❓ Hon Bill Stretch asks about the progress of the Midland saleyard relocation and seeks assurance that sale proceeds will be reinvested. The Minister provides an update on the project's stages and confirms reinvestment, while also raising concerns about competitive neutrality.
AnsweredQoN 1120Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
(1) As it is nearly Christmas, can the minister update the House on the development of the new saleyards to replace the Midland complex? (2) In particular, can the minister assure the House that the proceeds of the sale of the premises, land and other assets will not be returned to general government revenue, but will be reinvested in the new complex and all the other regional livestock selling facilities? The minister’s answer might fall into the same category as the response to Hon George Cash’s earlier question. Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
I will try to be brief in my answer. (1) We have moved in this three-stage process of shifting from Midland to Muchea. We have moved from stage 1 to stage 2, which is a crucial process; that is, at the point of transferring from stage 1 to stage 2, the matter had to go back to Cabinet because Treasury was involved in the deal. It has cleared the hurdles that needed to be cleared at the end of the stage 1 process. We are currently engaged in the stage 2 process, which involves the exercise of the options of purchase of the land itself. Once the land has been acquired, the Environmental Protection Authority process will also be engaged. The EPA will not get involved until it is told which piece of land is being moved to. A general view cannot be obtained from the EPA, and it would be unreasonable to ask it to provide one. These are important processes. Phase 2 ends at the beginning of construction of the new facility. We are running within our adjusted time frame, which has been adjusted a couple of times as the honourable member knows. However, the adjusted time frame still allows for the first sales to be conducted from the new facility late 2006. (2) Yes. I believe I can give that undertaking. The Cabinet’s decision on the matter, through a circuitous process, as the member understands, is that the State will fully fund the construction cost of Muchea. The cost of that construction, along with land purchase price issues, and some of the road access issues, is approximately $16.5 million, and that is the estimated return from the Midland land. Therefore, within the circuitous nature of the way government assets are moved around, I can give the member that undertaking. My view has always been that this facility should not be a debt-free facility that operates in competition with local government-owned saleyards that are carrying debt, because that would be a breach of competitive neutrality principles. I am still of that view, but that is a matter on which I am having interesting, fulfilling discussions with Treasury. A regional saleyards fund should be established from some of the revenue that is gained from the sale of the Midland saleyards. However, I have other people to convince of the benefits of that.
(2) In particular, can the minister assure the House that the proceeds of the sale of the premises, land and other assets will not be returned to general government revenue, but will be reinvested in the new complex and all the other regional livestock selling facilities? The minister’s answer might fall into the same category as the response to Hon George Cash’s earlier question. Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I will try to be brief in my answer. (1) We have moved in this three-stage process of shifting from Midland to Muchea. We have moved from stage 1 to stage 2, which is a crucial process; that is, at the point of transferring from stage 1 to stage 2, the matter had to go back to Cabinet because Treasury was involved in the deal. It has cleared the hurdles that needed to be cleared at the end of the stage 1 process. We are currently engaged in the stage 2 process, which involves the exercise of the options of purchase of the land itself. Once the land has been acquired, the Environmental Protection Authority process will also be engaged. The EPA will not get involved until it is told which piece of land is being moved to. A general view cannot be obtained from the EPA, and it would be unreasonable to ask it to provide one. These are important processes. Phase 2 ends at the beginning of construction of the new facility. We are running within our adjusted time frame, which has been adjusted a couple of times as the honourable member knows. However, the adjusted time frame still allows for the first sales to be conducted from the new facility late 2006. (2) Yes. I believe I can give that undertaking. The Cabinet’s decision on the matter, through a circuitous process, as the member understands, is that the State will fully fund the construction cost of Muchea. The cost of that construction, along with land purchase price issues, and some of the road access issues, is approximately $16.5 million, and that is the estimated return from the Midland land. Therefore, within the circuitous nature of the way government assets are moved around, I can give the member that undertaking. My view has always been that this facility should not be a debt-free facility that operates in competition with local government-owned saleyards that are carrying debt, because that would be a breach of competitive neutrality principles. I am still of that view, but that is a matter on which I am having interesting, fulfilling discussions with Treasury. A regional saleyards fund should be established from some of the revenue that is gained from the sale of the Midland saleyards. However, I have other people to convince of the benefits of that.
