❓ Hon Peter Foss questions the Minister for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries regarding jarrah timber allocations, potential overallocation, and the certainty provided to successful and unsuccessful proponents. The Minister clarifies the allocation process and appeal avenues.
AnsweredQoN 1100Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
TIMBER ALLOCATIONS 1100. Hon PETER FOSS to the Minister for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries: I refer to the Government’s announcement regarding the jarrah allocation contained in the minister’s press release on Wednesday, 27 February 2002. (1) Were the timber allocations applied for by the 10 successful proponents - taken with the Greenbushes and Nannup allocations - greater or less than 140 000 cubic metres? (2) If greater, how will the Government resolve this potential overallocation if all proponents provide appropriate business cases? (3) Does the 140 000 cubic metres indicative sustained yield, which was reaffirmed by Cabinet, include any of the possible new reserves or step-down, and if so, what contribution? (4) With regard to the “end to uncertainty” referred to in the minister’s press release, what degree of certainty does his announcement give to - (a) those proponents who were unsuccessful? (b) those proponents who were successful? (5) Do the unsuccessful proponents who believe their applications were improperly dealt with have any avenue of appeal? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
(1) Greater. (2) The final sustained yield figure will be determined in the new forest management plan. Allocation within this quantity will be determined on merit, based on criteria established in the request for proposals. Hon Peter Foss: So it will not be pro rata, it will be order of merit? Hon KIM CHANCE: That is correct. Hon Peter Foss: Someone at the lower end of merit might miss out even with a successful business case? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, depending upon the final allocation. I was trying to refer Hon Peter Foss to a part of the question that dealt with that, but it depends upon the final allocation. (3) The effect of reserves and step-down will be confirmed during the preparation of the final management plan. Obviously, we hope that the final forest management plan will be a number greater than 140 000 cubic metres, which will allow that adjustment to take place. (4) (a) These proponents have been advised that jarrah sawlogs will not be available to them. Hon Peter Foss: So they are out? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, they are out. (b) These proponents have been advised that the process is competitive, and depends on business plans and the final sustained yield figure. That was the part of the question to which I referred the member. Hon Peter Foss: Do they know where they are on the pecking list, so that they have an idea of how likely they are to miss out? Hon KIM CHANCE: No, they do not. Hon Peter Foss: They do not know who has the most merit? Hon KIM CHANCE: No. The PRESIDENT: Order! We seem to be getting into a range of supplementary questions. Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Peter Foss is being helpful in allowing me to explain the situation. The 10 proponents were released in alphabetical order for the specific purpose of disguising the order. (5) All proponents have been advised of contact details of the Forest Products Commission’s probity auditor. If a matter concerning the process arises, they will be able to take up that matter with the auditor.
TIMBER ALLOCATIONS
I refer to the Government’s announcement regarding the jarrah allocation contained in the minister’s press release on Wednesday, 27 February 2002. (1) Were the timber allocations applied for by the 10 successful proponents - taken with the Greenbushes and Nannup allocations - greater or less than 140 000 cubic metres? (2) If greater, how will the Government resolve this potential overallocation if all proponents provide appropriate business cases? (3) Does the 140 000 cubic metres indicative sustained yield, which was reaffirmed by Cabinet, include any of the possible new reserves or step-down, and if so, what contribution? (4) With regard to the “end to uncertainty” referred to in the minister’s press release, what degree of certainty does his announcement give to - (a) those proponents who were unsuccessful? (b) those proponents who were successful? (5) Do the unsuccessful proponents who believe their applications were improperly dealt with have any avenue of appeal? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1) Greater. (2) The final sustained yield figure will be determined in the new forest management plan. Allocation within this quantity will be determined on merit, based on criteria established in the request for proposals. Hon Peter Foss: So it will not be pro rata, it will be order of merit? Hon KIM CHANCE: That is correct. Hon Peter Foss: Someone at the lower end of merit might miss out even with a successful business case? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, depending upon the final allocation. I was trying to refer Hon Peter Foss to a part of the question that dealt with that, but it depends upon the final allocation. (3) The effect of reserves and step-down will be confirmed during the preparation of the final management plan. Obviously, we hope that the final forest management plan will be a number greater than 140 000 cubic metres, which will allow that adjustment to take place. (4) (a) These proponents have been advised that jarrah sawlogs will not be available to them. Hon Peter Foss: So they are out? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, they are out. (b) These proponents have been advised that the process is competitive, and depends on business plans and the final sustained yield figure. That was the part of the question to which I referred the member. Hon Peter Foss: Do they know where they are on the pecking list, so that they have an idea of how likely they are to miss out? Hon KIM CHANCE: No, they do not. Hon Peter Foss: They do not know who has the most merit? Hon KIM CHANCE: No. The PRESIDENT: Order! We seem to be getting into a range of supplementary questions. Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Peter Foss is being helpful in allowing me to explain the situation. The 10 proponents were released in alphabetical order for the specific purpose of disguising the order. (5) All proponents have been advised of contact details of the Forest Products Commission’s probity auditor. If a matter concerning the process arises, they will be able to take up that matter with the auditor.
(1) Were the timber allocations applied for by the 10 successful proponents - taken with the Greenbushes and Nannup allocations - greater or less than 140 000 cubic metres? (2) If greater, how will the Government resolve this potential overallocation if all proponents provide appropriate business cases? (3) Does the 140 000 cubic metres indicative sustained yield, which was reaffirmed by Cabinet, include any of the possible new reserves or step-down, and if so, what contribution? (4) With regard to the “end to uncertainty” referred to in the minister’s press release, what degree of certainty does his announcement give to - (a) those proponents who were unsuccessful? (b) those proponents who were successful? (5) Do the unsuccessful proponents who believe their applications were improperly dealt with have any avenue of appeal? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1) Greater. (2) The final sustained yield figure will be determined in the new forest management plan. Allocation within this quantity will be determined on merit, based on criteria established in the request for proposals. Hon Peter Foss: So it will not be pro rata, it will be order of merit? Hon KIM CHANCE: That is correct. Hon Peter Foss: Someone at the lower end of merit might miss out even with a successful business case? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, depending upon the final allocation. I was trying to refer Hon Peter Foss to a part of the question that dealt with that, but it depends upon the final allocation. (3) The effect of reserves and step-down will be confirmed during the preparation of the final management plan. Obviously, we hope that the final forest management plan will be a number greater than 140 000 cubic metres, which will allow that adjustment to take place. (4) (a) These proponents have been advised that jarrah sawlogs will not be available to them. Hon Peter Foss: So they are out? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, they are out. (b) These proponents have been advised that the process is competitive, and depends on business plans and the final sustained yield figure. That was the part of the question to which I referred the member. Hon Peter Foss: Do they know where they are on the pecking list, so that they have an idea of how likely they are to miss out? Hon KIM CHANCE: No, they do not. Hon Peter Foss: They do not know who has the most merit? Hon KIM CHANCE: No. The PRESIDENT: Order! We seem to be getting into a range of supplementary questions. Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Peter Foss is being helpful in allowing me to explain the situation. The 10 proponents were released in alphabetical order for the specific purpose of disguising the order. (5) All proponents have been advised of contact details of the Forest Products Commission’s probity auditor. If a matter concerning the process arises, they will be able to take up that matter with the auditor.
