❓ A parliamentary question regarding the Minister's decision to recover debt from the Apple and Pear Council for an apple scab eradication program, contrasting it with debt waivers for other agricultural programs. The Minister defends the decision by highlighting the Council's existing fundraising mechanism.
AnsweredQoN 778Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY GROUPS — GOVERNMENT DEBT RECOVERY
I refer to the minister’s decision to blackmail the Apple and Pear Council over the $254 000 the industry — The SPEAKER : Member, might I suggest that you use different terminology. I will not stop you from asking the question, but your use of language might need to be tempered somewhat. Mr M.P. MURRAY : I refer to the minister’s decision to coerce the Apple and Pear Council over the $254 000 the industry owes from the apple scab eradication program. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I presume the minister wants to hear the question and I am sure he cannot because of the noise. I ask for there to be silence. The SPEAKER : The member for Rockingham has made the point that I want to make. I will allow the member to start the question again if he feels that members opposite did not hear him. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr M.P. MURRAY : I will start from the beginning. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I want to hear some silence from members on my right. Mr M.P. MURRAY : I refer to the minister’s decision to coerce the Apple and Pear Council over the $254 000 the industry owes from the apple scab eradication program. The minister stated in a letter to the industry that he would not waive its debt unless it agreed to drop its attempts to be apple scab free. (1) Does the minister intend to coerce other industry groups in a similar manner? (2) Is this treatment indicative of the way he intends to deal with the agricultural industry groups? (3) Why is the minister content to allow a disease to spread through Western Australia that will cost the WA fruit industry millions of dollars? (4) Why has the minister decided to abandon support to this group when he waived the debt for other programs, such as the $681 000 for the footrot eradication program and $859 000 for the bedstraw eradication program? Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : The National Party loves scabs; that’s the reality! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr D.T. REDMAN
I refer to the minister’s decision to blackmail the Apple and Pear Council over the $254 000 the industry — The SPEAKER : Member, might I suggest that you use different terminology. I will not stop you from asking the question, but your use of language might need to be tempered somewhat. Mr M.P. MURRAY : I refer to the minister’s decision to coerce the Apple and Pear Council over the $254 000 the industry owes from the apple scab eradication program. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I presume the minister wants to hear the question and I am sure he cannot because of the noise. I ask for there to be silence. The SPEAKER : The member for Rockingham has made the point that I want to make. I will allow the member to start the question again if he feels that members opposite did not hear him. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr M.P. MURRAY : I will start from the beginning. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I want to hear some silence from members on my right. Mr M.P. MURRAY : I refer to the minister’s decision to coerce the Apple and Pear Council over the $254 000 the industry owes from the apple scab eradication program. The minister stated in a letter to the industry that he would not waive its debt unless it agreed to drop its attempts to be apple scab free. (1) Does the minister intend to coerce other industry groups in a similar manner? (2) Is this treatment indicative of the way he intends to deal with the agricultural industry groups? (3) Why is the minister content to allow a disease to spread through Western Australia that will cost the WA fruit industry millions of dollars? (4) Why has the minister decided to abandon support to this group when he waived the debt for other programs, such as the $681 000 for the footrot eradication program and $859 000 for the bedstraw eradication program? Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : The National Party loves scabs; that’s the reality! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr D.T. REDMAN
AnswerView source ↗
We are big enough to take those things on the chin! Mr Speaker, I start by complimenting you on your tie; you are one of the only people in the house wearing something that represents and supports the agricultural industry in Western Australia. If you can do something about wool prices, I will be eternally grateful! I thank the member for the question; it is a good question, centred on the debt that was built up dealing with apple scab. (1)-(4) I have met with a number of industry representatives to discuss their concerns about apple scab. With regard to the Apple and Pear Council’s debt, it has a mechanism in place to raise funds from its membership. The subtle difference between the Apple and Pear Council’s debt and the concerns about me waiving the debt for bedstraw and footrot eradication is the fact that the Apple and Pear Council has a fundraising mechanism. Mr M.P. Murray : You did say “subtle”? Mr D.T. REDMAN : It is a difference; the member asked the question and I am making a comparison between the two circumstances. The member made the point that I was able to waive some of the debt for the control of bedstraw and footrot and asked why I did not do the same for apple scab. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a fundraising mechanism in place. I will now go back to the other issue mentioned by the member, footrot and bedstraw. I inherited a $1.5 million debt, which was what the Department of Agriculture and Food had paid towards the industry’s contribution to the control of footrot and bedstraw. The industry had two concerns, and I inherited that circumstance. Hon Kim Chance put the biosecurity and agriculture management legislation through Parliament, but was lazy on the regulations. The regulations provide the mechanisms for the industry to raise funds to deal with these sorts of issues. I have fast-tracked the mechanisms. I gave the instruction in January this year and they will be in place by June 2010. Ms M.M. Quirk : That’s really fast! Mr D.T. REDMAN : We are talking about a bill that came into this Parliament under the watch of the previous government some two years ago, and those mechanisms are not yet in place. These are the steps I had to take. It was becoming a concern for industry people who wanted to be involved in drafting the regulations. They wanted to sit at the table with the government—which is what we wanted—to get these regulations in place and to provide the industry with funding mechanisms; yet we are sitting here with $1.5 million in retrospective debt, and it is creating a real problem for the negotiations. I think I took the right step in making that decision. I took a different stance on the issue of apple scab for the reason that there is already a funding mechanism in place. I have recently approved a new fee level to put to the industry, to raise funds and pay off the debt. Mr M.P. Murray : You’ve allowed one group to get away with it, and you’re charging another. You’re unfair. Mr D.T. REDMAN : There are quite significant differences between the two circumstances. I inherited a bedstraw and footrot problem which developed during the watch of the previous government, and which the previous government did not deal with. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am sure the minister does not need any help from members on either side of this place to answer his question. I notice that the member for Collie-Preston is interested in the minister’s answer. I would like other members in this place to at least allow the member to hear the answer the minister is attempting to give. Mr D.T. REDMAN : I will briefly summarise. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a mechanism in place to raise funds from the industry. In the bedstraw and footrot situation, there is no mechanism to raise funds. The build-up of debt was becoming prohibitive and it was compromising our capacity to work with the industry to get the regulations in place — Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am fully supportive of the industry’s position to try to maintain a level of control over apple scab. I think I have taken the appropriate steps as the minister responsible.
The SPEAKER : Member, might I suggest that you use different terminology. I will not stop you from asking the question, but your use of language might need to be tempered somewhat. Mr M.P. MURRAY : I refer to the minister’s decision to coerce the Apple and Pear Council over the $254 000 the industry owes from the apple scab eradication program. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I presume the minister wants to hear the question and I am sure he cannot because of the noise. I ask for there to be silence. The SPEAKER : The member for Rockingham has made the point that I want to make. I will allow the member to start the question again if he feels that members opposite did not hear him. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr M.P. MURRAY : I will start from the beginning. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I want to hear some silence from members on my right. Mr M.P. MURRAY : I refer to the minister’s decision to coerce the Apple and Pear Council over the $254 000 the industry owes from the apple scab eradication program. The minister stated in a letter to the industry that he would not waive its debt unless it agreed to drop its attempts to be apple scab free. (1) Does the minister intend to coerce other industry groups in a similar manner? (2) Is this treatment indicative of the way he intends to deal with the agricultural industry groups? (3) Why is the minister content to allow a disease to spread through Western Australia that will cost the WA fruit industry millions of dollars? (4) Why has the minister decided to abandon support to this group when he waived the debt for other programs, such as the $681 000 for the footrot eradication program and $859 000 for the bedstraw eradication program? Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : The National Party loves scabs; that’s the reality! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr D.T. REDMAN replied: We are big enough to take those things on the chin! Mr Speaker, I start by complimenting you on your tie; you are one of the only people in the house wearing something that represents and supports the agricultural industry in Western Australia. If you can do something about wool prices, I will be eternally grateful! I thank the member for the question; it is a good question, centred on the debt that was built up dealing with apple scab. (1)-(4) I have met with a number of industry representatives to discuss their concerns about apple scab. With regard to the Apple and Pear Council’s debt, it has a mechanism in place to raise funds from its membership. The subtle difference between the Apple and Pear Council’s debt and the concerns about me waiving the debt for bedstraw and footrot eradication is the fact that the Apple and Pear Council has a fundraising mechanism. Mr M.P. Murray : You did say “subtle”? Mr D.T. REDMAN : It is a difference; the member asked the question and I am making a comparison between the two circumstances. The member made the point that I was able to waive some of the debt for the control of bedstraw and footrot and asked why I did not do the same for apple scab. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a fundraising mechanism in place. I will now go back to the other issue mentioned by the member, footrot and bedstraw. I inherited a $1.5 million debt, which was what the Department of Agriculture and Food had paid towards the industry’s contribution to the control of footrot and bedstraw. The industry had two concerns, and I inherited that circumstance. Hon Kim Chance put the biosecurity and agriculture management legislation through Parliament, but was lazy on the regulations. The regulations provide the mechanisms for the industry to raise funds to deal with these sorts of issues. I have fast-tracked the mechanisms. I gave the instruction in January this year and they will be in place by June 2010. Ms M.M. Quirk : That’s really fast! Mr D.T. REDMAN : We are talking about a bill that came into this Parliament under the watch of the previous government some two years ago, and those mechanisms are not yet in place. These are the steps I had to take. It was becoming a concern for industry people who wanted to be involved in drafting the regulations. They wanted to sit at the table with the government—which is what we wanted—to get these regulations in place and to provide the industry with funding mechanisms; yet we are sitting here with $1.5 million in retrospective debt, and it is creating a real problem for the negotiations. I think I took the right step in making that decision. I took a different stance on the issue of apple scab for the reason that there is already a funding mechanism in place. I have recently approved a new fee level to put to the industry, to raise funds and pay off the debt. Mr M.P. Murray : You’ve allowed one group to get away with it, and you’re charging another. You’re unfair. Mr D.T. REDMAN : There are quite significant differences between the two circumstances. I inherited a bedstraw and footrot problem which developed during the watch of the previous government, and which the previous government did not deal with. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am sure the minister does not need any help from members on either side of this place to answer his question. I notice that the member for Collie-Preston is interested in the minister’s answer. I would like other members in this place to at least allow the member to hear the answer the minister is attempting to give. Mr D.T. REDMAN : I will briefly summarise. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a mechanism in place to raise funds from the industry. In the bedstraw and footrot situation, there is no mechanism to raise funds. The build-up of debt was becoming prohibitive and it was compromising our capacity to work with the industry to get the regulations in place — Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am fully supportive of the industry’s position to try to maintain a level of control over apple scab. I think I have taken the appropriate steps as the minister responsible.
Mr M.P. MURRAY : I refer to the minister’s decision to coerce the Apple and Pear Council over the $254 000 the industry owes from the apple scab eradication program. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I presume the minister wants to hear the question and I am sure he cannot because of the noise. I ask for there to be silence. The SPEAKER : The member for Rockingham has made the point that I want to make. I will allow the member to start the question again if he feels that members opposite did not hear him. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr M.P. MURRAY : I will start from the beginning. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I want to hear some silence from members on my right. Mr M.P. MURRAY : I refer to the minister’s decision to coerce the Apple and Pear Council over the $254 000 the industry owes from the apple scab eradication program. The minister stated in a letter to the industry that he would not waive its debt unless it agreed to drop its attempts to be apple scab free. (1) Does the minister intend to coerce other industry groups in a similar manner? (2) Is this treatment indicative of the way he intends to deal with the agricultural industry groups? (3) Why is the minister content to allow a disease to spread through Western Australia that will cost the WA fruit industry millions of dollars? (4) Why has the minister decided to abandon support to this group when he waived the debt for other programs, such as the $681 000 for the footrot eradication program and $859 000 for the bedstraw eradication program? Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : The National Party loves scabs; that’s the reality! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr D.T. REDMAN replied: We are big enough to take those things on the chin! Mr Speaker, I start by complimenting you on your tie; you are one of the only people in the house wearing something that represents and supports the agricultural industry in Western Australia. If you can do something about wool prices, I will be eternally grateful! I thank the member for the question; it is a good question, centred on the debt that was built up dealing with apple scab. (1)-(4) I have met with a number of industry representatives to discuss their concerns about apple scab. With regard to the Apple and Pear Council’s debt, it has a mechanism in place to raise funds from its membership. The subtle difference between the Apple and Pear Council’s debt and the concerns about me waiving the debt for bedstraw and footrot eradication is the fact that the Apple and Pear Council has a fundraising mechanism. Mr M.P. Murray : You did say “subtle”? Mr D.T. REDMAN : It is a difference; the member asked the question and I am making a comparison between the two circumstances. The member made the point that I was able to waive some of the debt for the control of bedstraw and footrot and asked why I did not do the same for apple scab. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a fundraising mechanism in place. I will now go back to the other issue mentioned by the member, footrot and bedstraw. I inherited a $1.5 million debt, which was what the Department of Agriculture and Food had paid towards the industry’s contribution to the control of footrot and bedstraw. The industry had two concerns, and I inherited that circumstance. Hon Kim Chance put the biosecurity and agriculture management legislation through Parliament, but was lazy on the regulations. The regulations provide the mechanisms for the industry to raise funds to deal with these sorts of issues. I have fast-tracked the mechanisms. I gave the instruction in January this year and they will be in place by June 2010. Ms M.M. Quirk : That’s really fast! Mr D.T. REDMAN : We are talking about a bill that came into this Parliament under the watch of the previous government some two years ago, and those mechanisms are not yet in place. These are the steps I had to take. It was becoming a concern for industry people who wanted to be involved in drafting the regulations. They wanted to sit at the table with the government—which is what we wanted—to get these regulations in place and to provide the industry with funding mechanisms; yet we are sitting here with $1.5 million in retrospective debt, and it is creating a real problem for the negotiations. I think I took the right step in making that decision. I took a different stance on the issue of apple scab for the reason that there is already a funding mechanism in place. I have recently approved a new fee level to put to the industry, to raise funds and pay off the debt. Mr M.P. Murray : You’ve allowed one group to get away with it, and you’re charging another. You’re unfair. Mr D.T. REDMAN : There are quite significant differences between the two circumstances. I inherited a bedstraw and footrot problem which developed during the watch of the previous government, and which the previous government did not deal with. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am sure the minister does not need any help from members on either side of this place to answer his question. I notice that the member for Collie-Preston is interested in the minister’s answer. I would like other members in this place to at least allow the member to hear the answer the minister is attempting to give. Mr D.T. REDMAN : I will briefly summarise. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a mechanism in place to raise funds from the industry. In the bedstraw and footrot situation, there is no mechanism to raise funds. The build-up of debt was becoming prohibitive and it was compromising our capacity to work with the industry to get the regulations in place — Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am fully supportive of the industry’s position to try to maintain a level of control over apple scab. I think I have taken the appropriate steps as the minister responsible.
