchea remains as strong as it ever was. The questions relating to the Northam and indeed the Moora proposals were carefully considered in the original construct for Muchea. Producers were represented by a range of organisations, but the two major organisations were the WA Farmers’ Federation and the Pastoralists and Graziers’ Association. All organisations supported the Muchea proposition, with the exception, sadly, of my old Merredin zone council of the Farmers’ Federation and, I think, one district committee of the PGA, which would have been the Avon or the Mortlock district committee. Significantly, outside the producing sector of the industry, all those in the livestock selling and transport sectors and the live export sectors, which are very significant users of the facility, expressed 100 per cent support for Muchea. I note that particularly the WA Livestock Salesmen’s Association and the Australian Livestock Transporters Association were vehemently against a split facility, which I had first sought views on because I looked at the possibility of a split facility, with a cattle selling complex at Muchea and a sheep selling complex at Northam. Those two important components of the industry were diametrically opposed to the idea of splitting the facility.
(2) Has the minister any information regarding the level of support by livestock producers for a sheep livestock selling centre based in Northam? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(2) On the basis of the analysis that we have done of the impact of the proposal of the saleyards in Northam on the Muchea saleyards facility, the best idea I can give the member is that the impact would be quite modest. The economics of the Muchea facility are fundamentally built around the cattle industry in any case, although it was anticipated that as many as 900 000 sheep per annum would be sold at Muchea. The impact of the Northam proposal is modest in large part because the numbers of livestock which would be served by the Northam catchment area, which is fundamentally the eastern wheatbelt, are greatly reduced. The numbers of livestock in the eastern wheatbelt were once very significant but are now quite modest. That is not to say that the Northam proposal will not have a significant impact on the development of livestock saleyards or even existing livestock saleyards, but the principal impact, I fear, will be on the proposed new saleyards at Katanning. The impact of reduced sheep availability will clearly be greater in the southern half of the Northam catchment area, because that half is closer to the area of influence of Katanning. The southern half of the eastern wheatbelt contains most of the eastern wheatbelt’s sheep. I am far more concerned for the future of the Shire of Katanning’s proposal than I am for Muchea, which will need to be adjusted to some extent. We will make some capital savings with Muchea. If Northam goes ahead, we will simply trim some of the selling capacity of the sheep end. It really will not make any difference to the ultimate economic outcome. However, it could make a significant difference to Katanning. What was the second component of the question? Hon Bruce Donaldson : Are you aware of how much support there is by livestock producers; has it grown at all or has it stagnated? Hon KIM CHANCE : I do not think there is an enormous amount of support by livestock producers for the Northam proposal. I think the support for the integrated proposal at Muchea remains as strong as it ever was. The questions relating to the Northam and indeed the Moora proposals were carefully considered in the original construct for Muchea. Producers were represented by a range of organisations, but the two major organisations were the WA Farmers’ Federation and the Pastoralists and Graziers’ Association. All organisations supported the Muchea proposition, with the exception, sadly, of my old Merredin zone council of the Farmers’ Federation and, I think, one district committee of the PGA, which would have been the Avon or the Mortlock district committee. Significantly, outside the producing sector of the industry, all those in the livestock selling and transport sectors and the live export sectors, which are very significant users of the facility, expressed 100 per cent support for Muchea. I note that particularly the WA Livestock Salesmen’s Association and the Australian Livestock Transporters Association were vehemently against a split facility, which I had first sought views on because I looked at the possibility of a split facility, with a cattle selling complex at Muchea and a sheep selling complex at Northam. Those two important components of the industry were diametrically opposed to the idea of splitting the facility.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(2) On the basis of the analysis that we have done of the impact of the proposal of the saleyards in Northam on the Muchea saleyards facility, the best idea I can give the member is that the impact would be quite modest. The economics of the Muchea facility are fundamentally built around the cattle industry in any case, although it was anticipated that as many as 900 000 sheep per annum would be sold at Muchea. The impact of the Northam proposal is modest in large part because the numbers of livestock which would be served by the Northam catchment area, which is fundamentally the eastern wheatbelt, are greatly reduced. The numbers of livestock in the eastern wheatbelt were once very significant but are now quite modest. That is not to say that the Northam proposal will not have a significant impact on the development of livestock saleyards or even existing livestock saleyards, but the principal impact, I fear, will be on the proposed new saleyards at Katanning. The impact of reduced sheep availability will clearly be greater in the southern half of the Northam catchment area, because that half is closer to the area of influence of Katanning. The southern half of the eastern wheatbelt contains most of the eastern wheatbelt’s sheep. I am far more concerned for the future of the Shire of Katanning’s proposal than I am for Muchea, which will need to be adjusted to some extent. We will make some capital savings with Muchea. If Northam goes ahead, we will simply trim some of the selling capacity of the sheep end. It really will not make any difference to the ultimate economic outcome. However, it could make a significant difference to Katanning. What was the second component of the question? Hon Bruce Donaldson : Are you aware of how much support there is by livestock producers; has it grown at all or has it stagnated? Hon KIM CHANCE : I do not think there is an enormous amount of support by livestock producers for the Northam proposal. I think the support for the integrated proposal at Muchea remains as strong as it ever was. The questions relating to the Northam and indeed the Moora proposals were carefully considered in the original construct for Muchea. Producers were represented by a range of organisations, but the two major organisations were the WA Farmers’ Federation and the Pastoralists and Graziers’ Association. All organisations supported the Muchea proposition, with the exception, sadly, of my old Merredin zone council of the Farmers’ Federation and, I think, one district committee of the PGA, which would have been the Avon or the Mortlock district committee. Significantly, outside the producing sector of the industry, all those in the livestock selling and transport sectors and the live export sectors, which are very significant users of the facility, expressed 100 per cent support for Muchea. I note that particularly the WA Livestock Salesmen’s Association and the Australian Livestock Transporters Association were vehemently against a split facility, which I had first sought views on because I looked at the possibility of a split facility, with a cattle selling complex at Muchea and a sheep selling complex at Northam. Those two important components of the industry were diametrically opposed to the idea of splitting the facility.