(2) If greater, how will the Government resolve this potential overallocation if all proponents provide appropriate business cases? (3) Does the 140 000 cubic metres indicative sustained yield, which was reaffirmed by Cabinet, include any of the possible new reserves or step-down, and if so, what contribution? (4) With regard to the “end to uncertainty” referred to in the minister’s press release, what degree of certainty does his announcement give to - (a) those proponents who were unsuccessful? (b) those proponents who were successful? (5) Do the unsuccessful proponents who believe their applications were improperly dealt with have any avenue of appeal? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1) Greater. (2) The final sustained yield figure will be determined in the new forest management plan. Allocation within this quantity will be determined on merit, based on criteria established in the request for proposals. Hon Peter Foss: So it will not be pro rata, it will be order of merit? Hon KIM CHANCE: That is correct. Hon Peter Foss: Someone at the lower end of merit might miss out even with a successful business case? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, depending upon the final allocation. I was trying to refer Hon Peter Foss to a part of the question that dealt with that, but it depends upon the final allocation. (3) The effect of reserves and step-down will be confirmed during the preparation of the final management plan. Obviously, we hope that the final forest management plan will be a number greater than 140 000 cubic metres, which will allow that adjustment to take place. (4) (a) These proponents have been advised that jarrah sawlogs will not be available to them. Hon Peter Foss: So they are out? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, they are out. (b) These proponents have been advised that the process is competitive, and depends on business plans and the final sustained yield figure. That was the part of the question to which I referred the member. Hon Peter Foss: Do they know where they are on the pecking list, so that they have an idea of how likely they are to miss out? Hon KIM CHANCE: No, they do not. Hon Peter Foss: They do not know who has the most merit? Hon KIM CHANCE: No. The PRESIDENT: Order! We seem to be getting into a range of supplementary questions. Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Peter Foss is being helpful in allowing me to explain the situation. The 10 proponents were released in alphabetical order for the specific purpose of disguising the order. (5) All proponents have been advised of contact details of the Forest Products Commission’s probity auditor. If a matter concerning the process arises, they will be able to take up that matter with the auditor.
(3) Does the 140 000 cubic metres indicative sustained yield, which was reaffirmed by Cabinet, include any of the possible new reserves or step-down, and if so, what contribution? (4) With regard to the “end to uncertainty” referred to in the minister’s press release, what degree of certainty does his announcement give to - (a) those proponents who were unsuccessful? (b) those proponents who were successful? (5) Do the unsuccessful proponents who believe their applications were improperly dealt with have any avenue of appeal? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1) Greater. (2) The final sustained yield figure will be determined in the new forest management plan. Allocation within this quantity will be determined on merit, based on criteria established in the request for proposals. Hon Peter Foss: So it will not be pro rata, it will be order of merit? Hon KIM CHANCE: That is correct. Hon Peter Foss: Someone at the lower end of merit might miss out even with a successful business case? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, depending upon the final allocation. I was trying to refer Hon Peter Foss to a part of the question that dealt with that, but it depends upon the final allocation. (3) The effect of reserves and step-down will be confirmed during the preparation of the final management plan. Obviously, we hope that the final forest management plan will be a number greater than 140 000 cubic metres, which will allow that adjustment to take place. (4) (a) These proponents have been advised that jarrah sawlogs will not be available to them. Hon Peter Foss: So they are out? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, they are out. (b) These proponents have been advised that the process is competitive, and depends on business plans and the final sustained yield figure. That was the part of the question to which I referred the member. Hon Peter Foss: Do they know where they are on the pecking list, so that they have an idea of how likely they are to miss out? Hon KIM CHANCE: No, they do not. Hon Peter Foss: They do not know who has the most merit? Hon KIM CHANCE: No. The PRESIDENT: Order! We seem to be getting into a range of supplementary questions. Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Peter Foss is being helpful in allowing me to explain the situation. The 10 proponents were released in alphabetical order for the specific purpose of disguising the order. (5) All proponents have been advised of contact details of the Forest Products Commission’s probity auditor. If a matter concerning the process arises, they will be able to take up that matter with the auditor.
(4) With regard to the “end to uncertainty” referred to in the minister’s press release, what degree of certainty does his announcement give to - (a) those proponents who were unsuccessful? (b) those proponents who were successful? (5) Do the unsuccessful proponents who believe their applications were improperly dealt with have any avenue of appeal? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1) Greater. (2) The final sustained yield figure will be determined in the new forest management plan. Allocation within this quantity will be determined on merit, based on criteria established in the request for proposals. Hon Peter Foss: So it will not be pro rata, it will be order of merit? Hon KIM CHANCE: That is correct. Hon Peter Foss: Someone at the lower end of merit might miss out even with a successful business case? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, depending upon the final allocation. I was trying to refer Hon Peter Foss to a part of the question that dealt with that, but it depends upon the final allocation. (3) The effect of reserves and step-down will be confirmed during the preparation of the final management plan. Obviously, we hope that the final forest management plan will be a number greater than 140 000 cubic metres, which will allow that adjustment to take place. (4) (a) These proponents have been advised that jarrah sawlogs will not be available to them. Hon Peter Foss: So they are out? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, they are out. (b) These proponents have been advised that the process is competitive, and depends on business plans and the final sustained yield figure. That was the part of the question to which I referred the member. Hon Peter Foss: Do they know where they are on the pecking list, so that they have an idea of how likely they are to miss out? Hon KIM CHANCE: No, they do not. Hon Peter Foss: They do not know who has the most merit? Hon KIM CHANCE: No. The PRESIDENT: Order! We seem to be getting into a range of supplementary questions. Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Peter Foss is being helpful in allowing me to explain the situation. The 10 proponents were released in alphabetical order for the specific purpose of disguising the order. (5) All proponents have been advised of contact details of the Forest Products Commission’s probity auditor. If a matter concerning the process arises, they will be able to take up that matter with the auditor.
(b) those proponents who were successful?