The SPEAKER : The member for Rockingham has made the point that I want to make. I will allow the member to start the question again if he feels that members opposite did not hear him. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr M.P. MURRAY : I will start from the beginning. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I want to hear some silence from members on my right. Mr M.P. MURRAY : I refer to the minister’s decision to coerce the Apple and Pear Council over the $254 000 the industry owes from the apple scab eradication program. The minister stated in a letter to the industry that he would not waive its debt unless it agreed to drop its attempts to be apple scab free. (1) Does the minister intend to coerce other industry groups in a similar manner? (2) Is this treatment indicative of the way he intends to deal with the agricultural industry groups? (3) Why is the minister content to allow a disease to spread through Western Australia that will cost the WA fruit industry millions of dollars? (4) Why has the minister decided to abandon support to this group when he waived the debt for other programs, such as the $681 000 for the footrot eradication program and $859 000 for the bedstraw eradication program? Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : The National Party loves scabs; that’s the reality! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr D.T. REDMAN replied: We are big enough to take those things on the chin! Mr Speaker, I start by complimenting you on your tie; you are one of the only people in the house wearing something that represents and supports the agricultural industry in Western Australia. If you can do something about wool prices, I will be eternally grateful! I thank the member for the question; it is a good question, centred on the debt that was built up dealing with apple scab. (1)-(4) I have met with a number of industry representatives to discuss their concerns about apple scab. With regard to the Apple and Pear Council’s debt, it has a mechanism in place to raise funds from its membership. The subtle difference between the Apple and Pear Council’s debt and the concerns about me waiving the debt for bedstraw and footrot eradication is the fact that the Apple and Pear Council has a fundraising mechanism. Mr M.P. Murray : You did say “subtle”? Mr D.T. REDMAN : It is a difference; the member asked the question and I am making a comparison between the two circumstances. The member made the point that I was able to waive some of the debt for the control of bedstraw and footrot and asked why I did not do the same for apple scab. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a fundraising mechanism in place. I will now go back to the other issue mentioned by the member, footrot and bedstraw. I inherited a $1.5 million debt, which was what the Department of Agriculture and Food had paid towards the industry’s contribution to the control of footrot and bedstraw. The industry had two concerns, and I inherited that circumstance. Hon Kim Chance put the biosecurity and agriculture management legislation through Parliament, but was lazy on the regulations. The regulations provide the mechanisms for the industry to raise funds to deal with these sorts of issues. I have fast-tracked the mechanisms. I gave the instruction in January this year and they will be in place by June 2010. Ms M.M. Quirk : That’s really fast! Mr D.T. REDMAN : We are talking about a bill that came into this Parliament under the watch of the previous government some two years ago, and those mechanisms are not yet in place. These are the steps I had to take. It was becoming a concern for industry people who wanted to be involved in drafting the regulations. They wanted to sit at the table with the government—which is what we wanted—to get these regulations in place and to provide the industry with funding mechanisms; yet we are sitting here with $1.5 million in retrospective debt, and it is creating a real problem for the negotiations. I think I took the right step in making that decision. I took a different stance on the issue of apple scab for the reason that there is already a funding mechanism in place. I have recently approved a new fee level to put to the industry, to raise funds and pay off the debt. Mr M.P. Murray : You’ve allowed one group to get away with it, and you’re charging another. You’re unfair. Mr D.T. REDMAN : There are quite significant differences between the two circumstances. I inherited a bedstraw and footrot problem which developed during the watch of the previous government, and which the previous government did not deal with. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am sure the minister does not need any help from members on either side of this place to answer his question. I notice that the member for Collie-Preston is interested in the minister’s answer. I would like other members in this place to at least allow the member to hear the answer the minister is attempting to give. Mr D.T. REDMAN : I will briefly summarise. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a mechanism in place to raise funds from the industry. In the bedstraw and footrot situation, there is no mechanism to raise funds. The build-up of debt was becoming prohibitive and it was compromising our capacity to work with the industry to get the regulations in place — Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am fully supportive of the industry’s position to try to maintain a level of control over apple scab. I think I have taken the appropriate steps as the minister responsible.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I want to hear some silence from members on my right. Mr M.P. MURRAY : I refer to the minister’s decision to coerce the Apple and Pear Council over the $254 000 the industry owes from the apple scab eradication program. The minister stated in a letter to the industry that he would not waive its debt unless it agreed to drop its attempts to be apple scab free. (1) Does the minister intend to coerce other industry groups in a similar manner? (2) Is this treatment indicative of the way he intends to deal with the agricultural industry groups? (3) Why is the minister content to allow a disease to spread through Western Australia that will cost the WA fruit industry millions of dollars? (4) Why has the minister decided to abandon support to this group when he waived the debt for other programs, such as the $681 000 for the footrot eradication program and $859 000 for the bedstraw eradication program? Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : The National Party loves scabs; that’s the reality! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr D.T. REDMAN replied: We are big enough to take those things on the chin! Mr Speaker, I start by complimenting you on your tie; you are one of the only people in the house wearing something that represents and supports the agricultural industry in Western Australia. If you can do something about wool prices, I will be eternally grateful! I thank the member for the question; it is a good question, centred on the debt that was built up dealing with apple scab. (1)-(4) I have met with a number of industry representatives to discuss their concerns about apple scab. With regard to the Apple and Pear Council’s debt, it has a mechanism in place to raise funds from its membership. The subtle difference between the Apple and Pear Council’s debt and the concerns about me waiving the debt for bedstraw and footrot eradication is the fact that the Apple and Pear Council has a fundraising mechanism. Mr M.P. Murray : You did say “subtle”? Mr D.T. REDMAN : It is a difference; the member asked the question and I am making a comparison between the two circumstances. The member made the point that I was able to waive some of the debt for the control of bedstraw and footrot and asked why I did not do the same for apple scab. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a fundraising mechanism in place. I will now go back to the other issue mentioned by the member, footrot and bedstraw. I inherited a $1.5 million debt, which was what the Department of Agriculture and Food had paid towards the industry’s contribution to the control of footrot and bedstraw. The industry had two concerns, and I inherited that circumstance. Hon Kim Chance put the biosecurity and agriculture management legislation through Parliament, but was lazy on the regulations. The regulations provide the mechanisms for the industry to raise funds to deal with these sorts of issues. I have fast-tracked the mechanisms. I gave the instruction in January this year and they will be in place by June 2010. Ms M.M. Quirk : That’s really fast! Mr D.T. REDMAN : We are talking about a bill that came into this Parliament under the watch of the previous government some two years ago, and those mechanisms are not yet in place. These are the steps I had to take. It was becoming a concern for industry people who wanted to be involved in drafting the regulations. They wanted to sit at the table with the government—which is what we wanted—to get these regulations in place and to provide the industry with funding mechanisms; yet we are sitting here with $1.5 million in retrospective debt, and it is creating a real problem for the negotiations. I think I took the right step in making that decision. I took a different stance on the issue of apple scab for the reason that there is already a funding mechanism in place. I have recently approved a new fee level to put to the industry, to raise funds and pay off the debt. Mr M.P. Murray : You’ve allowed one group to get away with it, and you’re charging another. You’re unfair. Mr D.T. REDMAN : There are quite significant differences between the two circumstances. I inherited a bedstraw and footrot problem which developed during the watch of the previous government, and which the previous government did not deal with. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am sure the minister does not need any help from members on either side of this place to answer his question. I notice that the member for Collie-Preston is interested in the minister’s answer. I would like other members in this place to at least allow the member to hear the answer the minister is attempting to give. Mr D.T. REDMAN : I will briefly summarise. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a mechanism in place to raise funds from the industry. In the bedstraw and footrot situation, there is no mechanism to raise funds. The build-up of debt was becoming prohibitive and it was compromising our capacity to work with the industry to get the regulations in place — Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am fully supportive of the industry’s position to try to maintain a level of control over apple scab. I think I have taken the appropriate steps as the minister responsible.
The SPEAKER : I want to hear some silence from members on my right. Mr M.P. MURRAY : I refer to the minister’s decision to coerce the Apple and Pear Council over the $254 000 the industry owes from the apple scab eradication program. The minister stated in a letter to the industry that he would not waive its debt unless it agreed to drop its attempts to be apple scab free. (1) Does the minister intend to coerce other industry groups in a similar manner? (2) Is this treatment indicative of the way he intends to deal with the agricultural industry groups? (3) Why is the minister content to allow a disease to spread through Western Australia that will cost the WA fruit industry millions of dollars? (4) Why has the minister decided to abandon support to this group when he waived the debt for other programs, such as the $681 000 for the footrot eradication program and $859 000 for the bedstraw eradication program? Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : The National Party loves scabs; that’s the reality! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr D.T. REDMAN replied: We are big enough to take those things on the chin! Mr Speaker, I start by complimenting you on your tie; you are one of the only people in the house wearing something that represents and supports the agricultural industry in Western Australia. If you can do something about wool prices, I will be eternally grateful! I thank the member for the question; it is a good question, centred on the debt that was built up dealing with apple scab. (1)-(4) I have met with a number of industry representatives to discuss their concerns about apple scab. With regard to the Apple and Pear Council’s debt, it has a mechanism in place to raise funds from its membership. The subtle difference between the Apple and Pear Council’s debt and the concerns about me waiving the debt for bedstraw and footrot eradication is the fact that the Apple and Pear Council has a fundraising mechanism. Mr M.P. Murray : You did say “subtle”? Mr D.T. REDMAN : It is a difference; the member asked the question and I am making a comparison between the two circumstances. The member made the point that I was able to waive some of the debt for the control of bedstraw and footrot and asked why I did not do the same for apple scab. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a fundraising mechanism in place. I will now go back to the other issue mentioned by the member, footrot and bedstraw. I inherited a $1.5 million debt, which was what the Department of Agriculture and Food had paid towards the industry’s contribution to the control of footrot and bedstraw. The industry had two concerns, and I inherited that circumstance. Hon Kim Chance put the biosecurity and agriculture management legislation through Parliament, but was lazy on the regulations. The regulations provide the mechanisms for the industry to raise funds to deal with these sorts of issues. I have fast-tracked the mechanisms. I gave the instruction in January this year and they will be in place by June 2010. Ms M.M. Quirk : That’s really fast! Mr D.T. REDMAN : We are talking about a bill that came into this Parliament under the watch of the previous government some two years ago, and those mechanisms are not yet in place. These are the steps I had to take. It was becoming a concern for industry people who wanted to be involved in drafting the regulations. They wanted to sit at the table with the government—which is what we wanted—to get these regulations in place and to provide the industry with funding mechanisms; yet we are sitting here with $1.5 million in retrospective debt, and it is creating a real problem for the negotiations. I think I took the right step in making that decision. I took a different stance on the issue of apple scab for the reason that there is already a funding mechanism in place. I have recently approved a new fee level to put to the industry, to raise funds and pay off the debt. Mr M.P. Murray : You’ve allowed one group to get away with it, and you’re charging another. You’re unfair. Mr D.T. REDMAN : There are quite significant differences between the two circumstances. I inherited a bedstraw and footrot problem which developed during the watch of the previous government, and which the previous government did not deal with. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am sure the minister does not need any help from members on either side of this place to answer his question. I notice that the member for Collie-Preston is interested in the minister’s answer. I would like other members in this place to at least allow the member to hear the answer the minister is attempting to give. Mr D.T. REDMAN : I will briefly summarise. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a mechanism in place to raise funds from the industry. In the bedstraw and footrot situation, there is no mechanism to raise funds. The build-up of debt was becoming prohibitive and it was compromising our capacity to work with the industry to get the regulations in place — Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am fully supportive of the industry’s position to try to maintain a level of control over apple scab. I think I have taken the appropriate steps as the minister responsible.
Mr M.P. MURRAY : I refer to the minister’s decision to coerce the Apple and Pear Council over the $254 000 the industry owes from the apple scab eradication program. The minister stated in a letter to the industry that he would not waive its debt unless it agreed to drop its attempts to be apple scab free. (1) Does the minister intend to coerce other industry groups in a similar manner? (2) Is this treatment indicative of the way he intends to deal with the agricultural industry groups? (3) Why is the minister content to allow a disease to spread through Western Australia that will cost the WA fruit industry millions of dollars? (4) Why has the minister decided to abandon support to this group when he waived the debt for other programs, such as the $681 000 for the footrot eradication program and $859 000 for the bedstraw eradication program? Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : The National Party loves scabs; that’s the reality! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr D.T. REDMAN replied: We are big enough to take those things on the chin! Mr Speaker, I start by complimenting you on your tie; you are one of the only people in the house wearing something that represents and supports the agricultural industry in Western Australia. If you can do something about wool prices, I will be eternally grateful! I thank the member for the question; it is a good question, centred on the debt that was built up dealing with apple scab. (1)-(4) I have met with a number of industry representatives to discuss their concerns about apple scab. With regard to the Apple and Pear Council’s debt, it has a mechanism in place to raise funds from its membership. The subtle difference between the Apple and Pear Council’s debt and the concerns about me waiving the debt for bedstraw and footrot eradication is the fact that the Apple and Pear Council has a fundraising mechanism. Mr M.P. Murray : You did say “subtle”? Mr D.T. REDMAN : It is a difference; the member asked the question and I am making a comparison between the two circumstances. The member made the point that I was able to waive some of the debt for the control of bedstraw and footrot and asked why I did not do the same for apple scab. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a fundraising mechanism in place. I will now go back to the other issue mentioned by the member, footrot and bedstraw. I inherited a $1.5 million debt, which was what the Department of Agriculture and Food had paid towards the industry’s contribution to the control of footrot and bedstraw. The industry had two concerns, and I inherited that circumstance. Hon Kim Chance put the biosecurity and agriculture management legislation through Parliament, but was lazy on the regulations. The regulations provide the mechanisms for the industry to raise funds to deal with these sorts of issues. I have fast-tracked the mechanisms. I gave the instruction in January this year and they will be in place by June 2010. Ms M.M. Quirk : That’s really fast! Mr D.T. REDMAN : We are talking about a bill that came into this Parliament under the watch of the previous government some two years ago, and those mechanisms are not yet in place. These are the steps I had to take. It was becoming a concern for industry people who wanted to be involved in drafting the regulations. They wanted to sit at the table with the government—which is what we wanted—to get these regulations in place and to provide the industry with funding mechanisms; yet we are sitting here with $1.5 million in retrospective debt, and it is creating a real problem for the negotiations. I think I took the right step in making that decision. I took a different stance on the issue of apple scab for the reason that there is already a funding mechanism in place. I have recently approved a new fee level to put to the industry, to raise funds and pay off the debt. Mr M.P. Murray : You’ve allowed one group to get away with it, and you’re charging another. You’re unfair. Mr D.T. REDMAN : There are quite significant differences between the two circumstances. I inherited a bedstraw and footrot problem which developed during the watch of the previous government, and which the previous government did not deal with. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am sure the minister does not need any help from members on either side of this place to answer his question. I notice that the member for Collie-Preston is interested in the minister’s answer. I would like other members in this place to at least allow the member to hear the answer the minister is attempting to give. Mr D.T. REDMAN : I will briefly summarise. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a mechanism in place to raise funds from the industry. In the bedstraw and footrot situation, there is no mechanism to raise funds. The build-up of debt was becoming prohibitive and it was compromising our capacity to work with the industry to get the regulations in place — Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am fully supportive of the industry’s position to try to maintain a level of control over apple scab. I think I have taken the appropriate steps as the minister responsible.
(1) Does the minister intend to coerce other industry groups in a similar manner? (2) Is this treatment indicative of the way he intends to deal with the agricultural industry groups? (3) Why is the minister content to allow a disease to spread through Western Australia that will cost the WA fruit industry millions of dollars? (4) Why has the minister decided to abandon support to this group when he waived the debt for other programs, such as the $681 000 for the footrot eradication program and $859 000 for the bedstraw eradication program? Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : The National Party loves scabs; that’s the reality! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr D.T. REDMAN replied: We are big enough to take those things on the chin! Mr Speaker, I start by complimenting you on your tie; you are one of the only people in the house wearing something that represents and supports the agricultural industry in Western Australia. If you can do something about wool prices, I will be eternally grateful! I thank the member for the question; it is a good question, centred on the debt that was built up dealing with apple scab. (1)-(4) I have met with a number of industry representatives to discuss their concerns about apple scab. With regard to the Apple and Pear Council’s debt, it has a mechanism in place to raise funds from its membership. The subtle difference between the Apple and Pear Council’s debt and the concerns about me waiving the debt for bedstraw and footrot eradication is the fact that the Apple and Pear Council has a fundraising mechanism. Mr M.P. Murray : You did say “subtle”? Mr D.T. REDMAN : It is a difference; the member asked the question and I am making a comparison between the two circumstances. The member made the point that I was able to waive some of the debt for the control of bedstraw and footrot and asked why I did not do the same for apple scab. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a fundraising mechanism in place. I will now go back to the other issue mentioned by the member, footrot and bedstraw. I inherited a $1.5 million debt, which was what the Department of Agriculture and Food had paid towards the industry’s contribution to the control of footrot and bedstraw. The industry had two concerns, and I inherited that circumstance. Hon Kim Chance put the biosecurity and agriculture management legislation through Parliament, but was lazy on the regulations. The regulations provide the mechanisms for the industry to raise funds to deal with these sorts of issues. I have fast-tracked the mechanisms. I gave the instruction in January this year and they will be in place by June 2010. Ms M.M. Quirk : That’s really fast! Mr D.T. REDMAN : We are talking about a bill that came into this Parliament under the watch of the previous government some two years ago, and those mechanisms are not yet in place. These are the steps I had to take. It was becoming a concern for industry people who wanted to be involved in drafting the regulations. They wanted to sit at the table with the government—which is what we wanted—to get these regulations in place and to provide the industry with funding mechanisms; yet we are sitting here with $1.5 million in retrospective debt, and it is creating a real problem for the negotiations. I think I took the right step in making that decision. I took a different stance on the issue of apple scab for the reason that there is already a funding mechanism in place. I have recently approved a new fee level to put to the industry, to raise funds and pay off the debt. Mr M.P. Murray : You’ve allowed one group to get away with it, and you’re charging another. You’re unfair. Mr D.T. REDMAN : There are quite significant differences between the two circumstances. I inherited a bedstraw and footrot problem which developed during the watch of the previous government, and which the previous government did not deal with. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am sure the minister does not need any help from members on either side of this place to answer his question. I notice that the member for Collie-Preston is interested in the minister’s answer. I would like other members in this place to at least allow the member to hear the answer the minister is attempting to give. Mr D.T. REDMAN : I will briefly summarise. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a mechanism in place to raise funds from the industry. In the bedstraw and footrot situation, there is no mechanism to raise funds. The build-up of debt was becoming prohibitive and it was compromising our capacity to work with the industry to get the regulations in place — Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am fully supportive of the industry’s position to try to maintain a level of control over apple scab. I think I have taken the appropriate steps as the minister responsible.