The minister’s answer might fall into the same category as the response to Hon George Cash’s earlier question. Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I will try to be brief in my answer. (1) We have moved in this three-stage process of shifting from Midland to Muchea. We have moved from stage 1 to stage 2, which is a crucial process; that is, at the point of transferring from stage 1 to stage 2, the matter had to go back to Cabinet because Treasury was involved in the deal. It has cleared the hurdles that needed to be cleared at the end of the stage 1 process. We are currently engaged in the stage 2 process, which involves the exercise of the options of purchase of the land itself. Once the land has been acquired, the Environmental Protection Authority process will also be engaged. The EPA will not get involved until it is told which piece of land is being moved to. A general view cannot be obtained from the EPA, and it would be unreasonable to ask it to provide one. These are important processes. Phase 2 ends at the beginning of construction of the new facility. We are running within our adjusted time frame, which has been adjusted a couple of times as the honourable member knows. However, the adjusted time frame still allows for the first sales to be conducted from the new facility late 2006. (2) Yes. I believe I can give that undertaking. The Cabinet’s decision on the matter, through a circuitous process, as the member understands, is that the State will fully fund the construction cost of Muchea. The cost of that construction, along with land purchase price issues, and some of the road access issues, is approximately $16.5 million, and that is the estimated return from the Midland land. Therefore, within the circuitous nature of the way government assets are moved around, I can give the member that undertaking. My view has always been that this facility should not be a debt-free facility that operates in competition with local government-owned saleyards that are carrying debt, because that would be a breach of competitive neutrality principles. I am still of that view, but that is a matter on which I am having interesting, fulfilling discussions with Treasury. A regional saleyards fund should be established from some of the revenue that is gained from the sale of the Midland saleyards. However, I have other people to convince of the benefits of that.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I will try to be brief in my answer. (1) We have moved in this three-stage process of shifting from Midland to Muchea. We have moved from stage 1 to stage 2, which is a crucial process; that is, at the point of transferring from stage 1 to stage 2, the matter had to go back to Cabinet because Treasury was involved in the deal. It has cleared the hurdles that needed to be cleared at the end of the stage 1 process. We are currently engaged in the stage 2 process, which involves the exercise of the options of purchase of the land itself. Once the land has been acquired, the Environmental Protection Authority process will also be engaged. The EPA will not get involved until it is told which piece of land is being moved to. A general view cannot be obtained from the EPA, and it would be unreasonable to ask it to provide one. These are important processes. Phase 2 ends at the beginning of construction of the new facility. We are running within our adjusted time frame, which has been adjusted a couple of times as the honourable member knows. However, the adjusted time frame still allows for the first sales to be conducted from the new facility late 2006. (2) Yes. I believe I can give that undertaking. The Cabinet’s decision on the matter, through a circuitous process, as the member understands, is that the State will fully fund the construction cost of Muchea. The cost of that construction, along with land purchase price issues, and some of the road access issues, is approximately $16.5 million, and that is the estimated return from the Midland land. Therefore, within the circuitous nature of the way government assets are moved around, I can give the member that undertaking. My view has always been that this facility should not be a debt-free facility that operates in competition with local government-owned saleyards that are carrying debt, because that would be a breach of competitive neutrality principles. I am still of that view, but that is a matter on which I am having interesting, fulfilling discussions with Treasury. A regional saleyards fund should be established from some of the revenue that is gained from the sale of the Midland saleyards. However, I have other people to convince of the benefits of that.