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1) Greater. (2) The final sustained yield figure will be determined in the new forest management plan. Allocation within this quantity will be determined on merit, based on criteria established in the request for proposals. Hon Peter Foss: So it will not be pro rata, it will be order of merit? Hon KIM CHANCE: That is correct. Hon Peter Foss: Someone at the lower end of merit might miss out even with a successful business case? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, depending upon the final allocation. I was trying to refer Hon Peter Foss to a part of the question that dealt with that, but it depends upon the final allocation. (3) The effect of reserves and step-down will be confirmed during the preparation of the final management plan. Obviously, we hope that the final forest management plan will be a number greater than 140 000 cubic metres, which will allow that adjustment to take place. (4) (a) These proponents have been advised that jarrah sawlogs will not be available to them. Hon Peter Foss: So they are out? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, they are out. (b) These proponents have been advised that the process is competitive, and depends on business plans and the final sustained yield figure. That was the part of the question to which I referred the member. Hon Peter Foss: Do they know where they are on the pecking list, so that they have an idea of how likely they are to miss out? Hon KIM CHANCE: No, they do not. Hon Peter Foss: They do not know who has the most merit? Hon KIM CHANCE: No. The PRESIDENT: Order! We seem to be getting into a range of supplementary questions. Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Peter Foss is being helpful in allowing me to explain the situation. The 10 proponents were released in alphabetical order for the specific purpose of disguising the order. (5) All proponents have been advised of contact details of the Forest Products Commission’s probity auditor. If a matter concerning the process arises, they will be able to take up that matter with the auditor.
(1) Greater. (2) The final sustained yield figure will be determined in the new forest management plan. Allocation within this quantity will be determined on merit, based on criteria established in the request for proposals. Hon Peter Foss: So it will not be pro rata, it will be order of merit? Hon KIM CHANCE: That is correct. Hon Peter Foss: Someone at the lower end of merit might miss out even with a successful business case? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, depending upon the final allocation. I was trying to refer Hon Peter Foss to a part of the question that dealt with that, but it depends upon the final allocation. (3) The effect of reserves and step-down will be confirmed during the preparation of the final management plan. Obviously, we hope that the final forest management plan will be a number greater than 140 000 cubic metres, which will allow that adjustment to take place. (4) (a) These proponents have been advised that jarrah sawlogs will not be available to them. Hon Peter Foss: So they are out? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, they are out. (b) These proponents have been advised that the process is competitive, and depends on business plans and the final sustained yield figure. That was the part of the question to which I referred the member. Hon Peter Foss: Do they know where they are on the pecking list, so that they have an idea of how likely they are to miss out? Hon KIM CHANCE: No, they do not. Hon Peter Foss: They do not know who has the most merit? Hon KIM CHANCE: No. The PRESIDENT: Order! We seem to be getting into a range of supplementary questions. Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Peter Foss is being helpful in allowing me to explain the situation. The 10 proponents were released in alphabetical order for the specific purpose of disguising the order. (5) All proponents have been advised of contact details of the Forest Products Commission’s probity auditor. If a matter concerning the process arises, they will be able to take up that matter with the auditor.
(2) The final sustained yield figure will be determined in the new forest management plan. Allocation within this quantity will be determined on merit, based on criteria established in the request for proposals. Hon Peter Foss: So it will not be pro rata, it will be order of merit? Hon KIM CHANCE: That is correct. Hon Peter Foss: Someone at the lower end of merit might miss out even with a successful business case? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, depending upon the final allocation. I was trying to refer Hon Peter Foss to a part of the question that dealt with that, but it depends upon the final allocation. (3) The effect of reserves and step-down will be confirmed during the preparation of the final management plan. Obviously, we hope that the final forest management plan will be a number greater than 140 000 cubic metres, which will allow that adjustment to take place. (4) (a) These proponents have been advised that jarrah sawlogs will not be available to them. Hon Peter Foss: So they are out? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, they are out. (b) These proponents have been advised that the process is competitive, and depends on business plans and the final sustained yield figure. That was the part of the question to which I referred the member. Hon Peter Foss: Do they know where they are on the pecking list, so that they have an idea of how likely they are to miss out? Hon KIM CHANCE: No, they do not. Hon Peter Foss: They do not know who has the most merit? Hon KIM CHANCE: No. The PRESIDENT: Order! We seem to be getting into a range of supplementary questions. Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Peter Foss is being helpful in allowing me to explain the situation. The 10 proponents were released in alphabetical order for the specific purpose of disguising the order. (5) All proponents have been advised of contact details of the Forest Products Commission’s probity auditor. If a matter concerning the process arises, they will be able to take up that matter with the auditor.
Hon Peter Foss: So it will not be pro rata, it will be order of merit? Hon KIM CHANCE: That is correct. Hon Peter Foss: Someone at the lower end of merit might miss out even with a successful business case? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, depending upon the final allocation. I was trying to refer Hon Peter Foss to a part of the question that dealt with that, but it depends upon the final allocation. (3) The effect of reserves and step-down will be confirmed during the preparation of the final management plan. Obviously, we hope that the final forest management plan will be a number greater than 140 000 cubic metres, which will allow that adjustment to take place. (4) (a) These proponents have been advised that jarrah sawlogs will not be available to them. Hon Peter Foss: So they are out? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, they are out. (b) These proponents have been advised that the process is competitive, and depends on business plans and the final sustained yield figure. That was the part of the question to which I referred the member. Hon Peter Foss: Do they know where they are on the pecking list, so that they have an idea of how likely they are to miss out? Hon KIM CHANCE: No, they do not. Hon Peter Foss: They do not know who has the most merit? Hon KIM CHANCE: No. The PRESIDENT: Order! We seem to be getting into a range of supplementary questions. Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Peter Foss is being helpful in allowing me to explain the situation. The 10 proponents were released in alphabetical order for the specific purpose of disguising the order. (5) All proponents have been advised of contact details of the Forest Products Commission’s probity auditor. If a matter concerning the process arises, they will be able to take up that matter with the auditor.
Hon KIM CHANCE: That is correct. Hon Peter Foss: Someone at the lower end of merit might miss out even with a successful business case? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, depending upon the final allocation. I was trying to refer Hon Peter Foss to a part of the question that dealt with that, but it depends upon the final allocation. (3) The effect of reserves and step-down will be confirmed during the preparation of the final management plan. Obviously, we hope that the final forest management plan will be a number greater than 140 000 cubic metres, which will allow that adjustment to take place. (4) (a) These proponents have been advised that jarrah sawlogs will not be available to them. Hon Peter Foss: So they are out? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, they are out. (b) These proponents have been advised that the process is competitive, and depends on business plans and the final sustained yield figure. That was the part of the question to which I referred the member. Hon Peter Foss: Do they know where they are on the pecking list, so that they have an idea of how likely they are to miss out? Hon KIM CHANCE: No, they do not. Hon Peter Foss: They do not know who has the most merit? Hon KIM CHANCE: No. The PRESIDENT: Order! We seem to be getting into a range of supplementary questions. Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Peter Foss is being helpful in allowing me to explain the situation. The 10 proponents were released in alphabetical order for the specific purpose of disguising the order. (5) All proponents have been advised of contact details of the Forest Products Commission’s probity auditor. If a matter concerning the process arises, they will be able to take up that matter with the auditor.