(2) Is this treatment indicative of the way he intends to deal with the agricultural industry groups? (3) Why is the minister content to allow a disease to spread through Western Australia that will cost the WA fruit industry millions of dollars? (4) Why has the minister decided to abandon support to this group when he waived the debt for other programs, such as the $681 000 for the footrot eradication program and $859 000 for the bedstraw eradication program? Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : The National Party loves scabs; that’s the reality! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr D.T. REDMAN replied: We are big enough to take those things on the chin! Mr Speaker, I start by complimenting you on your tie; you are one of the only people in the house wearing something that represents and supports the agricultural industry in Western Australia. If you can do something about wool prices, I will be eternally grateful! I thank the member for the question; it is a good question, centred on the debt that was built up dealing with apple scab. (1)-(4) I have met with a number of industry representatives to discuss their concerns about apple scab. With regard to the Apple and Pear Council’s debt, it has a mechanism in place to raise funds from its membership. The subtle difference between the Apple and Pear Council’s debt and the concerns about me waiving the debt for bedstraw and footrot eradication is the fact that the Apple and Pear Council has a fundraising mechanism. Mr M.P. Murray : You did say “subtle”? Mr D.T. REDMAN : It is a difference; the member asked the question and I am making a comparison between the two circumstances. The member made the point that I was able to waive some of the debt for the control of bedstraw and footrot and asked why I did not do the same for apple scab. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a fundraising mechanism in place. I will now go back to the other issue mentioned by the member, footrot and bedstraw. I inherited a $1.5 million debt, which was what the Department of Agriculture and Food had paid towards the industry’s contribution to the control of footrot and bedstraw. The industry had two concerns, and I inherited that circumstance. Hon Kim Chance put the biosecurity and agriculture management legislation through Parliament, but was lazy on the regulations. The regulations provide the mechanisms for the industry to raise funds to deal with these sorts of issues. I have fast-tracked the mechanisms. I gave the instruction in January this year and they will be in place by June 2010. Ms M.M. Quirk : That’s really fast! Mr D.T. REDMAN : We are talking about a bill that came into this Parliament under the watch of the previous government some two years ago, and those mechanisms are not yet in place. These are the steps I had to take. It was becoming a concern for industry people who wanted to be involved in drafting the regulations. They wanted to sit at the table with the government—which is what we wanted—to get these regulations in place and to provide the industry with funding mechanisms; yet we are sitting here with $1.5 million in retrospective debt, and it is creating a real problem for the negotiations. I think I took the right step in making that decision. I took a different stance on the issue of apple scab for the reason that there is already a funding mechanism in place. I have recently approved a new fee level to put to the industry, to raise funds and pay off the debt. Mr M.P. Murray : You’ve allowed one group to get away with it, and you’re charging another. You’re unfair. Mr D.T. REDMAN : There are quite significant differences between the two circumstances. I inherited a bedstraw and footrot problem which developed during the watch of the previous government, and which the previous government did not deal with. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am sure the minister does not need any help from members on either side of this place to answer his question. I notice that the member for Collie-Preston is interested in the minister’s answer. I would like other members in this place to at least allow the member to hear the answer the minister is attempting to give. Mr D.T. REDMAN : I will briefly summarise. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a mechanism in place to raise funds from the industry. In the bedstraw and footrot situation, there is no mechanism to raise funds. The build-up of debt was becoming prohibitive and it was compromising our capacity to work with the industry to get the regulations in place — Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am fully supportive of the industry’s position to try to maintain a level of control over apple scab. I think I have taken the appropriate steps as the minister responsible.
(3) Why is the minister content to allow a disease to spread through Western Australia that will cost the WA fruit industry millions of dollars? (4) Why has the minister decided to abandon support to this group when he waived the debt for other programs, such as the $681 000 for the footrot eradication program and $859 000 for the bedstraw eradication program? Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : The National Party loves scabs; that’s the reality! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr D.T. REDMAN replied: We are big enough to take those things on the chin! Mr Speaker, I start by complimenting you on your tie; you are one of the only people in the house wearing something that represents and supports the agricultural industry in Western Australia. If you can do something about wool prices, I will be eternally grateful! I thank the member for the question; it is a good question, centred on the debt that was built up dealing with apple scab. (1)-(4) I have met with a number of industry representatives to discuss their concerns about apple scab. With regard to the Apple and Pear Council’s debt, it has a mechanism in place to raise funds from its membership. The subtle difference between the Apple and Pear Council’s debt and the concerns about me waiving the debt for bedstraw and footrot eradication is the fact that the Apple and Pear Council has a fundraising mechanism. Mr M.P. Murray : You did say “subtle”? Mr D.T. REDMAN : It is a difference; the member asked the question and I am making a comparison between the two circumstances. The member made the point that I was able to waive some of the debt for the control of bedstraw and footrot and asked why I did not do the same for apple scab. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a fundraising mechanism in place. I will now go back to the other issue mentioned by the member, footrot and bedstraw. I inherited a $1.5 million debt, which was what the Department of Agriculture and Food had paid towards the industry’s contribution to the control of footrot and bedstraw. The industry had two concerns, and I inherited that circumstance. Hon Kim Chance put the biosecurity and agriculture management legislation through Parliament, but was lazy on the regulations. The regulations provide the mechanisms for the industry to raise funds to deal with these sorts of issues. I have fast-tracked the mechanisms. I gave the instruction in January this year and they will be in place by June 2010. Ms M.M. Quirk : That’s really fast! Mr D.T. REDMAN : We are talking about a bill that came into this Parliament under the watch of the previous government some two years ago, and those mechanisms are not yet in place. These are the steps I had to take. It was becoming a concern for industry people who wanted to be involved in drafting the regulations. They wanted to sit at the table with the government—which is what we wanted—to get these regulations in place and to provide the industry with funding mechanisms; yet we are sitting here with $1.5 million in retrospective debt, and it is creating a real problem for the negotiations. I think I took the right step in making that decision. I took a different stance on the issue of apple scab for the reason that there is already a funding mechanism in place. I have recently approved a new fee level to put to the industry, to raise funds and pay off the debt. Mr M.P. Murray : You’ve allowed one group to get away with it, and you’re charging another. You’re unfair. Mr D.T. REDMAN : There are quite significant differences between the two circumstances. I inherited a bedstraw and footrot problem which developed during the watch of the previous government, and which the previous government did not deal with. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am sure the minister does not need any help from members on either side of this place to answer his question. I notice that the member for Collie-Preston is interested in the minister’s answer. I would like other members in this place to at least allow the member to hear the answer the minister is attempting to give. Mr D.T. REDMAN : I will briefly summarise. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a mechanism in place to raise funds from the industry. In the bedstraw and footrot situation, there is no mechanism to raise funds. The build-up of debt was becoming prohibitive and it was compromising our capacity to work with the industry to get the regulations in place — Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am fully supportive of the industry’s position to try to maintain a level of control over apple scab. I think I have taken the appropriate steps as the minister responsible.
(4) Why has the minister decided to abandon support to this group when he waived the debt for other programs, such as the $681 000 for the footrot eradication program and $859 000 for the bedstraw eradication program? Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : The National Party loves scabs; that’s the reality! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr D.T. REDMAN replied: We are big enough to take those things on the chin! Mr Speaker, I start by complimenting you on your tie; you are one of the only people in the house wearing something that represents and supports the agricultural industry in Western Australia. If you can do something about wool prices, I will be eternally grateful! I thank the member for the question; it is a good question, centred on the debt that was built up dealing with apple scab. (1)-(4) I have met with a number of industry representatives to discuss their concerns about apple scab. With regard to the Apple and Pear Council’s debt, it has a mechanism in place to raise funds from its membership. The subtle difference between the Apple and Pear Council’s debt and the concerns about me waiving the debt for bedstraw and footrot eradication is the fact that the Apple and Pear Council has a fundraising mechanism. Mr M.P. Murray : You did say “subtle”? Mr D.T. REDMAN : It is a difference; the member asked the question and I am making a comparison between the two circumstances. The member made the point that I was able to waive some of the debt for the control of bedstraw and footrot and asked why I did not do the same for apple scab. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a fundraising mechanism in place. I will now go back to the other issue mentioned by the member, footrot and bedstraw. I inherited a $1.5 million debt, which was what the Department of Agriculture and Food had paid towards the industry’s contribution to the control of footrot and bedstraw. The industry had two concerns, and I inherited that circumstance. Hon Kim Chance put the biosecurity and agriculture management legislation through Parliament, but was lazy on the regulations. The regulations provide the mechanisms for the industry to raise funds to deal with these sorts of issues. I have fast-tracked the mechanisms. I gave the instruction in January this year and they will be in place by June 2010. Ms M.M. Quirk : That’s really fast! Mr D.T. REDMAN : We are talking about a bill that came into this Parliament under the watch of the previous government some two years ago, and those mechanisms are not yet in place. These are the steps I had to take. It was becoming a concern for industry people who wanted to be involved in drafting the regulations. They wanted to sit at the table with the government—which is what we wanted—to get these regulations in place and to provide the industry with funding mechanisms; yet we are sitting here with $1.5 million in retrospective debt, and it is creating a real problem for the negotiations. I think I took the right step in making that decision. I took a different stance on the issue of apple scab for the reason that there is already a funding mechanism in place. I have recently approved a new fee level to put to the industry, to raise funds and pay off the debt. Mr M.P. Murray : You’ve allowed one group to get away with it, and you’re charging another. You’re unfair. Mr D.T. REDMAN : There are quite significant differences between the two circumstances. I inherited a bedstraw and footrot problem which developed during the watch of the previous government, and which the previous government did not deal with. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am sure the minister does not need any help from members on either side of this place to answer his question. I notice that the member for Collie-Preston is interested in the minister’s answer. I would like other members in this place to at least allow the member to hear the answer the minister is attempting to give. Mr D.T. REDMAN : I will briefly summarise. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a mechanism in place to raise funds from the industry. In the bedstraw and footrot situation, there is no mechanism to raise funds. The build-up of debt was becoming prohibitive and it was compromising our capacity to work with the industry to get the regulations in place — Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am fully supportive of the industry’s position to try to maintain a level of control over apple scab. I think I have taken the appropriate steps as the minister responsible.
Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : The National Party loves scabs; that’s the reality! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr D.T. REDMAN replied: We are big enough to take those things on the chin! Mr Speaker, I start by complimenting you on your tie; you are one of the only people in the house wearing something that represents and supports the agricultural industry in Western Australia. If you can do something about wool prices, I will be eternally grateful! I thank the member for the question; it is a good question, centred on the debt that was built up dealing with apple scab. (1)-(4) I have met with a number of industry representatives to discuss their concerns about apple scab. With regard to the Apple and Pear Council’s debt, it has a mechanism in place to raise funds from its membership. The subtle difference between the Apple and Pear Council’s debt and the concerns about me waiving the debt for bedstraw and footrot eradication is the fact that the Apple and Pear Council has a fundraising mechanism. Mr M.P. Murray : You did say “subtle”? Mr D.T. REDMAN : It is a difference; the member asked the question and I am making a comparison between the two circumstances. The member made the point that I was able to waive some of the debt for the control of bedstraw and footrot and asked why I did not do the same for apple scab. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a fundraising mechanism in place. I will now go back to the other issue mentioned by the member, footrot and bedstraw. I inherited a $1.5 million debt, which was what the Department of Agriculture and Food had paid towards the industry’s contribution to the control of footrot and bedstraw. The industry had two concerns, and I inherited that circumstance. Hon Kim Chance put the biosecurity and agriculture management legislation through Parliament, but was lazy on the regulations. The regulations provide the mechanisms for the industry to raise funds to deal with these sorts of issues. I have fast-tracked the mechanisms. I gave the instruction in January this year and they will be in place by June 2010. Ms M.M. Quirk : That’s really fast! Mr D.T. REDMAN : We are talking about a bill that came into this Parliament under the watch of the previous government some two years ago, and those mechanisms are not yet in place. These are the steps I had to take. It was becoming a concern for industry people who wanted to be involved in drafting the regulations. They wanted to sit at the table with the government—which is what we wanted—to get these regulations in place and to provide the industry with funding mechanisms; yet we are sitting here with $1.5 million in retrospective debt, and it is creating a real problem for the negotiations. I think I took the right step in making that decision. I took a different stance on the issue of apple scab for the reason that there is already a funding mechanism in place. I have recently approved a new fee level to put to the industry, to raise funds and pay off the debt. Mr M.P. Murray : You’ve allowed one group to get away with it, and you’re charging another. You’re unfair. Mr D.T. REDMAN : There are quite significant differences between the two circumstances. I inherited a bedstraw and footrot problem which developed during the watch of the previous government, and which the previous government did not deal with. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am sure the minister does not need any help from members on either side of this place to answer his question. I notice that the member for Collie-Preston is interested in the minister’s answer. I would like other members in this place to at least allow the member to hear the answer the minister is attempting to give. Mr D.T. REDMAN : I will briefly summarise. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a mechanism in place to raise funds from the industry. In the bedstraw and footrot situation, there is no mechanism to raise funds. The build-up of debt was becoming prohibitive and it was compromising our capacity to work with the industry to get the regulations in place — Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am fully supportive of the industry’s position to try to maintain a level of control over apple scab. I think I have taken the appropriate steps as the minister responsible.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr D.T. REDMAN replied: We are big enough to take those things on the chin! Mr Speaker, I start by complimenting you on your tie; you are one of the only people in the house wearing something that represents and supports the agricultural industry in Western Australia. If you can do something about wool prices, I will be eternally grateful! I thank the member for the question; it is a good question, centred on the debt that was built up dealing with apple scab. (1)-(4) I have met with a number of industry representatives to discuss their concerns about apple scab. With regard to the Apple and Pear Council’s debt, it has a mechanism in place to raise funds from its membership. The subtle difference between the Apple and Pear Council’s debt and the concerns about me waiving the debt for bedstraw and footrot eradication is the fact that the Apple and Pear Council has a fundraising mechanism. Mr M.P. Murray : You did say “subtle”? Mr D.T. REDMAN : It is a difference; the member asked the question and I am making a comparison between the two circumstances. The member made the point that I was able to waive some of the debt for the control of bedstraw and footrot and asked why I did not do the same for apple scab. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a fundraising mechanism in place. I will now go back to the other issue mentioned by the member, footrot and bedstraw. I inherited a $1.5 million debt, which was what the Department of Agriculture and Food had paid towards the industry’s contribution to the control of footrot and bedstraw. The industry had two concerns, and I inherited that circumstance. Hon Kim Chance put the biosecurity and agriculture management legislation through Parliament, but was lazy on the regulations. The regulations provide the mechanisms for the industry to raise funds to deal with these sorts of issues. I have fast-tracked the mechanisms. I gave the instruction in January this year and they will be in place by June 2010. Ms M.M. Quirk : That’s really fast! Mr D.T. REDMAN : We are talking about a bill that came into this Parliament under the watch of the previous government some two years ago, and those mechanisms are not yet in place. These are the steps I had to take. It was becoming a concern for industry people who wanted to be involved in drafting the regulations. They wanted to sit at the table with the government—which is what we wanted—to get these regulations in place and to provide the industry with funding mechanisms; yet we are sitting here with $1.5 million in retrospective debt, and it is creating a real problem for the negotiations. I think I took the right step in making that decision. I took a different stance on the issue of apple scab for the reason that there is already a funding mechanism in place. I have recently approved a new fee level to put to the industry, to raise funds and pay off the debt. Mr M.P. Murray : You’ve allowed one group to get away with it, and you’re charging another. You’re unfair. Mr D.T. REDMAN : There are quite significant differences between the two circumstances. I inherited a bedstraw and footrot problem which developed during the watch of the previous government, and which the previous government did not deal with. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am sure the minister does not need any help from members on either side of this place to answer his question. I notice that the member for Collie-Preston is interested in the minister’s answer. I would like other members in this place to at least allow the member to hear the answer the minister is attempting to give. Mr D.T. REDMAN : I will briefly summarise. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a mechanism in place to raise funds from the industry. In the bedstraw and footrot situation, there is no mechanism to raise funds. The build-up of debt was becoming prohibitive and it was compromising our capacity to work with the industry to get the regulations in place — Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am fully supportive of the industry’s position to try to maintain a level of control over apple scab. I think I have taken the appropriate steps as the minister responsible.
The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr D.T. REDMAN replied: We are big enough to take those things on the chin! Mr Speaker, I start by complimenting you on your tie; you are one of the only people in the house wearing something that represents and supports the agricultural industry in Western Australia. If you can do something about wool prices, I will be eternally grateful! I thank the member for the question; it is a good question, centred on the debt that was built up dealing with apple scab. (1)-(4) I have met with a number of industry representatives to discuss their concerns about apple scab. With regard to the Apple and Pear Council’s debt, it has a mechanism in place to raise funds from its membership. The subtle difference between the Apple and Pear Council’s debt and the concerns about me waiving the debt for bedstraw and footrot eradication is the fact that the Apple and Pear Council has a fundraising mechanism. Mr M.P. Murray : You did say “subtle”? Mr D.T. REDMAN : It is a difference; the member asked the question and I am making a comparison between the two circumstances. The member made the point that I was able to waive some of the debt for the control of bedstraw and footrot and asked why I did not do the same for apple scab. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a fundraising mechanism in place. I will now go back to the other issue mentioned by the member, footrot and bedstraw. I inherited a $1.5 million debt, which was what the Department of Agriculture and Food had paid towards the industry’s contribution to the control of footrot and bedstraw. The industry had two concerns, and I inherited that circumstance. Hon Kim Chance put the biosecurity and agriculture management legislation through Parliament, but was lazy on the regulations. The regulations provide the mechanisms for the industry to raise funds to deal with these sorts of issues. I have fast-tracked the mechanisms. I gave the instruction in January this year and they will be in place by June 2010. Ms M.M. Quirk : That’s really fast! Mr D.T. REDMAN : We are talking about a bill that came into this Parliament under the watch of the previous government some two years ago, and those mechanisms are not yet in place. These are the steps I had to take. It was becoming a concern for industry people who wanted to be involved in drafting the regulations. They wanted to sit at the table with the government—which is what we wanted—to get these regulations in place and to provide the industry with funding mechanisms; yet we are sitting here with $1.5 million in retrospective debt, and it is creating a real problem for the negotiations. I think I took the right step in making that decision. I took a different stance on the issue of apple scab for the reason that there is already a funding mechanism in place. I have recently approved a new fee level to put to the industry, to raise funds and pay off the debt. Mr M.P. Murray : You’ve allowed one group to get away with it, and you’re charging another. You’re unfair. Mr D.T. REDMAN : There are quite significant differences between the two circumstances. I inherited a bedstraw and footrot problem which developed during the watch of the previous government, and which the previous government did not deal with. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am sure the minister does not need any help from members on either side of this place to answer his question. I notice that the member for Collie-Preston is interested in the minister’s answer. I would like other members in this place to at least allow the member to hear the answer the minister is attempting to give. Mr D.T. REDMAN : I will briefly summarise. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a mechanism in place to raise funds from the industry. In the bedstraw and footrot situation, there is no mechanism to raise funds. The build-up of debt was becoming prohibitive and it was compromising our capacity to work with the industry to get the regulations in place — Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am fully supportive of the industry’s position to try to maintain a level of control over apple scab. I think I have taken the appropriate steps as the minister responsible.