I will try to be brief in my answer. (1) We have moved in this three-stage process of shifting from Midland to Muchea. We have moved from stage 1 to stage 2, which is a crucial process; that is, at the point of transferring from stage 1 to stage 2, the matter had to go back to Cabinet because Treasury was involved in the deal. It has cleared the hurdles that needed to be cleared at the end of the stage 1 process. We are currently engaged in the stage 2 process, which involves the exercise of the options of purchase of the land itself. Once the land has been acquired, the Environmental Protection Authority process will also be engaged. The EPA will not get involved until it is told which piece of land is being moved to. A general view cannot be obtained from the EPA, and it would be unreasonable to ask it to provide one. These are important processes. Phase 2 ends at the beginning of construction of the new facility. We are running within our adjusted time frame, which has been adjusted a couple of times as the honourable member knows. However, the adjusted time frame still allows for the first sales to be conducted from the new facility late 2006. (2) Yes. I believe I can give that undertaking. The Cabinet’s decision on the matter, through a circuitous process, as the member understands, is that the State will fully fund the construction cost of Muchea. The cost of that construction, along with land purchase price issues, and some of the road access issues, is approximately $16.5 million, and that is the estimated return from the Midland land. Therefore, within the circuitous nature of the way government assets are moved around, I can give the member that undertaking. My view has always been that this facility should not be a debt-free facility that operates in competition with local government-owned saleyards that are carrying debt, because that would be a breach of competitive neutrality principles. I am still of that view, but that is a matter on which I am having interesting, fulfilling discussions with Treasury. A regional saleyards fund should be established from some of the revenue that is gained from the sale of the Midland saleyards. However, I have other people to convince of the benefits of that.
(1) We have moved in this three-stage process of shifting from Midland to Muchea. We have moved from stage 1 to stage 2, which is a crucial process; that is, at the point of transferring from stage 1 to stage 2, the matter had to go back to Cabinet because Treasury was involved in the deal. It has cleared the hurdles that needed to be cleared at the end of the stage 1 process. We are currently engaged in the stage 2 process, which involves the exercise of the options of purchase of the land itself. Once the land has been acquired, the Environmental Protection Authority process will also be engaged. The EPA will not get involved until it is told which piece of land is being moved to. A general view cannot be obtained from the EPA, and it would be unreasonable to ask it to provide one. These are important processes. Phase 2 ends at the beginning of construction of the new facility. We are running within our adjusted time frame, which has been adjusted a couple of times as the honourable member knows. However, the adjusted time frame still allows for the first sales to be conducted from the new facility late 2006. (2) Yes. I believe I can give that undertaking. The Cabinet’s decision on the matter, through a circuitous process, as the member understands, is that the State will fully fund the construction cost of Muchea. The cost of that construction, along with land purchase price issues, and some of the road access issues, is approximately $16.5 million, and that is the estimated return from the Midland land. Therefore, within the circuitous nature of the way government assets are moved around, I can give the member that undertaking. My view has always been that this facility should not be a debt-free facility that operates in competition with local government-owned saleyards that are carrying debt, because that would be a breach of competitive neutrality principles. I am still of that view, but that is a matter on which I am having interesting, fulfilling discussions with Treasury. A regional saleyards fund should be established from some of the revenue that is gained from the sale of the Midland saleyards. However, I have other people to convince of the benefits of that.
(2) Yes. I believe I can give that undertaking. The Cabinet’s decision on the matter, through a circuitous process, as the member understands, is that the State will fully fund the construction cost of Muchea. The cost of that construction, along with land purchase price issues, and some of the road access issues, is approximately $16.5 million, and that is the estimated return from the Midland land. Therefore, within the circuitous nature of the way government assets are moved around, I can give the member that undertaking. My view has always been that this facility should not be a debt-free facility that operates in competition with local government-owned saleyards that are carrying debt, because that would be a breach of competitive neutrality principles. I am still of that view, but that is a matter on which I am having interesting, fulfilling discussions with Treasury. A regional saleyards fund should be established from some of the revenue that is gained from the sale of the Midland saleyards. However, I have other people to convince of the benefits of that.