Hon Peter Foss: Someone at the lower end of merit might miss out even with a successful business case? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, depending upon the final allocation. I was trying to refer Hon Peter Foss to a part of the question that dealt with that, but it depends upon the final allocation. (3) The effect of reserves and step-down will be confirmed during the preparation of the final management plan. Obviously, we hope that the final forest management plan will be a number greater than 140 000 cubic metres, which will allow that adjustment to take place. (4) (a) These proponents have been advised that jarrah sawlogs will not be available to them. Hon Peter Foss: So they are out? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, they are out. (b) These proponents have been advised that the process is competitive, and depends on business plans and the final sustained yield figure. That was the part of the question to which I referred the member. Hon Peter Foss: Do they know where they are on the pecking list, so that they have an idea of how likely they are to miss out? Hon KIM CHANCE: No, they do not. Hon Peter Foss: They do not know who has the most merit? Hon KIM CHANCE: No. The PRESIDENT: Order! We seem to be getting into a range of supplementary questions. Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Peter Foss is being helpful in allowing me to explain the situation. The 10 proponents were released in alphabetical order for the specific purpose of disguising the order. (5) All proponents have been advised of contact details of the Forest Products Commission’s probity auditor. If a matter concerning the process arises, they will be able to take up that matter with the auditor.
Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, depending upon the final allocation. I was trying to refer Hon Peter Foss to a part of the question that dealt with that, but it depends upon the final allocation. (3) The effect of reserves and step-down will be confirmed during the preparation of the final management plan. Obviously, we hope that the final forest management plan will be a number greater than 140 000 cubic metres, which will allow that adjustment to take place. (4) (a) These proponents have been advised that jarrah sawlogs will not be available to them. Hon Peter Foss: So they are out? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, they are out. (b) These proponents have been advised that the process is competitive, and depends on business plans and the final sustained yield figure. That was the part of the question to which I referred the member. Hon Peter Foss: Do they know where they are on the pecking list, so that they have an idea of how likely they are to miss out? Hon KIM CHANCE: No, they do not. Hon Peter Foss: They do not know who has the most merit? Hon KIM CHANCE: No. The PRESIDENT: Order! We seem to be getting into a range of supplementary questions. Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Peter Foss is being helpful in allowing me to explain the situation. The 10 proponents were released in alphabetical order for the specific purpose of disguising the order. (5) All proponents have been advised of contact details of the Forest Products Commission’s probity auditor. If a matter concerning the process arises, they will be able to take up that matter with the auditor.
(3) The effect of reserves and step-down will be confirmed during the preparation of the final management plan. Obviously, we hope that the final forest management plan will be a number greater than 140 000 cubic metres, which will allow that adjustment to take place. (4) (a) These proponents have been advised that jarrah sawlogs will not be available to them. Hon Peter Foss: So they are out? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, they are out. (b) These proponents have been advised that the process is competitive, and depends on business plans and the final sustained yield figure. That was the part of the question to which I referred the member. Hon Peter Foss: Do they know where they are on the pecking list, so that they have an idea of how likely they are to miss out? Hon KIM CHANCE: No, they do not. Hon Peter Foss: They do not know who has the most merit? Hon KIM CHANCE: No. The PRESIDENT: Order! We seem to be getting into a range of supplementary questions. Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Peter Foss is being helpful in allowing me to explain the situation. The 10 proponents were released in alphabetical order for the specific purpose of disguising the order. (5) All proponents have been advised of contact details of the Forest Products Commission’s probity auditor. If a matter concerning the process arises, they will be able to take up that matter with the auditor.
(4) (a) These proponents have been advised that jarrah sawlogs will not be available to them. Hon Peter Foss: So they are out? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, they are out. (b) These proponents have been advised that the process is competitive, and depends on business plans and the final sustained yield figure. That was the part of the question to which I referred the member. Hon Peter Foss: Do they know where they are on the pecking list, so that they have an idea of how likely they are to miss out? Hon KIM CHANCE: No, they do not. Hon Peter Foss: They do not know who has the most merit? Hon KIM CHANCE: No. The PRESIDENT: Order! We seem to be getting into a range of supplementary questions. Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Peter Foss is being helpful in allowing me to explain the situation. The 10 proponents were released in alphabetical order for the specific purpose of disguising the order. (5) All proponents have been advised of contact details of the Forest Products Commission’s probity auditor. If a matter concerning the process arises, they will be able to take up that matter with the auditor.
Hon Peter Foss: So they are out? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, they are out. (b) These proponents have been advised that the process is competitive, and depends on business plans and the final sustained yield figure. That was the part of the question to which I referred the member. Hon Peter Foss: Do they know where they are on the pecking list, so that they have an idea of how likely they are to miss out? Hon KIM CHANCE: No, they do not. Hon Peter Foss: They do not know who has the most merit? Hon KIM CHANCE: No. The PRESIDENT: Order! We seem to be getting into a range of supplementary questions. Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Peter Foss is being helpful in allowing me to explain the situation. The 10 proponents were released in alphabetical order for the specific purpose of disguising the order. (5) All proponents have been advised of contact details of the Forest Products Commission’s probity auditor. If a matter concerning the process arises, they will be able to take up that matter with the auditor.
Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, they are out. (b) These proponents have been advised that the process is competitive, and depends on business plans and the final sustained yield figure. That was the part of the question to which I referred the member. Hon Peter Foss: Do they know where they are on the pecking list, so that they have an idea of how likely they are to miss out? Hon KIM CHANCE: No, they do not. Hon Peter Foss: They do not know who has the most merit? Hon KIM CHANCE: No. The PRESIDENT: Order! We seem to be getting into a range of supplementary questions. Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Peter Foss is being helpful in allowing me to explain the situation. The 10 proponents were released in alphabetical order for the specific purpose of disguising the order. (5) All proponents have been advised of contact details of the Forest Products Commission’s probity auditor. If a matter concerning the process arises, they will be able to take up that matter with the auditor.
Hon KIM CHANCE: No, they do not. Hon Peter Foss: They do not know who has the most merit? Hon KIM CHANCE: No. The PRESIDENT: Order! We seem to be getting into a range of supplementary questions. Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Peter Foss is being helpful in allowing me to explain the situation. The 10 proponents were released in alphabetical order for the specific purpose of disguising the order. (5) All proponents have been advised of contact details of the Forest Products Commission’s probity auditor. If a matter concerning the process arises, they will be able to take up that matter with the auditor.
Hon Peter Foss: They do not know who has the most merit? Hon KIM CHANCE: No. The PRESIDENT: Order! We seem to be getting into a range of supplementary questions. Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Peter Foss is being helpful in allowing me to explain the situation. The 10 proponents were released in alphabetical order for the specific purpose of disguising the order. (5) All proponents have been advised of contact details of the Forest Products Commission’s probity auditor. If a matter concerning the process arises, they will be able to take up that matter with the auditor.