Mr D.T. REDMAN replied: We are big enough to take those things on the chin! Mr Speaker, I start by complimenting you on your tie; you are one of the only people in the house wearing something that represents and supports the agricultural industry in Western Australia. If you can do something about wool prices, I will be eternally grateful! I thank the member for the question; it is a good question, centred on the debt that was built up dealing with apple scab. (1)-(4) I have met with a number of industry representatives to discuss their concerns about apple scab. With regard to the Apple and Pear Council’s debt, it has a mechanism in place to raise funds from its membership. The subtle difference between the Apple and Pear Council’s debt and the concerns about me waiving the debt for bedstraw and footrot eradication is the fact that the Apple and Pear Council has a fundraising mechanism. Mr M.P. Murray : You did say “subtle”? Mr D.T. REDMAN : It is a difference; the member asked the question and I am making a comparison between the two circumstances. The member made the point that I was able to waive some of the debt for the control of bedstraw and footrot and asked why I did not do the same for apple scab. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a fundraising mechanism in place. I will now go back to the other issue mentioned by the member, footrot and bedstraw. I inherited a $1.5 million debt, which was what the Department of Agriculture and Food had paid towards the industry’s contribution to the control of footrot and bedstraw. The industry had two concerns, and I inherited that circumstance. Hon Kim Chance put the biosecurity and agriculture management legislation through Parliament, but was lazy on the regulations. The regulations provide the mechanisms for the industry to raise funds to deal with these sorts of issues. I have fast-tracked the mechanisms. I gave the instruction in January this year and they will be in place by June 2010. Ms M.M. Quirk : That’s really fast! Mr D.T. REDMAN : We are talking about a bill that came into this Parliament under the watch of the previous government some two years ago, and those mechanisms are not yet in place. These are the steps I had to take. It was becoming a concern for industry people who wanted to be involved in drafting the regulations. They wanted to sit at the table with the government—which is what we wanted—to get these regulations in place and to provide the industry with funding mechanisms; yet we are sitting here with $1.5 million in retrospective debt, and it is creating a real problem for the negotiations. I think I took the right step in making that decision. I took a different stance on the issue of apple scab for the reason that there is already a funding mechanism in place. I have recently approved a new fee level to put to the industry, to raise funds and pay off the debt. Mr M.P. Murray : You’ve allowed one group to get away with it, and you’re charging another. You’re unfair. Mr D.T. REDMAN : There are quite significant differences between the two circumstances. I inherited a bedstraw and footrot problem which developed during the watch of the previous government, and which the previous government did not deal with. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am sure the minister does not need any help from members on either side of this place to answer his question. I notice that the member for Collie-Preston is interested in the minister’s answer. I would like other members in this place to at least allow the member to hear the answer the minister is attempting to give. Mr D.T. REDMAN : I will briefly summarise. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a mechanism in place to raise funds from the industry. In the bedstraw and footrot situation, there is no mechanism to raise funds. The build-up of debt was becoming prohibitive and it was compromising our capacity to work with the industry to get the regulations in place — Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am fully supportive of the industry’s position to try to maintain a level of control over apple scab. I think I have taken the appropriate steps as the minister responsible.
We are big enough to take those things on the chin! Mr Speaker, I start by complimenting you on your tie; you are one of the only people in the house wearing something that represents and supports the agricultural industry in Western Australia. If you can do something about wool prices, I will be eternally grateful! I thank the member for the question; it is a good question, centred on the debt that was built up dealing with apple scab. (1)-(4) I have met with a number of industry representatives to discuss their concerns about apple scab. With regard to the Apple and Pear Council’s debt, it has a mechanism in place to raise funds from its membership. The subtle difference between the Apple and Pear Council’s debt and the concerns about me waiving the debt for bedstraw and footrot eradication is the fact that the Apple and Pear Council has a fundraising mechanism. Mr M.P. Murray : You did say “subtle”? Mr D.T. REDMAN : It is a difference; the member asked the question and I am making a comparison between the two circumstances. The member made the point that I was able to waive some of the debt for the control of bedstraw and footrot and asked why I did not do the same for apple scab. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a fundraising mechanism in place. I will now go back to the other issue mentioned by the member, footrot and bedstraw. I inherited a $1.5 million debt, which was what the Department of Agriculture and Food had paid towards the industry’s contribution to the control of footrot and bedstraw. The industry had two concerns, and I inherited that circumstance. Hon Kim Chance put the biosecurity and agriculture management legislation through Parliament, but was lazy on the regulations. The regulations provide the mechanisms for the industry to raise funds to deal with these sorts of issues. I have fast-tracked the mechanisms. I gave the instruction in January this year and they will be in place by June 2010. Ms M.M. Quirk : That’s really fast! Mr D.T. REDMAN : We are talking about a bill that came into this Parliament under the watch of the previous government some two years ago, and those mechanisms are not yet in place. These are the steps I had to take. It was becoming a concern for industry people who wanted to be involved in drafting the regulations. They wanted to sit at the table with the government—which is what we wanted—to get these regulations in place and to provide the industry with funding mechanisms; yet we are sitting here with $1.5 million in retrospective debt, and it is creating a real problem for the negotiations. I think I took the right step in making that decision. I took a different stance on the issue of apple scab for the reason that there is already a funding mechanism in place. I have recently approved a new fee level to put to the industry, to raise funds and pay off the debt. Mr M.P. Murray : You’ve allowed one group to get away with it, and you’re charging another. You’re unfair. Mr D.T. REDMAN : There are quite significant differences between the two circumstances. I inherited a bedstraw and footrot problem which developed during the watch of the previous government, and which the previous government did not deal with. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am sure the minister does not need any help from members on either side of this place to answer his question. I notice that the member for Collie-Preston is interested in the minister’s answer. I would like other members in this place to at least allow the member to hear the answer the minister is attempting to give. Mr D.T. REDMAN : I will briefly summarise. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a mechanism in place to raise funds from the industry. In the bedstraw and footrot situation, there is no mechanism to raise funds. The build-up of debt was becoming prohibitive and it was compromising our capacity to work with the industry to get the regulations in place — Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am fully supportive of the industry’s position to try to maintain a level of control over apple scab. I think I have taken the appropriate steps as the minister responsible.
Mr Speaker, I start by complimenting you on your tie; you are one of the only people in the house wearing something that represents and supports the agricultural industry in Western Australia. If you can do something about wool prices, I will be eternally grateful! I thank the member for the question; it is a good question, centred on the debt that was built up dealing with apple scab. (1)-(4) I have met with a number of industry representatives to discuss their concerns about apple scab. With regard to the Apple and Pear Council’s debt, it has a mechanism in place to raise funds from its membership. The subtle difference between the Apple and Pear Council’s debt and the concerns about me waiving the debt for bedstraw and footrot eradication is the fact that the Apple and Pear Council has a fundraising mechanism. Mr M.P. Murray : You did say “subtle”? Mr D.T. REDMAN : It is a difference; the member asked the question and I am making a comparison between the two circumstances. The member made the point that I was able to waive some of the debt for the control of bedstraw and footrot and asked why I did not do the same for apple scab. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a fundraising mechanism in place. I will now go back to the other issue mentioned by the member, footrot and bedstraw. I inherited a $1.5 million debt, which was what the Department of Agriculture and Food had paid towards the industry’s contribution to the control of footrot and bedstraw. The industry had two concerns, and I inherited that circumstance. Hon Kim Chance put the biosecurity and agriculture management legislation through Parliament, but was lazy on the regulations. The regulations provide the mechanisms for the industry to raise funds to deal with these sorts of issues. I have fast-tracked the mechanisms. I gave the instruction in January this year and they will be in place by June 2010. Ms M.M. Quirk : That’s really fast! Mr D.T. REDMAN : We are talking about a bill that came into this Parliament under the watch of the previous government some two years ago, and those mechanisms are not yet in place. These are the steps I had to take. It was becoming a concern for industry people who wanted to be involved in drafting the regulations. They wanted to sit at the table with the government—which is what we wanted—to get these regulations in place and to provide the industry with funding mechanisms; yet we are sitting here with $1.5 million in retrospective debt, and it is creating a real problem for the negotiations. I think I took the right step in making that decision. I took a different stance on the issue of apple scab for the reason that there is already a funding mechanism in place. I have recently approved a new fee level to put to the industry, to raise funds and pay off the debt. Mr M.P. Murray : You’ve allowed one group to get away with it, and you’re charging another. You’re unfair. Mr D.T. REDMAN : There are quite significant differences between the two circumstances. I inherited a bedstraw and footrot problem which developed during the watch of the previous government, and which the previous government did not deal with. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am sure the minister does not need any help from members on either side of this place to answer his question. I notice that the member for Collie-Preston is interested in the minister’s answer. I would like other members in this place to at least allow the member to hear the answer the minister is attempting to give. Mr D.T. REDMAN : I will briefly summarise. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a mechanism in place to raise funds from the industry. In the bedstraw and footrot situation, there is no mechanism to raise funds. The build-up of debt was becoming prohibitive and it was compromising our capacity to work with the industry to get the regulations in place — Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am fully supportive of the industry’s position to try to maintain a level of control over apple scab. I think I have taken the appropriate steps as the minister responsible.
I thank the member for the question; it is a good question, centred on the debt that was built up dealing with apple scab. (1)-(4) I have met with a number of industry representatives to discuss their concerns about apple scab. With regard to the Apple and Pear Council’s debt, it has a mechanism in place to raise funds from its membership. The subtle difference between the Apple and Pear Council’s debt and the concerns about me waiving the debt for bedstraw and footrot eradication is the fact that the Apple and Pear Council has a fundraising mechanism. Mr M.P. Murray : You did say “subtle”? Mr D.T. REDMAN : It is a difference; the member asked the question and I am making a comparison between the two circumstances. The member made the point that I was able to waive some of the debt for the control of bedstraw and footrot and asked why I did not do the same for apple scab. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a fundraising mechanism in place. I will now go back to the other issue mentioned by the member, footrot and bedstraw. I inherited a $1.5 million debt, which was what the Department of Agriculture and Food had paid towards the industry’s contribution to the control of footrot and bedstraw. The industry had two concerns, and I inherited that circumstance. Hon Kim Chance put the biosecurity and agriculture management legislation through Parliament, but was lazy on the regulations. The regulations provide the mechanisms for the industry to raise funds to deal with these sorts of issues. I have fast-tracked the mechanisms. I gave the instruction in January this year and they will be in place by June 2010. Ms M.M. Quirk : That’s really fast! Mr D.T. REDMAN : We are talking about a bill that came into this Parliament under the watch of the previous government some two years ago, and those mechanisms are not yet in place. These are the steps I had to take. It was becoming a concern for industry people who wanted to be involved in drafting the regulations. They wanted to sit at the table with the government—which is what we wanted—to get these regulations in place and to provide the industry with funding mechanisms; yet we are sitting here with $1.5 million in retrospective debt, and it is creating a real problem for the negotiations. I think I took the right step in making that decision. I took a different stance on the issue of apple scab for the reason that there is already a funding mechanism in place. I have recently approved a new fee level to put to the industry, to raise funds and pay off the debt. Mr M.P. Murray : You’ve allowed one group to get away with it, and you’re charging another. You’re unfair. Mr D.T. REDMAN : There are quite significant differences between the two circumstances. I inherited a bedstraw and footrot problem which developed during the watch of the previous government, and which the previous government did not deal with. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am sure the minister does not need any help from members on either side of this place to answer his question. I notice that the member for Collie-Preston is interested in the minister’s answer. I would like other members in this place to at least allow the member to hear the answer the minister is attempting to give. Mr D.T. REDMAN : I will briefly summarise. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a mechanism in place to raise funds from the industry. In the bedstraw and footrot situation, there is no mechanism to raise funds. The build-up of debt was becoming prohibitive and it was compromising our capacity to work with the industry to get the regulations in place — Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am fully supportive of the industry’s position to try to maintain a level of control over apple scab. I think I have taken the appropriate steps as the minister responsible.
(1)-(4) I have met with a number of industry representatives to discuss their concerns about apple scab. With regard to the Apple and Pear Council’s debt, it has a mechanism in place to raise funds from its membership. The subtle difference between the Apple and Pear Council’s debt and the concerns about me waiving the debt for bedstraw and footrot eradication is the fact that the Apple and Pear Council has a fundraising mechanism. Mr M.P. Murray : You did say “subtle”? Mr D.T. REDMAN : It is a difference; the member asked the question and I am making a comparison between the two circumstances. The member made the point that I was able to waive some of the debt for the control of bedstraw and footrot and asked why I did not do the same for apple scab. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a fundraising mechanism in place. I will now go back to the other issue mentioned by the member, footrot and bedstraw. I inherited a $1.5 million debt, which was what the Department of Agriculture and Food had paid towards the industry’s contribution to the control of footrot and bedstraw. The industry had two concerns, and I inherited that circumstance. Hon Kim Chance put the biosecurity and agriculture management legislation through Parliament, but was lazy on the regulations. The regulations provide the mechanisms for the industry to raise funds to deal with these sorts of issues. I have fast-tracked the mechanisms. I gave the instruction in January this year and they will be in place by June 2010. Ms M.M. Quirk : That’s really fast! Mr D.T. REDMAN : We are talking about a bill that came into this Parliament under the watch of the previous government some two years ago, and those mechanisms are not yet in place. These are the steps I had to take. It was becoming a concern for industry people who wanted to be involved in drafting the regulations. They wanted to sit at the table with the government—which is what we wanted—to get these regulations in place and to provide the industry with funding mechanisms; yet we are sitting here with $1.5 million in retrospective debt, and it is creating a real problem for the negotiations. I think I took the right step in making that decision. I took a different stance on the issue of apple scab for the reason that there is already a funding mechanism in place. I have recently approved a new fee level to put to the industry, to raise funds and pay off the debt. Mr M.P. Murray : You’ve allowed one group to get away with it, and you’re charging another. You’re unfair. Mr D.T. REDMAN : There are quite significant differences between the two circumstances. I inherited a bedstraw and footrot problem which developed during the watch of the previous government, and which the previous government did not deal with. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am sure the minister does not need any help from members on either side of this place to answer his question. I notice that the member for Collie-Preston is interested in the minister’s answer. I would like other members in this place to at least allow the member to hear the answer the minister is attempting to give. Mr D.T. REDMAN : I will briefly summarise. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a mechanism in place to raise funds from the industry. In the bedstraw and footrot situation, there is no mechanism to raise funds. The build-up of debt was becoming prohibitive and it was compromising our capacity to work with the industry to get the regulations in place — Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am fully supportive of the industry’s position to try to maintain a level of control over apple scab. I think I have taken the appropriate steps as the minister responsible.