(2) In particular, can the minister assure the House that the proceeds of the sale of the premises, land and other assets will not be returned to general government revenue, but will be reinvested in the new complex and all the other regional livestock selling facilities? The minister’s answer might fall into the same category as the response to Hon George Cash’s earlier question. Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I will try to be brief in my answer. (1) We have moved in this three-stage process of shifting from Midland to Muchea. We have moved from stage 1 to stage 2, which is a crucial process; that is, at the point of transferring from stage 1 to stage 2, the matter had to go back to Cabinet because Treasury was involved in the deal. It has cleared the hurdles that needed to be cleared at the end of the stage 1 process. We are currently engaged in the stage 2 process, which involves the exercise of the options of purchase of the land itself. Once the land has been acquired, the Environmental Protection Authority process will also be engaged. The EPA will not get involved until it is told which piece of land is being moved to. A general view cannot be obtained from the EPA, and it would be unreasonable to ask it to provide one. These are important processes. Phase 2 ends at the beginning of construction of the new facility. We are running within our adjusted time frame, which has been adjusted a couple of times as the honourable member knows. However, the adjusted time frame still allows for the first sales to be conducted from the new facility late 2006. (2) Yes. I believe I can give that undertaking. The Cabinet’s decision on the matter, through a circuitous process, as the member understands, is that the State will fully fund the construction cost of Muchea. The cost of that construction, along with land purchase price issues, and some of the road access issues, is approximately $16.5 million, and that is the estimated return from the Midland land. Therefore, within the circuitous nature of the way government assets are moved around, I can give the member that undertaking. My view has always been that this facility should not be a debt-free facility that operates in competition with local government-owned saleyards that are carrying debt, because that would be a breach of competitive neutrality principles. I am still of that view, but that is a matter on which I am having interesting, fulfilling discussions with Treasury. A regional saleyards fund should be established from some of the revenue that is gained from the sale of the Midland saleyards. However, I have other people to convince of the benefits of that.
The minister’s answer might fall into the same category as the response to Hon George Cash’s earlier question. Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I will try to be brief in my answer. (1) We have moved in this three-stage process of shifting from Midland to Muchea. We have moved from stage 1 to stage 2, which is a crucial process; that is, at the point of transferring from stage 1 to stage 2, the matter had to go back to Cabinet because Treasury was involved in the deal. It has cleared the hurdles that needed to be cleared at the end of the stage 1 process. We are currently engaged in the stage 2 process, which involves the exercise of the options of purchase of the land itself. Once the land has been acquired, the Environmental Protection Authority process will also be engaged. The EPA will not get involved until it is told which piece of land is being moved to. A general view cannot be obtained from the EPA, and it would be unreasonable to ask it to provide one. These are important processes. Phase 2 ends at the beginning of construction of the new facility. We are running within our adjusted time frame, which has been adjusted a couple of times as the honourable member knows. However, the adjusted time frame still allows for the first sales to be conducted from the new facility late 2006. (2) Yes. I believe I can give that undertaking. The Cabinet’s decision on the matter, through a circuitous process, as the member understands, is that the State will fully fund the construction cost of Muchea. The cost of that construction, along with land purchase price issues, and some of the road access issues, is approximately $16.5 million, and that is the estimated return from the Midland land. Therefore, within the circuitous nature of the way government assets are moved around, I can give the member that undertaking. My view has always been that this facility should not be a debt-free facility that operates in competition with local government-owned saleyards that are carrying debt, because that would be a breach of competitive neutrality principles. I am still of that view, but that is a matter on which I am having interesting, fulfilling discussions with Treasury. A regional saleyards fund should be established from some of the revenue that is gained from the sale of the Midland saleyards. However, I have other people to convince of the benefits of that.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I will try to be brief in my answer. (1) We have moved in this three-stage process of shifting from Midland to Muchea. We have moved from stage 1 to stage 2, which is a crucial process; that is, at the point of transferring from stage 1 to stage 2, the matter had to go back to Cabinet because Treasury was involved in the deal. It has cleared the hurdles that needed to be cleared at the end of the stage 1 process. We are currently engaged in the stage 2 process, which involves the exercise of the options of purchase of the land itself. Once the land has been acquired, the Environmental Protection Authority process will also be engaged. The EPA will not get involved until it is told which piece of land is being moved to. A general view cannot be obtained from the EPA, and it would be unreasonable to ask it to provide one. These are important processes. Phase 2 ends at the beginning of construction of the new facility. We are running within our adjusted time frame, which has been adjusted a couple of times as the honourable member knows. However, the adjusted time frame still allows for the first sales to be conducted from the new facility late 2006. (2) Yes. I believe I can give that undertaking. The Cabinet’s decision on the matter, through a circuitous process, as the member understands, is that the State will fully fund the construction cost of Muchea. The cost of that construction, along with land purchase price issues, and some of the road access issues, is approximately $16.5 million, and that is the estimated return from the Midland land. Therefore, within the circuitous nature of the way government assets are moved around, I can give the member that undertaking. My view has always been that this facility should not be a debt-free facility that operates in competition with local government-owned saleyards that are carrying debt, because that would be a breach of competitive neutrality principles. I am still of that view, but that is a matter on which I am having interesting, fulfilling discussions with Treasury. A regional saleyards fund should be established from some of the revenue that is gained from the sale of the Midland saleyards. However, I have other people to convince of the benefits of that.