Hon KIM CHANCE: No. The PRESIDENT: Order! We seem to be getting into a range of supplementary questions. Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Peter Foss is being helpful in allowing me to explain the situation. The 10 proponents were released in alphabetical order for the specific purpose of disguising the order. (5) All proponents have been advised of contact details of the Forest Products Commission’s probity auditor. If a matter concerning the process arises, they will be able to take up that matter with the auditor.
The PRESIDENT: Order! We seem to be getting into a range of supplementary questions. Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Peter Foss is being helpful in allowing me to explain the situation. The 10 proponents were released in alphabetical order for the specific purpose of disguising the order. (5) All proponents have been advised of contact details of the Forest Products Commission’s probity auditor. If a matter concerning the process arises, they will be able to take up that matter with the auditor.
Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Peter Foss is being helpful in allowing me to explain the situation. The 10 proponents were released in alphabetical order for the specific purpose of disguising the order. (5) All proponents have been advised of contact details of the Forest Products Commission’s probity auditor. If a matter concerning the process arises, they will be able to take up that matter with the auditor.
The 10 proponents were released in alphabetical order for the specific purpose of disguising the order. (5) All proponents have been advised of contact details of the Forest Products Commission’s probity auditor. If a matter concerning the process arises, they will be able to take up that matter with the auditor.
(5) All proponents have been advised of contact details of the Forest Products Commission’s probity auditor. If a matter concerning the process arises, they will be able to take up that matter with the auditor.
TIMBER ALLOCATIONS
I refer to the Government’s announcement regarding the jarrah allocation contained in the minister’s press release on Wednesday, 27 February 2002. (1) Were the timber allocations applied for by the 10 successful proponents - taken with the Greenbushes and Nannup allocations - greater or less than 140 000 cubic metres? (2) If greater, how will the Government resolve this potential overallocation if all proponents provide appropriate business cases? (3) Does the 140 000 cubic metres indicative sustained yield, which was reaffirmed by Cabinet, include any of the possible new reserves or step-down, and if so, what contribution? (4) With regard to the “end to uncertainty” referred to in the minister’s press release, what degree of certainty does his announcement give to - (a) those proponents who were unsuccessful? (b) those proponents who were successful? (5) Do the unsuccessful proponents who believe their applications were improperly dealt with have any avenue of appeal? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1) Greater. (2) The final sustained yield figure will be determined in the new forest management plan. Allocation within this quantity will be determined on merit, based on criteria established in the request for proposals. Hon Peter Foss: So it will not be pro rata, it will be order of merit? Hon KIM CHANCE: That is correct. Hon Peter Foss: Someone at the lower end of merit might miss out even with a successful business case? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, depending upon the final allocation. I was trying to refer Hon Peter Foss to a part of the question that dealt with that, but it depends upon the final allocation. (3) The effect of reserves and step-down will be confirmed during the preparation of the final management plan. Obviously, we hope that the final forest management plan will be a number greater than 140 000 cubic metres, which will allow that adjustment to take place. (4) (a) These proponents have been advised that jarrah sawlogs will not be available to them. Hon Peter Foss: So they are out? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, they are out. (b) These proponents have been advised that the process is competitive, and depends on business plans and the final sustained yield figure. That was the part of the question to which I referred the member. Hon Peter Foss: Do they know where they are on the pecking list, so that they have an idea of how likely they are to miss out? Hon KIM CHANCE: No, they do not. Hon Peter Foss: They do not know who has the most merit? Hon KIM CHANCE: No. The PRESIDENT: Order! We seem to be getting into a range of supplementary questions. Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Peter Foss is being helpful in allowing me to explain the situation. The 10 proponents were released in alphabetical order for the specific purpose of disguising the order. (5) All proponents have been advised of contact details of the Forest Products Commission’s probity auditor. If a matter concerning the process arises, they will be able to take up that matter with the auditor.
(1) Were the timber allocations applied for by the 10 successful proponents - taken with the Greenbushes and Nannup allocations - greater or less than 140 000 cubic metres? (2) If greater, how will the Government resolve this potential overallocation if all proponents provide appropriate business cases? (3) Does the 140 000 cubic metres indicative sustained yield, which was reaffirmed by Cabinet, include any of the possible new reserves or step-down, and if so, what contribution? (4) With regard to the “end to uncertainty” referred to in the minister’s press release, what degree of certainty does his announcement give to - (a) those proponents who were unsuccessful? (b) those proponents who were successful? (5) Do the unsuccessful proponents who believe their applications were improperly dealt with have any avenue of appeal? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1) Greater. (2) The final sustained yield figure will be determined in the new forest management plan. Allocation within this quantity will be determined on merit, based on criteria established in the request for proposals. Hon Peter Foss: So it will not be pro rata, it will be order of merit? Hon KIM CHANCE: That is correct. Hon Peter Foss: Someone at the lower end of merit might miss out even with a successful business case? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, depending upon the final allocation. I was trying to refer Hon Peter Foss to a part of the question that dealt with that, but it depends upon the final allocation. (3) The effect of reserves and step-down will be confirmed during the preparation of the final management plan. Obviously, we hope that the final forest management plan will be a number greater than 140 000 cubic metres, which will allow that adjustment to take place. (4) (a) These proponents have been advised that jarrah sawlogs will not be available to them. Hon Peter Foss: So they are out? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, they are out. (b) These proponents have been advised that the process is competitive, and depends on business plans and the final sustained yield figure. That was the part of the question to which I referred the member. Hon Peter Foss: Do they know where they are on the pecking list, so that they have an idea of how likely they are to miss out? Hon KIM CHANCE: No, they do not. Hon Peter Foss: They do not know who has the most merit? Hon KIM CHANCE: No. The PRESIDENT: Order! We seem to be getting into a range of supplementary questions. Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Peter Foss is being helpful in allowing me to explain the situation. The 10 proponents were released in alphabetical order for the specific purpose of disguising the order. (5) All proponents have been advised of contact details of the Forest Products Commission’s probity auditor. If a matter concerning the process arises, they will be able to take up that matter with the auditor.