Mr M.P. Murray : You did say “subtle”? Mr D.T. REDMAN : It is a difference; the member asked the question and I am making a comparison between the two circumstances. The member made the point that I was able to waive some of the debt for the control of bedstraw and footrot and asked why I did not do the same for apple scab. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a fundraising mechanism in place. I will now go back to the other issue mentioned by the member, footrot and bedstraw. I inherited a $1.5 million debt, which was what the Department of Agriculture and Food had paid towards the industry’s contribution to the control of footrot and bedstraw. The industry had two concerns, and I inherited that circumstance. Hon Kim Chance put the biosecurity and agriculture management legislation through Parliament, but was lazy on the regulations. The regulations provide the mechanisms for the industry to raise funds to deal with these sorts of issues. I have fast-tracked the mechanisms. I gave the instruction in January this year and they will be in place by June 2010. Ms M.M. Quirk : That’s really fast! Mr D.T. REDMAN : We are talking about a bill that came into this Parliament under the watch of the previous government some two years ago, and those mechanisms are not yet in place. These are the steps I had to take. It was becoming a concern for industry people who wanted to be involved in drafting the regulations. They wanted to sit at the table with the government—which is what we wanted—to get these regulations in place and to provide the industry with funding mechanisms; yet we are sitting here with $1.5 million in retrospective debt, and it is creating a real problem for the negotiations. I think I took the right step in making that decision. I took a different stance on the issue of apple scab for the reason that there is already a funding mechanism in place. I have recently approved a new fee level to put to the industry, to raise funds and pay off the debt. Mr M.P. Murray : You’ve allowed one group to get away with it, and you’re charging another. You’re unfair. Mr D.T. REDMAN : There are quite significant differences between the two circumstances. I inherited a bedstraw and footrot problem which developed during the watch of the previous government, and which the previous government did not deal with. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am sure the minister does not need any help from members on either side of this place to answer his question. I notice that the member for Collie-Preston is interested in the minister’s answer. I would like other members in this place to at least allow the member to hear the answer the minister is attempting to give. Mr D.T. REDMAN : I will briefly summarise. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a mechanism in place to raise funds from the industry. In the bedstraw and footrot situation, there is no mechanism to raise funds. The build-up of debt was becoming prohibitive and it was compromising our capacity to work with the industry to get the regulations in place — Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am fully supportive of the industry’s position to try to maintain a level of control over apple scab. I think I have taken the appropriate steps as the minister responsible.
Mr D.T. REDMAN : It is a difference; the member asked the question and I am making a comparison between the two circumstances. The member made the point that I was able to waive some of the debt for the control of bedstraw and footrot and asked why I did not do the same for apple scab. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a fundraising mechanism in place. I will now go back to the other issue mentioned by the member, footrot and bedstraw. I inherited a $1.5 million debt, which was what the Department of Agriculture and Food had paid towards the industry’s contribution to the control of footrot and bedstraw. The industry had two concerns, and I inherited that circumstance. Hon Kim Chance put the biosecurity and agriculture management legislation through Parliament, but was lazy on the regulations. The regulations provide the mechanisms for the industry to raise funds to deal with these sorts of issues. I have fast-tracked the mechanisms. I gave the instruction in January this year and they will be in place by June 2010. Ms M.M. Quirk : That’s really fast! Mr D.T. REDMAN : We are talking about a bill that came into this Parliament under the watch of the previous government some two years ago, and those mechanisms are not yet in place. These are the steps I had to take. It was becoming a concern for industry people who wanted to be involved in drafting the regulations. They wanted to sit at the table with the government—which is what we wanted—to get these regulations in place and to provide the industry with funding mechanisms; yet we are sitting here with $1.5 million in retrospective debt, and it is creating a real problem for the negotiations. I think I took the right step in making that decision. I took a different stance on the issue of apple scab for the reason that there is already a funding mechanism in place. I have recently approved a new fee level to put to the industry, to raise funds and pay off the debt. Mr M.P. Murray : You’ve allowed one group to get away with it, and you’re charging another. You’re unfair. Mr D.T. REDMAN : There are quite significant differences between the two circumstances. I inherited a bedstraw and footrot problem which developed during the watch of the previous government, and which the previous government did not deal with. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am sure the minister does not need any help from members on either side of this place to answer his question. I notice that the member for Collie-Preston is interested in the minister’s answer. I would like other members in this place to at least allow the member to hear the answer the minister is attempting to give. Mr D.T. REDMAN : I will briefly summarise. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a mechanism in place to raise funds from the industry. In the bedstraw and footrot situation, there is no mechanism to raise funds. The build-up of debt was becoming prohibitive and it was compromising our capacity to work with the industry to get the regulations in place — Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am fully supportive of the industry’s position to try to maintain a level of control over apple scab. I think I have taken the appropriate steps as the minister responsible.
I will now go back to the other issue mentioned by the member, footrot and bedstraw. I inherited a $1.5 million debt, which was what the Department of Agriculture and Food had paid towards the industry’s contribution to the control of footrot and bedstraw. The industry had two concerns, and I inherited that circumstance. Hon Kim Chance put the biosecurity and agriculture management legislation through Parliament, but was lazy on the regulations. The regulations provide the mechanisms for the industry to raise funds to deal with these sorts of issues. I have fast-tracked the mechanisms. I gave the instruction in January this year and they will be in place by June 2010. Ms M.M. Quirk : That’s really fast! Mr D.T. REDMAN : We are talking about a bill that came into this Parliament under the watch of the previous government some two years ago, and those mechanisms are not yet in place. These are the steps I had to take. It was becoming a concern for industry people who wanted to be involved in drafting the regulations. They wanted to sit at the table with the government—which is what we wanted—to get these regulations in place and to provide the industry with funding mechanisms; yet we are sitting here with $1.5 million in retrospective debt, and it is creating a real problem for the negotiations. I think I took the right step in making that decision. I took a different stance on the issue of apple scab for the reason that there is already a funding mechanism in place. I have recently approved a new fee level to put to the industry, to raise funds and pay off the debt. Mr M.P. Murray : You’ve allowed one group to get away with it, and you’re charging another. You’re unfair. Mr D.T. REDMAN : There are quite significant differences between the two circumstances. I inherited a bedstraw and footrot problem which developed during the watch of the previous government, and which the previous government did not deal with. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am sure the minister does not need any help from members on either side of this place to answer his question. I notice that the member for Collie-Preston is interested in the minister’s answer. I would like other members in this place to at least allow the member to hear the answer the minister is attempting to give. Mr D.T. REDMAN : I will briefly summarise. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a mechanism in place to raise funds from the industry. In the bedstraw and footrot situation, there is no mechanism to raise funds. The build-up of debt was becoming prohibitive and it was compromising our capacity to work with the industry to get the regulations in place — Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am fully supportive of the industry’s position to try to maintain a level of control over apple scab. I think I have taken the appropriate steps as the minister responsible.
Ms M.M. Quirk : That’s really fast! Mr D.T. REDMAN : We are talking about a bill that came into this Parliament under the watch of the previous government some two years ago, and those mechanisms are not yet in place. These are the steps I had to take. It was becoming a concern for industry people who wanted to be involved in drafting the regulations. They wanted to sit at the table with the government—which is what we wanted—to get these regulations in place and to provide the industry with funding mechanisms; yet we are sitting here with $1.5 million in retrospective debt, and it is creating a real problem for the negotiations. I think I took the right step in making that decision. I took a different stance on the issue of apple scab for the reason that there is already a funding mechanism in place. I have recently approved a new fee level to put to the industry, to raise funds and pay off the debt. Mr M.P. Murray : You’ve allowed one group to get away with it, and you’re charging another. You’re unfair. Mr D.T. REDMAN : There are quite significant differences between the two circumstances. I inherited a bedstraw and footrot problem which developed during the watch of the previous government, and which the previous government did not deal with. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am sure the minister does not need any help from members on either side of this place to answer his question. I notice that the member for Collie-Preston is interested in the minister’s answer. I would like other members in this place to at least allow the member to hear the answer the minister is attempting to give. Mr D.T. REDMAN : I will briefly summarise. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a mechanism in place to raise funds from the industry. In the bedstraw and footrot situation, there is no mechanism to raise funds. The build-up of debt was becoming prohibitive and it was compromising our capacity to work with the industry to get the regulations in place — Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am fully supportive of the industry’s position to try to maintain a level of control over apple scab. I think I have taken the appropriate steps as the minister responsible.
Mr D.T. REDMAN : We are talking about a bill that came into this Parliament under the watch of the previous government some two years ago, and those mechanisms are not yet in place. These are the steps I had to take. It was becoming a concern for industry people who wanted to be involved in drafting the regulations. They wanted to sit at the table with the government—which is what we wanted—to get these regulations in place and to provide the industry with funding mechanisms; yet we are sitting here with $1.5 million in retrospective debt, and it is creating a real problem for the negotiations. I think I took the right step in making that decision. I took a different stance on the issue of apple scab for the reason that there is already a funding mechanism in place. I have recently approved a new fee level to put to the industry, to raise funds and pay off the debt. Mr M.P. Murray : You’ve allowed one group to get away with it, and you’re charging another. You’re unfair. Mr D.T. REDMAN : There are quite significant differences between the two circumstances. I inherited a bedstraw and footrot problem which developed during the watch of the previous government, and which the previous government did not deal with. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am sure the minister does not need any help from members on either side of this place to answer his question. I notice that the member for Collie-Preston is interested in the minister’s answer. I would like other members in this place to at least allow the member to hear the answer the minister is attempting to give. Mr D.T. REDMAN : I will briefly summarise. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a mechanism in place to raise funds from the industry. In the bedstraw and footrot situation, there is no mechanism to raise funds. The build-up of debt was becoming prohibitive and it was compromising our capacity to work with the industry to get the regulations in place — Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am fully supportive of the industry’s position to try to maintain a level of control over apple scab. I think I have taken the appropriate steps as the minister responsible.
Mr M.P. Murray : You’ve allowed one group to get away with it, and you’re charging another. You’re unfair. Mr D.T. REDMAN : There are quite significant differences between the two circumstances. I inherited a bedstraw and footrot problem which developed during the watch of the previous government, and which the previous government did not deal with. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am sure the minister does not need any help from members on either side of this place to answer his question. I notice that the member for Collie-Preston is interested in the minister’s answer. I would like other members in this place to at least allow the member to hear the answer the minister is attempting to give. Mr D.T. REDMAN : I will briefly summarise. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a mechanism in place to raise funds from the industry. In the bedstraw and footrot situation, there is no mechanism to raise funds. The build-up of debt was becoming prohibitive and it was compromising our capacity to work with the industry to get the regulations in place — Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am fully supportive of the industry’s position to try to maintain a level of control over apple scab. I think I have taken the appropriate steps as the minister responsible.
Mr D.T. REDMAN : There are quite significant differences between the two circumstances. I inherited a bedstraw and footrot problem which developed during the watch of the previous government, and which the previous government did not deal with. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am sure the minister does not need any help from members on either side of this place to answer his question. I notice that the member for Collie-Preston is interested in the minister’s answer. I would like other members in this place to at least allow the member to hear the answer the minister is attempting to give. Mr D.T. REDMAN : I will briefly summarise. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a mechanism in place to raise funds from the industry. In the bedstraw and footrot situation, there is no mechanism to raise funds. The build-up of debt was becoming prohibitive and it was compromising our capacity to work with the industry to get the regulations in place — Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am fully supportive of the industry’s position to try to maintain a level of control over apple scab. I think I have taken the appropriate steps as the minister responsible.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am sure the minister does not need any help from members on either side of this place to answer his question. I notice that the member for Collie-Preston is interested in the minister’s answer. I would like other members in this place to at least allow the member to hear the answer the minister is attempting to give. Mr D.T. REDMAN : I will briefly summarise. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a mechanism in place to raise funds from the industry. In the bedstraw and footrot situation, there is no mechanism to raise funds. The build-up of debt was becoming prohibitive and it was compromising our capacity to work with the industry to get the regulations in place — Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am fully supportive of the industry’s position to try to maintain a level of control over apple scab. I think I have taken the appropriate steps as the minister responsible.
The SPEAKER : I am sure the minister does not need any help from members on either side of this place to answer his question. I notice that the member for Collie-Preston is interested in the minister’s answer. I would like other members in this place to at least allow the member to hear the answer the minister is attempting to give. Mr D.T. REDMAN : I will briefly summarise. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a mechanism in place to raise funds from the industry. In the bedstraw and footrot situation, there is no mechanism to raise funds. The build-up of debt was becoming prohibitive and it was compromising our capacity to work with the industry to get the regulations in place — Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am fully supportive of the industry’s position to try to maintain a level of control over apple scab. I think I have taken the appropriate steps as the minister responsible.
Mr D.T. REDMAN : I will briefly summarise. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a mechanism in place to raise funds from the industry. In the bedstraw and footrot situation, there is no mechanism to raise funds. The build-up of debt was becoming prohibitive and it was compromising our capacity to work with the industry to get the regulations in place — Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am fully supportive of the industry’s position to try to maintain a level of control over apple scab. I think I have taken the appropriate steps as the minister responsible.
Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am fully supportive of the industry’s position to try to maintain a level of control over apple scab. I think I have taken the appropriate steps as the minister responsible.
The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am fully supportive of the industry’s position to try to maintain a level of control over apple scab. I think I have taken the appropriate steps as the minister responsible.
Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am fully supportive of the industry’s position to try to maintain a level of control over apple scab. I think I have taken the appropriate steps as the minister responsible.
The SPEAKER : Member, might I suggest that you use different terminology. I will not stop you from asking the question, but your use of language might need to be tempered somewhat. Mr M.P. MURRAY : I refer to the minister’s decision to coerce the Apple and Pear Council over the $254 000 the industry owes from the apple scab eradication program. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I presume the minister wants to hear the question and I am sure he cannot because of the noise. I ask for there to be silence. The SPEAKER : The member for Rockingham has made the point that I want to make. I will allow the member to start the question again if he feels that members opposite did not hear him. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr M.P. MURRAY : I will start from the beginning. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I want to hear some silence from members on my right. Mr M.P. MURRAY : I refer to the minister’s decision to coerce the Apple and Pear Council over the $254 000 the industry owes from the apple scab eradication program. The minister stated in a letter to the industry that he would not waive its debt unless it agreed to drop its attempts to be apple scab free. (1) Does the minister intend to coerce other industry groups in a similar manner? (2) Is this treatment indicative of the way he intends to deal with the agricultural industry groups? (3) Why is the minister content to allow a disease to spread through Western Australia that will cost the WA fruit industry millions of dollars? (4) Why has the minister decided to abandon support to this group when he waived the debt for other programs, such as the $681 000 for the footrot eradication program and $859 000 for the bedstraw eradication program? Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : The National Party loves scabs; that’s the reality! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr D.T. REDMAN replied: We are big enough to take those things on the chin! Mr Speaker, I start by complimenting you on your tie; you are one of the only people in the house wearing something that represents and supports the agricultural industry in Western Australia. If you can do something about wool prices, I will be eternally grateful! I thank the member for the question; it is a good question, centred on the debt that was built up dealing with apple scab. (1)-(4) I have met with a number of industry representatives to discuss their concerns about apple scab. With regard to the Apple and Pear Council’s debt, it has a mechanism in place to raise funds from its membership. The subtle difference between the Apple and Pear Council’s debt and the concerns about me waiving the debt for bedstraw and footrot eradication is the fact that the Apple and Pear Council has a fundraising mechanism. Mr M.P. Murray : You did say “subtle”? Mr D.T. REDMAN : It is a difference; the member asked the question and I am making a comparison between the two circumstances. The member made the point that I was able to waive some of the debt for the control of bedstraw and footrot and asked why I did not do the same for apple scab. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a fundraising mechanism in place. I will now go back to the other issue mentioned by the member, footrot and bedstraw. I inherited a $1.5 million debt, which was what the Department of Agriculture and Food had paid towards the industry’s contribution to the control of footrot and bedstraw. The industry had two concerns, and I inherited that circumstance. Hon Kim Chance put the biosecurity and agriculture management legislation through Parliament, but was lazy on the regulations. The regulations provide the mechanisms for the industry to raise funds to deal with these sorts of issues. I have fast-tracked the mechanisms. I gave the instruction in January this year and they will be in place by June 2010. Ms M.M. Quirk : That’s really fast! Mr D.T. REDMAN : We are talking about a bill that came into this Parliament under the watch of the previous government some two years ago, and those mechanisms are not yet in place. These are the steps I had to take. It was becoming a concern for industry people who wanted to be involved in drafting the regulations. They wanted to sit at the table with the government—which is what we wanted—to get these regulations in place and to provide the industry with funding mechanisms; yet we are sitting here with $1.5 million in retrospective debt, and it is creating a real problem for the negotiations. I think I took the right step in making that decision. I took a different stance on the issue of apple scab for the reason that there is already a funding mechanism in place. I have recently approved a new fee level to put to the industry, to raise funds and pay off the debt. Mr M.P. Murray : You’ve allowed one group to get away with it, and you’re charging another. You’re unfair. Mr D.T. REDMAN : There are quite significant differences between the two circumstances. I inherited a bedstraw and footrot problem which developed during the watch of the previous government, and which the previous government did not deal with. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am sure the minister does not need any help from members on either side of this place to answer his question. I notice that the member for Collie-Preston is interested in the minister’s answer. I would like other members in this place to at least allow the member to hear the answer the minister is attempting to give. Mr D.T. REDMAN : I will briefly summarise. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a mechanism in place to raise funds from the industry. In the bedstraw and footrot situation, there is no mechanism to raise funds. The build-up of debt was becoming prohibitive and it was compromising our capacity to work with the industry to get the regulations in place — Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am fully supportive of the industry’s position to try to maintain a level of control over apple scab. I think I have taken the appropriate steps as the minister responsible.