I will try to be brief in my answer. (1) We have moved in this three-stage process of shifting from Midland to Muchea. We have moved from stage 1 to stage 2, which is a crucial process; that is, at the point of transferring from stage 1 to stage 2, the matter had to go back to Cabinet because Treasury was involved in the deal. It has cleared the hurdles that needed to be cleared at the end of the stage 1 process. We are currently engaged in the stage 2 process, which involves the exercise of the options of purchase of the land itself. Once the land has been acquired, the Environmental Protection Authority process will also be engaged. The EPA will not get involved until it is told which piece of land is being moved to. A general view cannot be obtained from the EPA, and it would be unreasonable to ask it to provide one. These are important processes. Phase 2 ends at the beginning of construction of the new facility. We are running within our adjusted time frame, which has been adjusted a couple of times as the honourable member knows. However, the adjusted time frame still allows for the first sales to be conducted from the new facility late 2006. (2) Yes. I believe I can give that undertaking. The Cabinet’s decision on the matter, through a circuitous process, as the member understands, is that the State will fully fund the construction cost of Muchea. The cost of that construction, along with land purchase price issues, and some of the road access issues, is approximately $16.5 million, and that is the estimated return from the Midland land. Therefore, within the circuitous nature of the way government assets are moved around, I can give the member that undertaking. My view has always been that this facility should not be a debt-free facility that operates in competition with local government-owned saleyards that are carrying debt, because that would be a breach of competitive neutrality principles. I am still of that view, but that is a matter on which I am having interesting, fulfilling discussions with Treasury. A regional saleyards fund should be established from some of the revenue that is gained from the sale of the Midland saleyards. However, I have other people to convince of the benefits of that.
(1) We have moved in this three-stage process of shifting from Midland to Muchea. We have moved from stage 1 to stage 2, which is a crucial process; that is, at the point of transferring from stage 1 to stage 2, the matter had to go back to Cabinet because Treasury was involved in the deal. It has cleared the hurdles that needed to be cleared at the end of the stage 1 process. We are currently engaged in the stage 2 process, which involves the exercise of the options of purchase of the land itself. Once the land has been acquired, the Environmental Protection Authority process will also be engaged. The EPA will not get involved until it is told which piece of land is being moved to. A general view cannot be obtained from the EPA, and it would be unreasonable to ask it to provide one. These are important processes. Phase 2 ends at the beginning of construction of the new facility. We are running within our adjusted time frame, which has been adjusted a couple of times as the honourable member knows. However, the adjusted time frame still allows for the first sales to be conducted from the new facility late 2006. (2) Yes. I believe I can give that undertaking. The Cabinet’s decision on the matter, through a circuitous process, as the member understands, is that the State will fully fund the construction cost of Muchea. The cost of that construction, along with land purchase price issues, and some of the road access issues, is approximately $16.5 million, and that is the estimated return from the Midland land. Therefore, within the circuitous nature of the way government assets are moved around, I can give the member that undertaking. My view has always been that this facility should not be a debt-free facility that operates in competition with local government-owned saleyards that are carrying debt, because that would be a breach of competitive neutrality principles. I am still of that view, but that is a matter on which I am having interesting, fulfilling discussions with Treasury. A regional saleyards fund should be established from some of the revenue that is gained from the sale of the Midland saleyards. However, I have other people to convince of the benefits of that.
(2) Yes. I believe I can give that undertaking. The Cabinet’s decision on the matter, through a circuitous process, as the member understands, is that the State will fully fund the construction cost of Muchea. The cost of that construction, along with land purchase price issues, and some of the road access issues, is approximately $16.5 million, and that is the estimated return from the Midland land. Therefore, within the circuitous nature of the way government assets are moved around, I can give the member that undertaking. My view has always been that this facility should not be a debt-free facility that operates in competition with local government-owned saleyards that are carrying debt, because that would be a breach of competitive neutrality principles. I am still of that view, but that is a matter on which I am having interesting, fulfilling discussions with Treasury. A regional saleyards fund should be established from some of the revenue that is gained from the sale of the Midland saleyards. However, I have other people to convince of the benefits of that.
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.