(2) If greater, how will the Government resolve this potential overallocation if all proponents provide appropriate business cases? (3) Does the 140 000 cubic metres indicative sustained yield, which was reaffirmed by Cabinet, include any of the possible new reserves or step-down, and if so, what contribution? (4) With regard to the “end to uncertainty” referred to in the minister’s press release, what degree of certainty does his announcement give to - (a) those proponents who were unsuccessful? (b) those proponents who were successful? (5) Do the unsuccessful proponents who believe their applications were improperly dealt with have any avenue of appeal? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1) Greater. (2) The final sustained yield figure will be determined in the new forest management plan. Allocation within this quantity will be determined on merit, based on criteria established in the request for proposals. Hon Peter Foss: So it will not be pro rata, it will be order of merit? Hon KIM CHANCE: That is correct. Hon Peter Foss: Someone at the lower end of merit might miss out even with a successful business case? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, depending upon the final allocation. I was trying to refer Hon Peter Foss to a part of the question that dealt with that, but it depends upon the final allocation. (3) The effect of reserves and step-down will be confirmed during the preparation of the final management plan. Obviously, we hope that the final forest management plan will be a number greater than 140 000 cubic metres, which will allow that adjustment to take place. (4) (a) These proponents have been advised that jarrah sawlogs will not be available to them. Hon Peter Foss: So they are out? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, they are out. (b) These proponents have been advised that the process is competitive, and depends on business plans and the final sustained yield figure. That was the part of the question to which I referred the member. Hon Peter Foss: Do they know where they are on the pecking list, so that they have an idea of how likely they are to miss out? Hon KIM CHANCE: No, they do not. Hon Peter Foss: They do not know who has the most merit? Hon KIM CHANCE: No. The PRESIDENT: Order! We seem to be getting into a range of supplementary questions. Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Peter Foss is being helpful in allowing me to explain the situation. The 10 proponents were released in alphabetical order for the specific purpose of disguising the order. (5) All proponents have been advised of contact details of the Forest Products Commission’s probity auditor. If a matter concerning the process arises, they will be able to take up that matter with the auditor.
(3) Does the 140 000 cubic metres indicative sustained yield, which was reaffirmed by Cabinet, include any of the possible new reserves or step-down, and if so, what contribution? (4) With regard to the “end to uncertainty” referred to in the minister’s press release, what degree of certainty does his announcement give to - (a) those proponents who were unsuccessful? (b) those proponents who were successful? (5) Do the unsuccessful proponents who believe their applications were improperly dealt with have any avenue of appeal? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1) Greater. (2) The final sustained yield figure will be determined in the new forest management plan. Allocation within this quantity will be determined on merit, based on criteria established in the request for proposals. Hon Peter Foss: So it will not be pro rata, it will be order of merit? Hon KIM CHANCE: That is correct. Hon Peter Foss: Someone at the lower end of merit might miss out even with a successful business case? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, depending upon the final allocation. I was trying to refer Hon Peter Foss to a part of the question that dealt with that, but it depends upon the final allocation. (3) The effect of reserves and step-down will be confirmed during the preparation of the final management plan. Obviously, we hope that the final forest management plan will be a number greater than 140 000 cubic metres, which will allow that adjustment to take place. (4) (a) These proponents have been advised that jarrah sawlogs will not be available to them. Hon Peter Foss: So they are out? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, they are out. (b) These proponents have been advised that the process is competitive, and depends on business plans and the final sustained yield figure. That was the part of the question to which I referred the member. Hon Peter Foss: Do they know where they are on the pecking list, so that they have an idea of how likely they are to miss out? Hon KIM CHANCE: No, they do not. Hon Peter Foss: They do not know who has the most merit? Hon KIM CHANCE: No. The PRESIDENT: Order! We seem to be getting into a range of supplementary questions. Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Peter Foss is being helpful in allowing me to explain the situation. The 10 proponents were released in alphabetical order for the specific purpose of disguising the order. (5) All proponents have been advised of contact details of the Forest Products Commission’s probity auditor. If a matter concerning the process arises, they will be able to take up that matter with the auditor.
(4) With regard to the “end to uncertainty” referred to in the minister’s press release, what degree of certainty does his announcement give to - (a) those proponents who were unsuccessful? (b) those proponents who were successful? (5) Do the unsuccessful proponents who believe their applications were improperly dealt with have any avenue of appeal? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1) Greater. (2) The final sustained yield figure will be determined in the new forest management plan. Allocation within this quantity will be determined on merit, based on criteria established in the request for proposals. Hon Peter Foss: So it will not be pro rata, it will be order of merit? Hon KIM CHANCE: That is correct. Hon Peter Foss: Someone at the lower end of merit might miss out even with a successful business case? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, depending upon the final allocation. I was trying to refer Hon Peter Foss to a part of the question that dealt with that, but it depends upon the final allocation. (3) The effect of reserves and step-down will be confirmed during the preparation of the final management plan. Obviously, we hope that the final forest management plan will be a number greater than 140 000 cubic metres, which will allow that adjustment to take place. (4) (a) These proponents have been advised that jarrah sawlogs will not be available to them. Hon Peter Foss: So they are out? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, they are out. (b) These proponents have been advised that the process is competitive, and depends on business plans and the final sustained yield figure. That was the part of the question to which I referred the member. Hon Peter Foss: Do they know where they are on the pecking list, so that they have an idea of how likely they are to miss out? Hon KIM CHANCE: No, they do not. Hon Peter Foss: They do not know who has the most merit? Hon KIM CHANCE: No. The PRESIDENT: Order! We seem to be getting into a range of supplementary questions. Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Peter Foss is being helpful in allowing me to explain the situation. The 10 proponents were released in alphabetical order for the specific purpose of disguising the order. (5) All proponents have been advised of contact details of the Forest Products Commission’s probity auditor. If a matter concerning the process arises, they will be able to take up that matter with the auditor.
(b) those proponents who were successful?
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1) Greater. (2) The final sustained yield figure will be determined in the new forest management plan. Allocation within this quantity will be determined on merit, based on criteria established in the request for proposals. Hon Peter Foss: So it will not be pro rata, it will be order of merit? Hon KIM CHANCE: That is correct. Hon Peter Foss: Someone at the lower end of merit might miss out even with a successful business case? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, depending upon the final allocation. I was trying to refer Hon Peter Foss to a part of the question that dealt with that, but it depends upon the final allocation. (3) The effect of reserves and step-down will be confirmed during the preparation of the final management plan. Obviously, we hope that the final forest management plan will be a number greater than 140 000 cubic metres, which will allow that adjustment to take place. (4) (a) These proponents have been advised that jarrah sawlogs will not be available to them. Hon Peter Foss: So they are out? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, they are out. (b) These proponents have been advised that the process is competitive, and depends on business plans and the final sustained yield figure. That was the part of the question to which I referred the member. Hon Peter Foss: Do they know where they are on the pecking list, so that they have an idea of how likely they are to miss out? Hon KIM CHANCE: No, they do not. Hon Peter Foss: They do not know who has the most merit? Hon KIM CHANCE: No. The PRESIDENT: Order! We seem to be getting into a range of supplementary questions. Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Peter Foss is being helpful in allowing me to explain the situation. The 10 proponents were released in alphabetical order for the specific purpose of disguising the order. (5) All proponents have been advised of contact details of the Forest Products Commission’s probity auditor. If a matter concerning the process arises, they will be able to take up that matter with the auditor.