Mr M.P. MURRAY : I refer to the minister’s decision to coerce the Apple and Pear Council over the $254 000 the industry owes from the apple scab eradication program. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I presume the minister wants to hear the question and I am sure he cannot because of the noise. I ask for there to be silence. The SPEAKER : The member for Rockingham has made the point that I want to make. I will allow the member to start the question again if he feels that members opposite did not hear him. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr M.P. MURRAY : I will start from the beginning. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I want to hear some silence from members on my right. Mr M.P. MURRAY : I refer to the minister’s decision to coerce the Apple and Pear Council over the $254 000 the industry owes from the apple scab eradication program. The minister stated in a letter to the industry that he would not waive its debt unless it agreed to drop its attempts to be apple scab free. (1) Does the minister intend to coerce other industry groups in a similar manner? (2) Is this treatment indicative of the way he intends to deal with the agricultural industry groups? (3) Why is the minister content to allow a disease to spread through Western Australia that will cost the WA fruit industry millions of dollars? (4) Why has the minister decided to abandon support to this group when he waived the debt for other programs, such as the $681 000 for the footrot eradication program and $859 000 for the bedstraw eradication program? Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : The National Party loves scabs; that’s the reality! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr D.T. REDMAN replied: We are big enough to take those things on the chin! Mr Speaker, I start by complimenting you on your tie; you are one of the only people in the house wearing something that represents and supports the agricultural industry in Western Australia. If you can do something about wool prices, I will be eternally grateful! I thank the member for the question; it is a good question, centred on the debt that was built up dealing with apple scab. (1)-(4) I have met with a number of industry representatives to discuss their concerns about apple scab. With regard to the Apple and Pear Council’s debt, it has a mechanism in place to raise funds from its membership. The subtle difference between the Apple and Pear Council’s debt and the concerns about me waiving the debt for bedstraw and footrot eradication is the fact that the Apple and Pear Council has a fundraising mechanism. Mr M.P. Murray : You did say “subtle”? Mr D.T. REDMAN : It is a difference; the member asked the question and I am making a comparison between the two circumstances. The member made the point that I was able to waive some of the debt for the control of bedstraw and footrot and asked why I did not do the same for apple scab. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a fundraising mechanism in place. I will now go back to the other issue mentioned by the member, footrot and bedstraw. I inherited a $1.5 million debt, which was what the Department of Agriculture and Food had paid towards the industry’s contribution to the control of footrot and bedstraw. The industry had two concerns, and I inherited that circumstance. Hon Kim Chance put the biosecurity and agriculture management legislation through Parliament, but was lazy on the regulations. The regulations provide the mechanisms for the industry to raise funds to deal with these sorts of issues. I have fast-tracked the mechanisms. I gave the instruction in January this year and they will be in place by June 2010. Ms M.M. Quirk : That’s really fast! Mr D.T. REDMAN : We are talking about a bill that came into this Parliament under the watch of the previous government some two years ago, and those mechanisms are not yet in place. These are the steps I had to take. It was becoming a concern for industry people who wanted to be involved in drafting the regulations. They wanted to sit at the table with the government—which is what we wanted—to get these regulations in place and to provide the industry with funding mechanisms; yet we are sitting here with $1.5 million in retrospective debt, and it is creating a real problem for the negotiations. I think I took the right step in making that decision. I took a different stance on the issue of apple scab for the reason that there is already a funding mechanism in place. I have recently approved a new fee level to put to the industry, to raise funds and pay off the debt. Mr M.P. Murray : You’ve allowed one group to get away with it, and you’re charging another. You’re unfair. Mr D.T. REDMAN : There are quite significant differences between the two circumstances. I inherited a bedstraw and footrot problem which developed during the watch of the previous government, and which the previous government did not deal with. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am sure the minister does not need any help from members on either side of this place to answer his question. I notice that the member for Collie-Preston is interested in the minister’s answer. I would like other members in this place to at least allow the member to hear the answer the minister is attempting to give. Mr D.T. REDMAN : I will briefly summarise. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a mechanism in place to raise funds from the industry. In the bedstraw and footrot situation, there is no mechanism to raise funds. The build-up of debt was becoming prohibitive and it was compromising our capacity to work with the industry to get the regulations in place — Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am fully supportive of the industry’s position to try to maintain a level of control over apple scab. I think I have taken the appropriate steps as the minister responsible.
The SPEAKER : The member for Rockingham has made the point that I want to make. I will allow the member to start the question again if he feels that members opposite did not hear him. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr M.P. MURRAY : I will start from the beginning. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I want to hear some silence from members on my right. Mr M.P. MURRAY : I refer to the minister’s decision to coerce the Apple and Pear Council over the $254 000 the industry owes from the apple scab eradication program. The minister stated in a letter to the industry that he would not waive its debt unless it agreed to drop its attempts to be apple scab free. (1) Does the minister intend to coerce other industry groups in a similar manner? (2) Is this treatment indicative of the way he intends to deal with the agricultural industry groups? (3) Why is the minister content to allow a disease to spread through Western Australia that will cost the WA fruit industry millions of dollars? (4) Why has the minister decided to abandon support to this group when he waived the debt for other programs, such as the $681 000 for the footrot eradication program and $859 000 for the bedstraw eradication program? Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : The National Party loves scabs; that’s the reality! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr D.T. REDMAN replied: We are big enough to take those things on the chin! Mr Speaker, I start by complimenting you on your tie; you are one of the only people in the house wearing something that represents and supports the agricultural industry in Western Australia. If you can do something about wool prices, I will be eternally grateful! I thank the member for the question; it is a good question, centred on the debt that was built up dealing with apple scab. (1)-(4) I have met with a number of industry representatives to discuss their concerns about apple scab. With regard to the Apple and Pear Council’s debt, it has a mechanism in place to raise funds from its membership. The subtle difference between the Apple and Pear Council’s debt and the concerns about me waiving the debt for bedstraw and footrot eradication is the fact that the Apple and Pear Council has a fundraising mechanism. Mr M.P. Murray : You did say “subtle”? Mr D.T. REDMAN : It is a difference; the member asked the question and I am making a comparison between the two circumstances. The member made the point that I was able to waive some of the debt for the control of bedstraw and footrot and asked why I did not do the same for apple scab. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a fundraising mechanism in place. I will now go back to the other issue mentioned by the member, footrot and bedstraw. I inherited a $1.5 million debt, which was what the Department of Agriculture and Food had paid towards the industry’s contribution to the control of footrot and bedstraw. The industry had two concerns, and I inherited that circumstance. Hon Kim Chance put the biosecurity and agriculture management legislation through Parliament, but was lazy on the regulations. The regulations provide the mechanisms for the industry to raise funds to deal with these sorts of issues. I have fast-tracked the mechanisms. I gave the instruction in January this year and they will be in place by June 2010. Ms M.M. Quirk : That’s really fast! Mr D.T. REDMAN : We are talking about a bill that came into this Parliament under the watch of the previous government some two years ago, and those mechanisms are not yet in place. These are the steps I had to take. It was becoming a concern for industry people who wanted to be involved in drafting the regulations. They wanted to sit at the table with the government—which is what we wanted—to get these regulations in place and to provide the industry with funding mechanisms; yet we are sitting here with $1.5 million in retrospective debt, and it is creating a real problem for the negotiations. I think I took the right step in making that decision. I took a different stance on the issue of apple scab for the reason that there is already a funding mechanism in place. I have recently approved a new fee level to put to the industry, to raise funds and pay off the debt. Mr M.P. Murray : You’ve allowed one group to get away with it, and you’re charging another. You’re unfair. Mr D.T. REDMAN : There are quite significant differences between the two circumstances. I inherited a bedstraw and footrot problem which developed during the watch of the previous government, and which the previous government did not deal with. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am sure the minister does not need any help from members on either side of this place to answer his question. I notice that the member for Collie-Preston is interested in the minister’s answer. I would like other members in this place to at least allow the member to hear the answer the minister is attempting to give. Mr D.T. REDMAN : I will briefly summarise. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a mechanism in place to raise funds from the industry. In the bedstraw and footrot situation, there is no mechanism to raise funds. The build-up of debt was becoming prohibitive and it was compromising our capacity to work with the industry to get the regulations in place — Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am fully supportive of the industry’s position to try to maintain a level of control over apple scab. I think I have taken the appropriate steps as the minister responsible.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I want to hear some silence from members on my right. Mr M.P. MURRAY : I refer to the minister’s decision to coerce the Apple and Pear Council over the $254 000 the industry owes from the apple scab eradication program. The minister stated in a letter to the industry that he would not waive its debt unless it agreed to drop its attempts to be apple scab free. (1) Does the minister intend to coerce other industry groups in a similar manner? (2) Is this treatment indicative of the way he intends to deal with the agricultural industry groups? (3) Why is the minister content to allow a disease to spread through Western Australia that will cost the WA fruit industry millions of dollars? (4) Why has the minister decided to abandon support to this group when he waived the debt for other programs, such as the $681 000 for the footrot eradication program and $859 000 for the bedstraw eradication program? Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : The National Party loves scabs; that’s the reality! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr D.T. REDMAN replied: We are big enough to take those things on the chin! Mr Speaker, I start by complimenting you on your tie; you are one of the only people in the house wearing something that represents and supports the agricultural industry in Western Australia. If you can do something about wool prices, I will be eternally grateful! I thank the member for the question; it is a good question, centred on the debt that was built up dealing with apple scab. (1)-(4) I have met with a number of industry representatives to discuss their concerns about apple scab. With regard to the Apple and Pear Council’s debt, it has a mechanism in place to raise funds from its membership. The subtle difference between the Apple and Pear Council’s debt and the concerns about me waiving the debt for bedstraw and footrot eradication is the fact that the Apple and Pear Council has a fundraising mechanism. Mr M.P. Murray : You did say “subtle”? Mr D.T. REDMAN : It is a difference; the member asked the question and I am making a comparison between the two circumstances. The member made the point that I was able to waive some of the debt for the control of bedstraw and footrot and asked why I did not do the same for apple scab. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a fundraising mechanism in place. I will now go back to the other issue mentioned by the member, footrot and bedstraw. I inherited a $1.5 million debt, which was what the Department of Agriculture and Food had paid towards the industry’s contribution to the control of footrot and bedstraw. The industry had two concerns, and I inherited that circumstance. Hon Kim Chance put the biosecurity and agriculture management legislation through Parliament, but was lazy on the regulations. The regulations provide the mechanisms for the industry to raise funds to deal with these sorts of issues. I have fast-tracked the mechanisms. I gave the instruction in January this year and they will be in place by June 2010. Ms M.M. Quirk : That’s really fast! Mr D.T. REDMAN : We are talking about a bill that came into this Parliament under the watch of the previous government some two years ago, and those mechanisms are not yet in place. These are the steps I had to take. It was becoming a concern for industry people who wanted to be involved in drafting the regulations. They wanted to sit at the table with the government—which is what we wanted—to get these regulations in place and to provide the industry with funding mechanisms; yet we are sitting here with $1.5 million in retrospective debt, and it is creating a real problem for the negotiations. I think I took the right step in making that decision. I took a different stance on the issue of apple scab for the reason that there is already a funding mechanism in place. I have recently approved a new fee level to put to the industry, to raise funds and pay off the debt. Mr M.P. Murray : You’ve allowed one group to get away with it, and you’re charging another. You’re unfair. Mr D.T. REDMAN : There are quite significant differences between the two circumstances. I inherited a bedstraw and footrot problem which developed during the watch of the previous government, and which the previous government did not deal with. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am sure the minister does not need any help from members on either side of this place to answer his question. I notice that the member for Collie-Preston is interested in the minister’s answer. I would like other members in this place to at least allow the member to hear the answer the minister is attempting to give. Mr D.T. REDMAN : I will briefly summarise. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a mechanism in place to raise funds from the industry. In the bedstraw and footrot situation, there is no mechanism to raise funds. The build-up of debt was becoming prohibitive and it was compromising our capacity to work with the industry to get the regulations in place — Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am fully supportive of the industry’s position to try to maintain a level of control over apple scab. I think I have taken the appropriate steps as the minister responsible.
The SPEAKER : I want to hear some silence from members on my right. Mr M.P. MURRAY : I refer to the minister’s decision to coerce the Apple and Pear Council over the $254 000 the industry owes from the apple scab eradication program. The minister stated in a letter to the industry that he would not waive its debt unless it agreed to drop its attempts to be apple scab free. (1) Does the minister intend to coerce other industry groups in a similar manner? (2) Is this treatment indicative of the way he intends to deal with the agricultural industry groups? (3) Why is the minister content to allow a disease to spread through Western Australia that will cost the WA fruit industry millions of dollars? (4) Why has the minister decided to abandon support to this group when he waived the debt for other programs, such as the $681 000 for the footrot eradication program and $859 000 for the bedstraw eradication program? Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : The National Party loves scabs; that’s the reality! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr D.T. REDMAN replied: We are big enough to take those things on the chin! Mr Speaker, I start by complimenting you on your tie; you are one of the only people in the house wearing something that represents and supports the agricultural industry in Western Australia. If you can do something about wool prices, I will be eternally grateful! I thank the member for the question; it is a good question, centred on the debt that was built up dealing with apple scab. (1)-(4) I have met with a number of industry representatives to discuss their concerns about apple scab. With regard to the Apple and Pear Council’s debt, it has a mechanism in place to raise funds from its membership. The subtle difference between the Apple and Pear Council’s debt and the concerns about me waiving the debt for bedstraw and footrot eradication is the fact that the Apple and Pear Council has a fundraising mechanism. Mr M.P. Murray : You did say “subtle”? Mr D.T. REDMAN : It is a difference; the member asked the question and I am making a comparison between the two circumstances. The member made the point that I was able to waive some of the debt for the control of bedstraw and footrot and asked why I did not do the same for apple scab. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a fundraising mechanism in place. I will now go back to the other issue mentioned by the member, footrot and bedstraw. I inherited a $1.5 million debt, which was what the Department of Agriculture and Food had paid towards the industry’s contribution to the control of footrot and bedstraw. The industry had two concerns, and I inherited that circumstance. Hon Kim Chance put the biosecurity and agriculture management legislation through Parliament, but was lazy on the regulations. The regulations provide the mechanisms for the industry to raise funds to deal with these sorts of issues. I have fast-tracked the mechanisms. I gave the instruction in January this year and they will be in place by June 2010. Ms M.M. Quirk : That’s really fast! Mr D.T. REDMAN : We are talking about a bill that came into this Parliament under the watch of the previous government some two years ago, and those mechanisms are not yet in place. These are the steps I had to take. It was becoming a concern for industry people who wanted to be involved in drafting the regulations. They wanted to sit at the table with the government—which is what we wanted—to get these regulations in place and to provide the industry with funding mechanisms; yet we are sitting here with $1.5 million in retrospective debt, and it is creating a real problem for the negotiations. I think I took the right step in making that decision. I took a different stance on the issue of apple scab for the reason that there is already a funding mechanism in place. I have recently approved a new fee level to put to the industry, to raise funds and pay off the debt. Mr M.P. Murray : You’ve allowed one group to get away with it, and you’re charging another. You’re unfair. Mr D.T. REDMAN : There are quite significant differences between the two circumstances. I inherited a bedstraw and footrot problem which developed during the watch of the previous government, and which the previous government did not deal with. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am sure the minister does not need any help from members on either side of this place to answer his question. I notice that the member for Collie-Preston is interested in the minister’s answer. I would like other members in this place to at least allow the member to hear the answer the minister is attempting to give. Mr D.T. REDMAN : I will briefly summarise. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a mechanism in place to raise funds from the industry. In the bedstraw and footrot situation, there is no mechanism to raise funds. The build-up of debt was becoming prohibitive and it was compromising our capacity to work with the industry to get the regulations in place — Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am fully supportive of the industry’s position to try to maintain a level of control over apple scab. I think I have taken the appropriate steps as the minister responsible.