(1)-(2) On the basis of the analysis that we have done of the impact of the proposal of the saleyards in Northam on the Muchea saleyards facility, the best idea I can give the member is that the impact would be quite modest. The economics of the Muchea facility are fundamentally built around the cattle industry in any case, although it was anticipated that as many as 900 000 sheep per annum would be sold at Muchea. The impact of the Northam proposal is modest in large part because the numbers of livestock which would be served by the Northam catchment area, which is fundamentally the eastern wheatbelt, are greatly reduced. The numbers of livestock in the eastern wheatbelt were once very significant but are now quite modest. That is not to say that the Northam proposal will not have a significant impact on the development of livestock saleyards or even existing livestock saleyards, but the principal impact, I fear, will be on the proposed new saleyards at Katanning. The impact of reduced sheep availability will clearly be greater in the southern half of the Northam catchment area, because that half is closer to the area of influence of Katanning. The southern half of the eastern wheatbelt contains most of the eastern wheatbelt’s sheep. I am far more concerned for the future of the Shire of Katanning’s proposal than I am for Muchea, which will need to be adjusted to some extent. We will make some capital savings with Muchea. If Northam goes ahead, we will simply trim some of the selling capacity of the sheep end. It really will not make any difference to the ultimate economic outcome. However, it could make a significant difference to Katanning. What was the second component of the question? Hon Bruce Donaldson : Are you aware of how much support there is by livestock producers; has it grown at all or has it stagnated? Hon KIM CHANCE : I do not think there is an enormous amount of support by livestock producers for the Northam proposal. I think the support for the integrated proposal at Muchea remains as strong as it ever was. The questions relating to the Northam and indeed the Moora proposals were carefully considered in the original construct for Muchea. Producers were represented by a range of organisations, but the two major organisations were the WA Farmers’ Federation and the Pastoralists and Graziers’ Association. All organisations supported the Muchea proposition, with the exception, sadly, of my old Merredin zone council of the Farmers’ Federation and, I think, one district committee of the PGA, which would have been the Avon or the Mortlock district committee. Significantly, outside the producing sector of the industry, all those in the livestock selling and transport sectors and the live export sectors, which are very significant users of the facility, expressed 100 per cent support for Muchea. I note that particularly the WA Livestock Salesmen’s Association and the Australian Livestock Transporters Association were vehemently against a split facility, which I had first sought views on because I looked at the possibility of a split facility, with a cattle selling complex at Muchea and a sheep selling complex at Northam. Those two important components of the industry were diametrically opposed to the idea of splitting the facility.
Hon Bruce Donaldson : Are you aware of how much support there is by livestock producers; has it grown at all or has it stagnated? Hon KIM CHANCE : I do not think there is an enormous amount of support by livestock producers for the Northam proposal. I think the support for the integrated proposal at Muchea remains as strong as it ever was. The questions relating to the Northam and indeed the Moora proposals were carefully considered in the original construct for Muchea. Producers were represented by a range of organisations, but the two major organisations were the WA Farmers’ Federation and the Pastoralists and Graziers’ Association. All organisations supported the Muchea proposition, with the exception, sadly, of my old Merredin zone council of the Farmers’ Federation and, I think, one district committee of the PGA, which would have been the Avon or the Mortlock district committee. Significantly, outside the producing sector of the industry, all those in the livestock selling and transport sectors and the live export sectors, which are very significant users of the facility, expressed 100 per cent support for Muchea. I note that particularly the WA Livestock Salesmen’s Association and the Australian Livestock Transporters Association were vehemently against a split facility, which I had first sought views on because I looked at the possibility of a split facility, with a cattle selling complex at Muchea and a sheep selling complex at Northam. Those two important components of the industry were diametrically opposed to the idea of splitting the facility.
Hon KIM CHANCE : I do not think there is an enormous amount of support by livestock producers for the Northam proposal. I think the support for the integrated proposal at Muchea remains as strong as it ever was. The questions relating to the Northam and indeed the Moora proposals were carefully considered in the original construct for Muchea. Producers were represented by a range of organisations, but the two major organisations were the WA Farmers’ Federation and the Pastoralists and Graziers’ Association. All organisations supported the Muchea proposition, with the exception, sadly, of my old Merredin zone council of the Farmers’ Federation and, I think, one district committee of the PGA, which would have been the Avon or the Mortlock district committee. Significantly, outside the producing sector of the industry, all those in the livestock selling and transport sectors and the live export sectors, which are very significant users of the facility, expressed 100 per cent support for Muchea. I note that particularly the WA Livestock Salesmen’s Association and the Australian Livestock Transporters Association were vehemently against a split facility, which I had first sought views on because I looked at the possibility of a split facility, with a cattle selling complex at Muchea and a sheep selling complex at Northam. Those two important components of the industry were diametrically opposed to the idea of splitting the facility.
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.