(1) Greater. (2) The final sustained yield figure will be determined in the new forest management plan. Allocation within this quantity will be determined on merit, based on criteria established in the request for proposals. Hon Peter Foss: So it will not be pro rata, it will be order of merit? Hon KIM CHANCE: That is correct. Hon Peter Foss: Someone at the lower end of merit might miss out even with a successful business case? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, depending upon the final allocation. I was trying to refer Hon Peter Foss to a part of the question that dealt with that, but it depends upon the final allocation. (3) The effect of reserves and step-down will be confirmed during the preparation of the final management plan. Obviously, we hope that the final forest management plan will be a number greater than 140 000 cubic metres, which will allow that adjustment to take place. (4) (a) These proponents have been advised that jarrah sawlogs will not be available to them. Hon Peter Foss: So they are out? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, they are out. (b) These proponents have been advised that the process is competitive, and depends on business plans and the final sustained yield figure. That was the part of the question to which I referred the member. Hon Peter Foss: Do they know where they are on the pecking list, so that they have an idea of how likely they are to miss out? Hon KIM CHANCE: No, they do not. Hon Peter Foss: They do not know who has the most merit? Hon KIM CHANCE: No. The PRESIDENT: Order! We seem to be getting into a range of supplementary questions. Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Peter Foss is being helpful in allowing me to explain the situation. The 10 proponents were released in alphabetical order for the specific purpose of disguising the order. (5) All proponents have been advised of contact details of the Forest Products Commission’s probity auditor. If a matter concerning the process arises, they will be able to take up that matter with the auditor.
(2) The final sustained yield figure will be determined in the new forest management plan. Allocation within this quantity will be determined on merit, based on criteria established in the request for proposals. Hon Peter Foss: So it will not be pro rata, it will be order of merit? Hon KIM CHANCE: That is correct. Hon Peter Foss: Someone at the lower end of merit might miss out even with a successful business case? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, depending upon the final allocation. I was trying to refer Hon Peter Foss to a part of the question that dealt with that, but it depends upon the final allocation. (3) The effect of reserves and step-down will be confirmed during the preparation of the final management plan. Obviously, we hope that the final forest management plan will be a number greater than 140 000 cubic metres, which will allow that adjustment to take place. (4) (a) These proponents have been advised that jarrah sawlogs will not be available to them. Hon Peter Foss: So they are out? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, they are out. (b) These proponents have been advised that the process is competitive, and depends on business plans and the final sustained yield figure. That was the part of the question to which I referred the member. Hon Peter Foss: Do they know where they are on the pecking list, so that they have an idea of how likely they are to miss out? Hon KIM CHANCE: No, they do not. Hon Peter Foss: They do not know who has the most merit? Hon KIM CHANCE: No. The PRESIDENT: Order! We seem to be getting into a range of supplementary questions. Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Peter Foss is being helpful in allowing me to explain the situation. The 10 proponents were released in alphabetical order for the specific purpose of disguising the order. (5) All proponents have been advised of contact details of the Forest Products Commission’s probity auditor. If a matter concerning the process arises, they will be able to take up that matter with the auditor.
Hon Peter Foss: So it will not be pro rata, it will be order of merit? Hon KIM CHANCE: That is correct. Hon Peter Foss: Someone at the lower end of merit might miss out even with a successful business case? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, depending upon the final allocation. I was trying to refer Hon Peter Foss to a part of the question that dealt with that, but it depends upon the final allocation. (3) The effect of reserves and step-down will be confirmed during the preparation of the final management plan. Obviously, we hope that the final forest management plan will be a number greater than 140 000 cubic metres, which will allow that adjustment to take place. (4) (a) These proponents have been advised that jarrah sawlogs will not be available to them. Hon Peter Foss: So they are out? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, they are out. (b) These proponents have been advised that the process is competitive, and depends on business plans and the final sustained yield figure. That was the part of the question to which I referred the member. Hon Peter Foss: Do they know where they are on the pecking list, so that they have an idea of how likely they are to miss out? Hon KIM CHANCE: No, they do not. Hon Peter Foss: They do not know who has the most merit? Hon KIM CHANCE: No. The PRESIDENT: Order! We seem to be getting into a range of supplementary questions. Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Peter Foss is being helpful in allowing me to explain the situation. The 10 proponents were released in alphabetical order for the specific purpose of disguising the order. (5) All proponents have been advised of contact details of the Forest Products Commission’s probity auditor. If a matter concerning the process arises, they will be able to take up that matter with the auditor.
Hon KIM CHANCE: That is correct. Hon Peter Foss: Someone at the lower end of merit might miss out even with a successful business case? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, depending upon the final allocation. I was trying to refer Hon Peter Foss to a part of the question that dealt with that, but it depends upon the final allocation. (3) The effect of reserves and step-down will be confirmed during the preparation of the final management plan. Obviously, we hope that the final forest management plan will be a number greater than 140 000 cubic metres, which will allow that adjustment to take place. (4) (a) These proponents have been advised that jarrah sawlogs will not be available to them. Hon Peter Foss: So they are out? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, they are out. (b) These proponents have been advised that the process is competitive, and depends on business plans and the final sustained yield figure. That was the part of the question to which I referred the member. Hon Peter Foss: Do they know where they are on the pecking list, so that they have an idea of how likely they are to miss out? Hon KIM CHANCE: No, they do not. Hon Peter Foss: They do not know who has the most merit? Hon KIM CHANCE: No. The PRESIDENT: Order! We seem to be getting into a range of supplementary questions. Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Peter Foss is being helpful in allowing me to explain the situation. The 10 proponents were released in alphabetical order for the specific purpose of disguising the order. (5) All proponents have been advised of contact details of the Forest Products Commission’s probity auditor. If a matter concerning the process arises, they will be able to take up that matter with the auditor.
Hon Peter Foss: Someone at the lower end of merit might miss out even with a successful business case? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, depending upon the final allocation. I was trying to refer Hon Peter Foss to a part of the question that dealt with that, but it depends upon the final allocation. (3) The effect of reserves and step-down will be confirmed during the preparation of the final management plan. Obviously, we hope that the final forest management plan will be a number greater than 140 000 cubic metres, which will allow that adjustment to take place. (4) (a) These proponents have been advised that jarrah sawlogs will not be available to them. Hon Peter Foss: So they are out? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, they are out. (b) These proponents have been advised that the process is competitive, and depends on business plans and the final sustained yield figure. That was the part of the question to which I referred the member. Hon Peter Foss: Do they know where they are on the pecking list, so that they have an idea of how likely they are to miss out? Hon KIM CHANCE: No, they do not. Hon Peter Foss: They do not know who has the most merit? Hon KIM CHANCE: No. The PRESIDENT: Order! We seem to be getting into a range of supplementary questions. Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Peter Foss is being helpful in allowing me to explain the situation. The 10 proponents were released in alphabetical order for the specific purpose of disguising the order. (5) All proponents have been advised of contact details of the Forest Products Commission’s probity auditor. If a matter concerning the process arises, they will be able to take up that matter with the auditor.
Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, depending upon the final allocation. I was trying to refer Hon Peter Foss to a part of the question that dealt with that, but it depends upon the final allocation. (3) The effect of reserves and step-down will be confirmed during the preparation of the final management plan. Obviously, we hope that the final forest management plan will be a number greater than 140 000 cubic metres, which will allow that adjustment to take place. (4) (a) These proponents have been advised that jarrah sawlogs will not be available to them. Hon Peter Foss: So they are out? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, they are out. (b) These proponents have been advised that the process is competitive, and depends on business plans and the final sustained yield figure. That was the part of the question to which I referred the member. Hon Peter Foss: Do they know where they are on the pecking list, so that they have an idea of how likely they are to miss out? Hon KIM CHANCE: No, they do not. Hon Peter Foss: They do not know who has the most merit? Hon KIM CHANCE: No. The PRESIDENT: Order! We seem to be getting into a range of supplementary questions. Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Peter Foss is being helpful in allowing me to explain the situation. The 10 proponents were released in alphabetical order for the specific purpose of disguising the order. (5) All proponents have been advised of contact details of the Forest Products Commission’s probity auditor. If a matter concerning the process arises, they will be able to take up that matter with the auditor.
(3) The effect of reserves and step-down will be confirmed during the preparation of the final management plan. Obviously, we hope that the final forest management plan will be a number greater than 140 000 cubic metres, which will allow that adjustment to take place. (4) (a) These proponents have been advised that jarrah sawlogs will not be available to them. Hon Peter Foss: So they are out? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, they are out. (b) These proponents have been advised that the process is competitive, and depends on business plans and the final sustained yield figure. That was the part of the question to which I referred the member. Hon Peter Foss: Do they know where they are on the pecking list, so that they have an idea of how likely they are to miss out? Hon KIM CHANCE: No, they do not. Hon Peter Foss: They do not know who has the most merit? Hon KIM CHANCE: No. The PRESIDENT: Order! We seem to be getting into a range of supplementary questions. Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Peter Foss is being helpful in allowing me to explain the situation. The 10 proponents were released in alphabetical order for the specific purpose of disguising the order. (5) All proponents have been advised of contact details of the Forest Products Commission’s probity auditor. If a matter concerning the process arises, they will be able to take up that matter with the auditor.
(4) (a) These proponents have been advised that jarrah sawlogs will not be available to them. Hon Peter Foss: So they are out? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, they are out. (b) These proponents have been advised that the process is competitive, and depends on business plans and the final sustained yield figure. That was the part of the question to which I referred the member. Hon Peter Foss: Do they know where they are on the pecking list, so that they have an idea of how likely they are to miss out? Hon KIM CHANCE: No, they do not. Hon Peter Foss: They do not know who has the most merit? Hon KIM CHANCE: No. The PRESIDENT: Order! We seem to be getting into a range of supplementary questions. Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Peter Foss is being helpful in allowing me to explain the situation. The 10 proponents were released in alphabetical order for the specific purpose of disguising the order. (5) All proponents have been advised of contact details of the Forest Products Commission’s probity auditor. If a matter concerning the process arises, they will be able to take up that matter with the auditor.
Hon Peter Foss: So they are out? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, they are out. (b) These proponents have been advised that the process is competitive, and depends on business plans and the final sustained yield figure. That was the part of the question to which I referred the member. Hon Peter Foss: Do they know where they are on the pecking list, so that they have an idea of how likely they are to miss out? Hon KIM CHANCE: No, they do not. Hon Peter Foss: They do not know who has the most merit? Hon KIM CHANCE: No. The PRESIDENT: Order! We seem to be getting into a range of supplementary questions. Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Peter Foss is being helpful in allowing me to explain the situation. The 10 proponents were released in alphabetical order for the specific purpose of disguising the order. (5) All proponents have been advised of contact details of the Forest Products Commission’s probity auditor. If a matter concerning the process arises, they will be able to take up that matter with the auditor.
Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes, they are out. (b) These proponents have been advised that the process is competitive, and depends on business plans and the final sustained yield figure. That was the part of the question to which I referred the member. Hon Peter Foss: Do they know where they are on the pecking list, so that they have an idea of how likely they are to miss out? Hon KIM CHANCE: No, they do not. Hon Peter Foss: They do not know who has the most merit? Hon KIM CHANCE: No. The PRESIDENT: Order! We seem to be getting into a range of supplementary questions. Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Peter Foss is being helpful in allowing me to explain the situation. The 10 proponents were released in alphabetical order for the specific purpose of disguising the order. (5) All proponents have been advised of contact details of the Forest Products Commission’s probity auditor. If a matter concerning the process arises, they will be able to take up that matter with the auditor.
Hon KIM CHANCE: No, they do not. Hon Peter Foss: They do not know who has the most merit? Hon KIM CHANCE: No. The PRESIDENT: Order! We seem to be getting into a range of supplementary questions. Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Peter Foss is being helpful in allowing me to explain the situation. The 10 proponents were released in alphabetical order for the specific purpose of disguising the order. (5) All proponents have been advised of contact details of the Forest Products Commission’s probity auditor. If a matter concerning the process arises, they will be able to take up that matter with the auditor.
Hon Peter Foss: They do not know who has the most merit? Hon KIM CHANCE: No. The PRESIDENT: Order! We seem to be getting into a range of supplementary questions. Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Peter Foss is being helpful in allowing me to explain the situation. The 10 proponents were released in alphabetical order for the specific purpose of disguising the order. (5) All proponents have been advised of contact details of the Forest Products Commission’s probity auditor. If a matter concerning the process arises, they will be able to take up that matter with the auditor.
Hon KIM CHANCE: No. The PRESIDENT: Order! We seem to be getting into a range of supplementary questions. Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Peter Foss is being helpful in allowing me to explain the situation. The 10 proponents were released in alphabetical order for the specific purpose of disguising the order. (5) All proponents have been advised of contact details of the Forest Products Commission’s probity auditor. If a matter concerning the process arises, they will be able to take up that matter with the auditor.
The PRESIDENT: Order! We seem to be getting into a range of supplementary questions. Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Peter Foss is being helpful in allowing me to explain the situation. The 10 proponents were released in alphabetical order for the specific purpose of disguising the order. (5) All proponents have been advised of contact details of the Forest Products Commission’s probity auditor. If a matter concerning the process arises, they will be able to take up that matter with the auditor.
Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Peter Foss is being helpful in allowing me to explain the situation. The 10 proponents were released in alphabetical order for the specific purpose of disguising the order. (5) All proponents have been advised of contact details of the Forest Products Commission’s probity auditor. If a matter concerning the process arises, they will be able to take up that matter with the auditor.
The 10 proponents were released in alphabetical order for the specific purpose of disguising the order. (5) All proponents have been advised of contact details of the Forest Products Commission’s probity auditor. If a matter concerning the process arises, they will be able to take up that matter with the auditor.
(5) All proponents have been advised of contact details of the Forest Products Commission’s probity auditor. If a matter concerning the process arises, they will be able to take up that matter with the auditor.
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.