Mr M.P. MURRAY : I refer to the minister’s decision to coerce the Apple and Pear Council over the $254 000 the industry owes from the apple scab eradication program. The minister stated in a letter to the industry that he would not waive its debt unless it agreed to drop its attempts to be apple scab free. (1) Does the minister intend to coerce other industry groups in a similar manner? (2) Is this treatment indicative of the way he intends to deal with the agricultural industry groups? (3) Why is the minister content to allow a disease to spread through Western Australia that will cost the WA fruit industry millions of dollars? (4) Why has the minister decided to abandon support to this group when he waived the debt for other programs, such as the $681 000 for the footrot eradication program and $859 000 for the bedstraw eradication program? Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : The National Party loves scabs; that’s the reality! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr D.T. REDMAN replied: We are big enough to take those things on the chin! Mr Speaker, I start by complimenting you on your tie; you are one of the only people in the house wearing something that represents and supports the agricultural industry in Western Australia. If you can do something about wool prices, I will be eternally grateful! I thank the member for the question; it is a good question, centred on the debt that was built up dealing with apple scab. (1)-(4) I have met with a number of industry representatives to discuss their concerns about apple scab. With regard to the Apple and Pear Council’s debt, it has a mechanism in place to raise funds from its membership. The subtle difference between the Apple and Pear Council’s debt and the concerns about me waiving the debt for bedstraw and footrot eradication is the fact that the Apple and Pear Council has a fundraising mechanism. Mr M.P. Murray : You did say “subtle”? Mr D.T. REDMAN : It is a difference; the member asked the question and I am making a comparison between the two circumstances. The member made the point that I was able to waive some of the debt for the control of bedstraw and footrot and asked why I did not do the same for apple scab. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a fundraising mechanism in place. I will now go back to the other issue mentioned by the member, footrot and bedstraw. I inherited a $1.5 million debt, which was what the Department of Agriculture and Food had paid towards the industry’s contribution to the control of footrot and bedstraw. The industry had two concerns, and I inherited that circumstance. Hon Kim Chance put the biosecurity and agriculture management legislation through Parliament, but was lazy on the regulations. The regulations provide the mechanisms for the industry to raise funds to deal with these sorts of issues. I have fast-tracked the mechanisms. I gave the instruction in January this year and they will be in place by June 2010. Ms M.M. Quirk : That’s really fast! Mr D.T. REDMAN : We are talking about a bill that came into this Parliament under the watch of the previous government some two years ago, and those mechanisms are not yet in place. These are the steps I had to take. It was becoming a concern for industry people who wanted to be involved in drafting the regulations. They wanted to sit at the table with the government—which is what we wanted—to get these regulations in place and to provide the industry with funding mechanisms; yet we are sitting here with $1.5 million in retrospective debt, and it is creating a real problem for the negotiations. I think I took the right step in making that decision. I took a different stance on the issue of apple scab for the reason that there is already a funding mechanism in place. I have recently approved a new fee level to put to the industry, to raise funds and pay off the debt. Mr M.P. Murray : You’ve allowed one group to get away with it, and you’re charging another. You’re unfair. Mr D.T. REDMAN : There are quite significant differences between the two circumstances. I inherited a bedstraw and footrot problem which developed during the watch of the previous government, and which the previous government did not deal with. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am sure the minister does not need any help from members on either side of this place to answer his question. I notice that the member for Collie-Preston is interested in the minister’s answer. I would like other members in this place to at least allow the member to hear the answer the minister is attempting to give. Mr D.T. REDMAN : I will briefly summarise. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a mechanism in place to raise funds from the industry. In the bedstraw and footrot situation, there is no mechanism to raise funds. The build-up of debt was becoming prohibitive and it was compromising our capacity to work with the industry to get the regulations in place — Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am fully supportive of the industry’s position to try to maintain a level of control over apple scab. I think I have taken the appropriate steps as the minister responsible.
(1) Does the minister intend to coerce other industry groups in a similar manner? (2) Is this treatment indicative of the way he intends to deal with the agricultural industry groups? (3) Why is the minister content to allow a disease to spread through Western Australia that will cost the WA fruit industry millions of dollars? (4) Why has the minister decided to abandon support to this group when he waived the debt for other programs, such as the $681 000 for the footrot eradication program and $859 000 for the bedstraw eradication program? Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : The National Party loves scabs; that’s the reality! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr D.T. REDMAN replied: We are big enough to take those things on the chin! Mr Speaker, I start by complimenting you on your tie; you are one of the only people in the house wearing something that represents and supports the agricultural industry in Western Australia. If you can do something about wool prices, I will be eternally grateful! I thank the member for the question; it is a good question, centred on the debt that was built up dealing with apple scab. (1)-(4) I have met with a number of industry representatives to discuss their concerns about apple scab. With regard to the Apple and Pear Council’s debt, it has a mechanism in place to raise funds from its membership. The subtle difference between the Apple and Pear Council’s debt and the concerns about me waiving the debt for bedstraw and footrot eradication is the fact that the Apple and Pear Council has a fundraising mechanism. Mr M.P. Murray : You did say “subtle”? Mr D.T. REDMAN : It is a difference; the member asked the question and I am making a comparison between the two circumstances. The member made the point that I was able to waive some of the debt for the control of bedstraw and footrot and asked why I did not do the same for apple scab. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a fundraising mechanism in place. I will now go back to the other issue mentioned by the member, footrot and bedstraw. I inherited a $1.5 million debt, which was what the Department of Agriculture and Food had paid towards the industry’s contribution to the control of footrot and bedstraw. The industry had two concerns, and I inherited that circumstance. Hon Kim Chance put the biosecurity and agriculture management legislation through Parliament, but was lazy on the regulations. The regulations provide the mechanisms for the industry to raise funds to deal with these sorts of issues. I have fast-tracked the mechanisms. I gave the instruction in January this year and they will be in place by June 2010. Ms M.M. Quirk : That’s really fast! Mr D.T. REDMAN : We are talking about a bill that came into this Parliament under the watch of the previous government some two years ago, and those mechanisms are not yet in place. These are the steps I had to take. It was becoming a concern for industry people who wanted to be involved in drafting the regulations. They wanted to sit at the table with the government—which is what we wanted—to get these regulations in place and to provide the industry with funding mechanisms; yet we are sitting here with $1.5 million in retrospective debt, and it is creating a real problem for the negotiations. I think I took the right step in making that decision. I took a different stance on the issue of apple scab for the reason that there is already a funding mechanism in place. I have recently approved a new fee level to put to the industry, to raise funds and pay off the debt. Mr M.P. Murray : You’ve allowed one group to get away with it, and you’re charging another. You’re unfair. Mr D.T. REDMAN : There are quite significant differences between the two circumstances. I inherited a bedstraw and footrot problem which developed during the watch of the previous government, and which the previous government did not deal with. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am sure the minister does not need any help from members on either side of this place to answer his question. I notice that the member for Collie-Preston is interested in the minister’s answer. I would like other members in this place to at least allow the member to hear the answer the minister is attempting to give. Mr D.T. REDMAN : I will briefly summarise. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a mechanism in place to raise funds from the industry. In the bedstraw and footrot situation, there is no mechanism to raise funds. The build-up of debt was becoming prohibitive and it was compromising our capacity to work with the industry to get the regulations in place — Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am fully supportive of the industry’s position to try to maintain a level of control over apple scab. I think I have taken the appropriate steps as the minister responsible.
(2) Is this treatment indicative of the way he intends to deal with the agricultural industry groups? (3) Why is the minister content to allow a disease to spread through Western Australia that will cost the WA fruit industry millions of dollars? (4) Why has the minister decided to abandon support to this group when he waived the debt for other programs, such as the $681 000 for the footrot eradication program and $859 000 for the bedstraw eradication program? Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : The National Party loves scabs; that’s the reality! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr D.T. REDMAN replied: We are big enough to take those things on the chin! Mr Speaker, I start by complimenting you on your tie; you are one of the only people in the house wearing something that represents and supports the agricultural industry in Western Australia. If you can do something about wool prices, I will be eternally grateful! I thank the member for the question; it is a good question, centred on the debt that was built up dealing with apple scab. (1)-(4) I have met with a number of industry representatives to discuss their concerns about apple scab. With regard to the Apple and Pear Council’s debt, it has a mechanism in place to raise funds from its membership. The subtle difference between the Apple and Pear Council’s debt and the concerns about me waiving the debt for bedstraw and footrot eradication is the fact that the Apple and Pear Council has a fundraising mechanism. Mr M.P. Murray : You did say “subtle”? Mr D.T. REDMAN : It is a difference; the member asked the question and I am making a comparison between the two circumstances. The member made the point that I was able to waive some of the debt for the control of bedstraw and footrot and asked why I did not do the same for apple scab. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a fundraising mechanism in place. I will now go back to the other issue mentioned by the member, footrot and bedstraw. I inherited a $1.5 million debt, which was what the Department of Agriculture and Food had paid towards the industry’s contribution to the control of footrot and bedstraw. The industry had two concerns, and I inherited that circumstance. Hon Kim Chance put the biosecurity and agriculture management legislation through Parliament, but was lazy on the regulations. The regulations provide the mechanisms for the industry to raise funds to deal with these sorts of issues. I have fast-tracked the mechanisms. I gave the instruction in January this year and they will be in place by June 2010. Ms M.M. Quirk : That’s really fast! Mr D.T. REDMAN : We are talking about a bill that came into this Parliament under the watch of the previous government some two years ago, and those mechanisms are not yet in place. These are the steps I had to take. It was becoming a concern for industry people who wanted to be involved in drafting the regulations. They wanted to sit at the table with the government—which is what we wanted—to get these regulations in place and to provide the industry with funding mechanisms; yet we are sitting here with $1.5 million in retrospective debt, and it is creating a real problem for the negotiations. I think I took the right step in making that decision. I took a different stance on the issue of apple scab for the reason that there is already a funding mechanism in place. I have recently approved a new fee level to put to the industry, to raise funds and pay off the debt. Mr M.P. Murray : You’ve allowed one group to get away with it, and you’re charging another. You’re unfair. Mr D.T. REDMAN : There are quite significant differences between the two circumstances. I inherited a bedstraw and footrot problem which developed during the watch of the previous government, and which the previous government did not deal with. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am sure the minister does not need any help from members on either side of this place to answer his question. I notice that the member for Collie-Preston is interested in the minister’s answer. I would like other members in this place to at least allow the member to hear the answer the minister is attempting to give. Mr D.T. REDMAN : I will briefly summarise. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a mechanism in place to raise funds from the industry. In the bedstraw and footrot situation, there is no mechanism to raise funds. The build-up of debt was becoming prohibitive and it was compromising our capacity to work with the industry to get the regulations in place — Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am fully supportive of the industry’s position to try to maintain a level of control over apple scab. I think I have taken the appropriate steps as the minister responsible.
(3) Why is the minister content to allow a disease to spread through Western Australia that will cost the WA fruit industry millions of dollars? (4) Why has the minister decided to abandon support to this group when he waived the debt for other programs, such as the $681 000 for the footrot eradication program and $859 000 for the bedstraw eradication program? Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : The National Party loves scabs; that’s the reality! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr D.T. REDMAN replied: We are big enough to take those things on the chin! Mr Speaker, I start by complimenting you on your tie; you are one of the only people in the house wearing something that represents and supports the agricultural industry in Western Australia. If you can do something about wool prices, I will be eternally grateful! I thank the member for the question; it is a good question, centred on the debt that was built up dealing with apple scab. (1)-(4) I have met with a number of industry representatives to discuss their concerns about apple scab. With regard to the Apple and Pear Council’s debt, it has a mechanism in place to raise funds from its membership. The subtle difference between the Apple and Pear Council’s debt and the concerns about me waiving the debt for bedstraw and footrot eradication is the fact that the Apple and Pear Council has a fundraising mechanism. Mr M.P. Murray : You did say “subtle”? Mr D.T. REDMAN : It is a difference; the member asked the question and I am making a comparison between the two circumstances. The member made the point that I was able to waive some of the debt for the control of bedstraw and footrot and asked why I did not do the same for apple scab. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a fundraising mechanism in place. I will now go back to the other issue mentioned by the member, footrot and bedstraw. I inherited a $1.5 million debt, which was what the Department of Agriculture and Food had paid towards the industry’s contribution to the control of footrot and bedstraw. The industry had two concerns, and I inherited that circumstance. Hon Kim Chance put the biosecurity and agriculture management legislation through Parliament, but was lazy on the regulations. The regulations provide the mechanisms for the industry to raise funds to deal with these sorts of issues. I have fast-tracked the mechanisms. I gave the instruction in January this year and they will be in place by June 2010. Ms M.M. Quirk : That’s really fast! Mr D.T. REDMAN : We are talking about a bill that came into this Parliament under the watch of the previous government some two years ago, and those mechanisms are not yet in place. These are the steps I had to take. It was becoming a concern for industry people who wanted to be involved in drafting the regulations. They wanted to sit at the table with the government—which is what we wanted—to get these regulations in place and to provide the industry with funding mechanisms; yet we are sitting here with $1.5 million in retrospective debt, and it is creating a real problem for the negotiations. I think I took the right step in making that decision. I took a different stance on the issue of apple scab for the reason that there is already a funding mechanism in place. I have recently approved a new fee level to put to the industry, to raise funds and pay off the debt. Mr M.P. Murray : You’ve allowed one group to get away with it, and you’re charging another. You’re unfair. Mr D.T. REDMAN : There are quite significant differences between the two circumstances. I inherited a bedstraw and footrot problem which developed during the watch of the previous government, and which the previous government did not deal with. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am sure the minister does not need any help from members on either side of this place to answer his question. I notice that the member for Collie-Preston is interested in the minister’s answer. I would like other members in this place to at least allow the member to hear the answer the minister is attempting to give. Mr D.T. REDMAN : I will briefly summarise. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a mechanism in place to raise funds from the industry. In the bedstraw and footrot situation, there is no mechanism to raise funds. The build-up of debt was becoming prohibitive and it was compromising our capacity to work with the industry to get the regulations in place — Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am fully supportive of the industry’s position to try to maintain a level of control over apple scab. I think I have taken the appropriate steps as the minister responsible.
(4) Why has the minister decided to abandon support to this group when he waived the debt for other programs, such as the $681 000 for the footrot eradication program and $859 000 for the bedstraw eradication program? Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : The National Party loves scabs; that’s the reality! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr D.T. REDMAN replied: We are big enough to take those things on the chin! Mr Speaker, I start by complimenting you on your tie; you are one of the only people in the house wearing something that represents and supports the agricultural industry in Western Australia. If you can do something about wool prices, I will be eternally grateful! I thank the member for the question; it is a good question, centred on the debt that was built up dealing with apple scab. (1)-(4) I have met with a number of industry representatives to discuss their concerns about apple scab. With regard to the Apple and Pear Council’s debt, it has a mechanism in place to raise funds from its membership. The subtle difference between the Apple and Pear Council’s debt and the concerns about me waiving the debt for bedstraw and footrot eradication is the fact that the Apple and Pear Council has a fundraising mechanism. Mr M.P. Murray : You did say “subtle”? Mr D.T. REDMAN : It is a difference; the member asked the question and I am making a comparison between the two circumstances. The member made the point that I was able to waive some of the debt for the control of bedstraw and footrot and asked why I did not do the same for apple scab. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a fundraising mechanism in place. I will now go back to the other issue mentioned by the member, footrot and bedstraw. I inherited a $1.5 million debt, which was what the Department of Agriculture and Food had paid towards the industry’s contribution to the control of footrot and bedstraw. The industry had two concerns, and I inherited that circumstance. Hon Kim Chance put the biosecurity and agriculture management legislation through Parliament, but was lazy on the regulations. The regulations provide the mechanisms for the industry to raise funds to deal with these sorts of issues. I have fast-tracked the mechanisms. I gave the instruction in January this year and they will be in place by June 2010. Ms M.M. Quirk : That’s really fast! Mr D.T. REDMAN : We are talking about a bill that came into this Parliament under the watch of the previous government some two years ago, and those mechanisms are not yet in place. These are the steps I had to take. It was becoming a concern for industry people who wanted to be involved in drafting the regulations. They wanted to sit at the table with the government—which is what we wanted—to get these regulations in place and to provide the industry with funding mechanisms; yet we are sitting here with $1.5 million in retrospective debt, and it is creating a real problem for the negotiations. I think I took the right step in making that decision. I took a different stance on the issue of apple scab for the reason that there is already a funding mechanism in place. I have recently approved a new fee level to put to the industry, to raise funds and pay off the debt. Mr M.P. Murray : You’ve allowed one group to get away with it, and you’re charging another. You’re unfair. Mr D.T. REDMAN : There are quite significant differences between the two circumstances. I inherited a bedstraw and footrot problem which developed during the watch of the previous government, and which the previous government did not deal with. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am sure the minister does not need any help from members on either side of this place to answer his question. I notice that the member for Collie-Preston is interested in the minister’s answer. I would like other members in this place to at least allow the member to hear the answer the minister is attempting to give. Mr D.T. REDMAN : I will briefly summarise. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a mechanism in place to raise funds from the industry. In the bedstraw and footrot situation, there is no mechanism to raise funds. The build-up of debt was becoming prohibitive and it was compromising our capacity to work with the industry to get the regulations in place — Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am fully supportive of the industry’s position to try to maintain a level of control over apple scab. I think I have taken the appropriate steps as the minister responsible.
Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : The National Party loves scabs; that’s the reality! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr D.T. REDMAN replied: We are big enough to take those things on the chin! Mr Speaker, I start by complimenting you on your tie; you are one of the only people in the house wearing something that represents and supports the agricultural industry in Western Australia. If you can do something about wool prices, I will be eternally grateful! I thank the member for the question; it is a good question, centred on the debt that was built up dealing with apple scab. (1)-(4) I have met with a number of industry representatives to discuss their concerns about apple scab. With regard to the Apple and Pear Council’s debt, it has a mechanism in place to raise funds from its membership. The subtle difference between the Apple and Pear Council’s debt and the concerns about me waiving the debt for bedstraw and footrot eradication is the fact that the Apple and Pear Council has a fundraising mechanism. Mr M.P. Murray : You did say “subtle”? Mr D.T. REDMAN : It is a difference; the member asked the question and I am making a comparison between the two circumstances. The member made the point that I was able to waive some of the debt for the control of bedstraw and footrot and asked why I did not do the same for apple scab. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a fundraising mechanism in place. I will now go back to the other issue mentioned by the member, footrot and bedstraw. I inherited a $1.5 million debt, which was what the Department of Agriculture and Food had paid towards the industry’s contribution to the control of footrot and bedstraw. The industry had two concerns, and I inherited that circumstance. Hon Kim Chance put the biosecurity and agriculture management legislation through Parliament, but was lazy on the regulations. The regulations provide the mechanisms for the industry to raise funds to deal with these sorts of issues. I have fast-tracked the mechanisms. I gave the instruction in January this year and they will be in place by June 2010. Ms M.M. Quirk : That’s really fast! Mr D.T. REDMAN : We are talking about a bill that came into this Parliament under the watch of the previous government some two years ago, and those mechanisms are not yet in place. These are the steps I had to take. It was becoming a concern for industry people who wanted to be involved in drafting the regulations. They wanted to sit at the table with the government—which is what we wanted—to get these regulations in place and to provide the industry with funding mechanisms; yet we are sitting here with $1.5 million in retrospective debt, and it is creating a real problem for the negotiations. I think I took the right step in making that decision. I took a different stance on the issue of apple scab for the reason that there is already a funding mechanism in place. I have recently approved a new fee level to put to the industry, to raise funds and pay off the debt. Mr M.P. Murray : You’ve allowed one group to get away with it, and you’re charging another. You’re unfair. Mr D.T. REDMAN : There are quite significant differences between the two circumstances. I inherited a bedstraw and footrot problem which developed during the watch of the previous government, and which the previous government did not deal with. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am sure the minister does not need any help from members on either side of this place to answer his question. I notice that the member for Collie-Preston is interested in the minister’s answer. I would like other members in this place to at least allow the member to hear the answer the minister is attempting to give. Mr D.T. REDMAN : I will briefly summarise. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a mechanism in place to raise funds from the industry. In the bedstraw and footrot situation, there is no mechanism to raise funds. The build-up of debt was becoming prohibitive and it was compromising our capacity to work with the industry to get the regulations in place — Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am fully supportive of the industry’s position to try to maintain a level of control over apple scab. I think I have taken the appropriate steps as the minister responsible.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr D.T. REDMAN replied: We are big enough to take those things on the chin! Mr Speaker, I start by complimenting you on your tie; you are one of the only people in the house wearing something that represents and supports the agricultural industry in Western Australia. If you can do something about wool prices, I will be eternally grateful! I thank the member for the question; it is a good question, centred on the debt that was built up dealing with apple scab. (1)-(4) I have met with a number of industry representatives to discuss their concerns about apple scab. With regard to the Apple and Pear Council’s debt, it has a mechanism in place to raise funds from its membership. The subtle difference between the Apple and Pear Council’s debt and the concerns about me waiving the debt for bedstraw and footrot eradication is the fact that the Apple and Pear Council has a fundraising mechanism. Mr M.P. Murray : You did say “subtle”? Mr D.T. REDMAN : It is a difference; the member asked the question and I am making a comparison between the two circumstances. The member made the point that I was able to waive some of the debt for the control of bedstraw and footrot and asked why I did not do the same for apple scab. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a fundraising mechanism in place. I will now go back to the other issue mentioned by the member, footrot and bedstraw. I inherited a $1.5 million debt, which was what the Department of Agriculture and Food had paid towards the industry’s contribution to the control of footrot and bedstraw. The industry had two concerns, and I inherited that circumstance. Hon Kim Chance put the biosecurity and agriculture management legislation through Parliament, but was lazy on the regulations. The regulations provide the mechanisms for the industry to raise funds to deal with these sorts of issues. I have fast-tracked the mechanisms. I gave the instruction in January this year and they will be in place by June 2010. Ms M.M. Quirk : That’s really fast! Mr D.T. REDMAN : We are talking about a bill that came into this Parliament under the watch of the previous government some two years ago, and those mechanisms are not yet in place. These are the steps I had to take. It was becoming a concern for industry people who wanted to be involved in drafting the regulations. They wanted to sit at the table with the government—which is what we wanted—to get these regulations in place and to provide the industry with funding mechanisms; yet we are sitting here with $1.5 million in retrospective debt, and it is creating a real problem for the negotiations. I think I took the right step in making that decision. I took a different stance on the issue of apple scab for the reason that there is already a funding mechanism in place. I have recently approved a new fee level to put to the industry, to raise funds and pay off the debt. Mr M.P. Murray : You’ve allowed one group to get away with it, and you’re charging another. You’re unfair. Mr D.T. REDMAN : There are quite significant differences between the two circumstances. I inherited a bedstraw and footrot problem which developed during the watch of the previous government, and which the previous government did not deal with. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am sure the minister does not need any help from members on either side of this place to answer his question. I notice that the member for Collie-Preston is interested in the minister’s answer. I would like other members in this place to at least allow the member to hear the answer the minister is attempting to give. Mr D.T. REDMAN : I will briefly summarise. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a mechanism in place to raise funds from the industry. In the bedstraw and footrot situation, there is no mechanism to raise funds. The build-up of debt was becoming prohibitive and it was compromising our capacity to work with the industry to get the regulations in place — Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am fully supportive of the industry’s position to try to maintain a level of control over apple scab. I think I have taken the appropriate steps as the minister responsible.
The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr D.T. REDMAN replied: We are big enough to take those things on the chin! Mr Speaker, I start by complimenting you on your tie; you are one of the only people in the house wearing something that represents and supports the agricultural industry in Western Australia. If you can do something about wool prices, I will be eternally grateful! I thank the member for the question; it is a good question, centred on the debt that was built up dealing with apple scab. (1)-(4) I have met with a number of industry representatives to discuss their concerns about apple scab. With regard to the Apple and Pear Council’s debt, it has a mechanism in place to raise funds from its membership. The subtle difference between the Apple and Pear Council’s debt and the concerns about me waiving the debt for bedstraw and footrot eradication is the fact that the Apple and Pear Council has a fundraising mechanism. Mr M.P. Murray : You did say “subtle”? Mr D.T. REDMAN : It is a difference; the member asked the question and I am making a comparison between the two circumstances. The member made the point that I was able to waive some of the debt for the control of bedstraw and footrot and asked why I did not do the same for apple scab. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a fundraising mechanism in place. I will now go back to the other issue mentioned by the member, footrot and bedstraw. I inherited a $1.5 million debt, which was what the Department of Agriculture and Food had paid towards the industry’s contribution to the control of footrot and bedstraw. The industry had two concerns, and I inherited that circumstance. Hon Kim Chance put the biosecurity and agriculture management legislation through Parliament, but was lazy on the regulations. The regulations provide the mechanisms for the industry to raise funds to deal with these sorts of issues. I have fast-tracked the mechanisms. I gave the instruction in January this year and they will be in place by June 2010. Ms M.M. Quirk : That’s really fast! Mr D.T. REDMAN : We are talking about a bill that came into this Parliament under the watch of the previous government some two years ago, and those mechanisms are not yet in place. These are the steps I had to take. It was becoming a concern for industry people who wanted to be involved in drafting the regulations. They wanted to sit at the table with the government—which is what we wanted—to get these regulations in place and to provide the industry with funding mechanisms; yet we are sitting here with $1.5 million in retrospective debt, and it is creating a real problem for the negotiations. I think I took the right step in making that decision. I took a different stance on the issue of apple scab for the reason that there is already a funding mechanism in place. I have recently approved a new fee level to put to the industry, to raise funds and pay off the debt. Mr M.P. Murray : You’ve allowed one group to get away with it, and you’re charging another. You’re unfair. Mr D.T. REDMAN : There are quite significant differences between the two circumstances. I inherited a bedstraw and footrot problem which developed during the watch of the previous government, and which the previous government did not deal with. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am sure the minister does not need any help from members on either side of this place to answer his question. I notice that the member for Collie-Preston is interested in the minister’s answer. I would like other members in this place to at least allow the member to hear the answer the minister is attempting to give. Mr D.T. REDMAN : I will briefly summarise. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a mechanism in place to raise funds from the industry. In the bedstraw and footrot situation, there is no mechanism to raise funds. The build-up of debt was becoming prohibitive and it was compromising our capacity to work with the industry to get the regulations in place — Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am fully supportive of the industry’s position to try to maintain a level of control over apple scab. I think I have taken the appropriate steps as the minister responsible.
Mr D.T. REDMAN replied: We are big enough to take those things on the chin! Mr Speaker, I start by complimenting you on your tie; you are one of the only people in the house wearing something that represents and supports the agricultural industry in Western Australia. If you can do something about wool prices, I will be eternally grateful! I thank the member for the question; it is a good question, centred on the debt that was built up dealing with apple scab. (1)-(4) I have met with a number of industry representatives to discuss their concerns about apple scab. With regard to the Apple and Pear Council’s debt, it has a mechanism in place to raise funds from its membership. The subtle difference between the Apple and Pear Council’s debt and the concerns about me waiving the debt for bedstraw and footrot eradication is the fact that the Apple and Pear Council has a fundraising mechanism. Mr M.P. Murray : You did say “subtle”? Mr D.T. REDMAN : It is a difference; the member asked the question and I am making a comparison between the two circumstances. The member made the point that I was able to waive some of the debt for the control of bedstraw and footrot and asked why I did not do the same for apple scab. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a fundraising mechanism in place. I will now go back to the other issue mentioned by the member, footrot and bedstraw. I inherited a $1.5 million debt, which was what the Department of Agriculture and Food had paid towards the industry’s contribution to the control of footrot and bedstraw. The industry had two concerns, and I inherited that circumstance. Hon Kim Chance put the biosecurity and agriculture management legislation through Parliament, but was lazy on the regulations. The regulations provide the mechanisms for the industry to raise funds to deal with these sorts of issues. I have fast-tracked the mechanisms. I gave the instruction in January this year and they will be in place by June 2010. Ms M.M. Quirk : That’s really fast! Mr D.T. REDMAN : We are talking about a bill that came into this Parliament under the watch of the previous government some two years ago, and those mechanisms are not yet in place. These are the steps I had to take. It was becoming a concern for industry people who wanted to be involved in drafting the regulations. They wanted to sit at the table with the government—which is what we wanted—to get these regulations in place and to provide the industry with funding mechanisms; yet we are sitting here with $1.5 million in retrospective debt, and it is creating a real problem for the negotiations. I think I took the right step in making that decision. I took a different stance on the issue of apple scab for the reason that there is already a funding mechanism in place. I have recently approved a new fee level to put to the industry, to raise funds and pay off the debt. Mr M.P. Murray : You’ve allowed one group to get away with it, and you’re charging another. You’re unfair. Mr D.T. REDMAN : There are quite significant differences between the two circumstances. I inherited a bedstraw and footrot problem which developed during the watch of the previous government, and which the previous government did not deal with. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am sure the minister does not need any help from members on either side of this place to answer his question. I notice that the member for Collie-Preston is interested in the minister’s answer. I would like other members in this place to at least allow the member to hear the answer the minister is attempting to give. Mr D.T. REDMAN : I will briefly summarise. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a mechanism in place to raise funds from the industry. In the bedstraw and footrot situation, there is no mechanism to raise funds. The build-up of debt was becoming prohibitive and it was compromising our capacity to work with the industry to get the regulations in place — Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am fully supportive of the industry’s position to try to maintain a level of control over apple scab. I think I have taken the appropriate steps as the minister responsible.
We are big enough to take those things on the chin! Mr Speaker, I start by complimenting you on your tie; you are one of the only people in the house wearing something that represents and supports the agricultural industry in Western Australia. If you can do something about wool prices, I will be eternally grateful! I thank the member for the question; it is a good question, centred on the debt that was built up dealing with apple scab. (1)-(4) I have met with a number of industry representatives to discuss their concerns about apple scab. With regard to the Apple and Pear Council’s debt, it has a mechanism in place to raise funds from its membership. The subtle difference between the Apple and Pear Council’s debt and the concerns about me waiving the debt for bedstraw and footrot eradication is the fact that the Apple and Pear Council has a fundraising mechanism. Mr M.P. Murray : You did say “subtle”? Mr D.T. REDMAN : It is a difference; the member asked the question and I am making a comparison between the two circumstances. The member made the point that I was able to waive some of the debt for the control of bedstraw and footrot and asked why I did not do the same for apple scab. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a fundraising mechanism in place. I will now go back to the other issue mentioned by the member, footrot and bedstraw. I inherited a $1.5 million debt, which was what the Department of Agriculture and Food had paid towards the industry’s contribution to the control of footrot and bedstraw. The industry had two concerns, and I inherited that circumstance. Hon Kim Chance put the biosecurity and agriculture management legislation through Parliament, but was lazy on the regulations. The regulations provide the mechanisms for the industry to raise funds to deal with these sorts of issues. I have fast-tracked the mechanisms. I gave the instruction in January this year and they will be in place by June 2010. Ms M.M. Quirk : That’s really fast! Mr D.T. REDMAN : We are talking about a bill that came into this Parliament under the watch of the previous government some two years ago, and those mechanisms are not yet in place. These are the steps I had to take. It was becoming a concern for industry people who wanted to be involved in drafting the regulations. They wanted to sit at the table with the government—which is what we wanted—to get these regulations in place and to provide the industry with funding mechanisms; yet we are sitting here with $1.5 million in retrospective debt, and it is creating a real problem for the negotiations. I think I took the right step in making that decision. I took a different stance on the issue of apple scab for the reason that there is already a funding mechanism in place. I have recently approved a new fee level to put to the industry, to raise funds and pay off the debt. Mr M.P. Murray : You’ve allowed one group to get away with it, and you’re charging another. You’re unfair. Mr D.T. REDMAN : There are quite significant differences between the two circumstances. I inherited a bedstraw and footrot problem which developed during the watch of the previous government, and which the previous government did not deal with. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am sure the minister does not need any help from members on either side of this place to answer his question. I notice that the member for Collie-Preston is interested in the minister’s answer. I would like other members in this place to at least allow the member to hear the answer the minister is attempting to give. Mr D.T. REDMAN : I will briefly summarise. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a mechanism in place to raise funds from the industry. In the bedstraw and footrot situation, there is no mechanism to raise funds. The build-up of debt was becoming prohibitive and it was compromising our capacity to work with the industry to get the regulations in place — Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am fully supportive of the industry’s position to try to maintain a level of control over apple scab. I think I have taken the appropriate steps as the minister responsible.
Mr Speaker, I start by complimenting you on your tie; you are one of the only people in the house wearing something that represents and supports the agricultural industry in Western Australia. If you can do something about wool prices, I will be eternally grateful! I thank the member for the question; it is a good question, centred on the debt that was built up dealing with apple scab. (1)-(4) I have met with a number of industry representatives to discuss their concerns about apple scab. With regard to the Apple and Pear Council’s debt, it has a mechanism in place to raise funds from its membership. The subtle difference between the Apple and Pear Council’s debt and the concerns about me waiving the debt for bedstraw and footrot eradication is the fact that the Apple and Pear Council has a fundraising mechanism. Mr M.P. Murray : You did say “subtle”? Mr D.T. REDMAN : It is a difference; the member asked the question and I am making a comparison between the two circumstances. The member made the point that I was able to waive some of the debt for the control of bedstraw and footrot and asked why I did not do the same for apple scab. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a fundraising mechanism in place. I will now go back to the other issue mentioned by the member, footrot and bedstraw. I inherited a $1.5 million debt, which was what the Department of Agriculture and Food had paid towards the industry’s contribution to the control of footrot and bedstraw. The industry had two concerns, and I inherited that circumstance. Hon Kim Chance put the biosecurity and agriculture management legislation through Parliament, but was lazy on the regulations. The regulations provide the mechanisms for the industry to raise funds to deal with these sorts of issues. I have fast-tracked the mechanisms. I gave the instruction in January this year and they will be in place by June 2010. Ms M.M. Quirk : That’s really fast! Mr D.T. REDMAN : We are talking about a bill that came into this Parliament under the watch of the previous government some two years ago, and those mechanisms are not yet in place. These are the steps I had to take. It was becoming a concern for industry people who wanted to be involved in drafting the regulations. They wanted to sit at the table with the government—which is what we wanted—to get these regulations in place and to provide the industry with funding mechanisms; yet we are sitting here with $1.5 million in retrospective debt, and it is creating a real problem for the negotiations. I think I took the right step in making that decision. I took a different stance on the issue of apple scab for the reason that there is already a funding mechanism in place. I have recently approved a new fee level to put to the industry, to raise funds and pay off the debt. Mr M.P. Murray : You’ve allowed one group to get away with it, and you’re charging another. You’re unfair. Mr D.T. REDMAN : There are quite significant differences between the two circumstances. I inherited a bedstraw and footrot problem which developed during the watch of the previous government, and which the previous government did not deal with. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am sure the minister does not need any help from members on either side of this place to answer his question. I notice that the member for Collie-Preston is interested in the minister’s answer. I would like other members in this place to at least allow the member to hear the answer the minister is attempting to give. Mr D.T. REDMAN : I will briefly summarise. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a mechanism in place to raise funds from the industry. In the bedstraw and footrot situation, there is no mechanism to raise funds. The build-up of debt was becoming prohibitive and it was compromising our capacity to work with the industry to get the regulations in place — Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am fully supportive of the industry’s position to try to maintain a level of control over apple scab. I think I have taken the appropriate steps as the minister responsible.
I thank the member for the question; it is a good question, centred on the debt that was built up dealing with apple scab. (1)-(4) I have met with a number of industry representatives to discuss their concerns about apple scab. With regard to the Apple and Pear Council’s debt, it has a mechanism in place to raise funds from its membership. The subtle difference between the Apple and Pear Council’s debt and the concerns about me waiving the debt for bedstraw and footrot eradication is the fact that the Apple and Pear Council has a fundraising mechanism. Mr M.P. Murray : You did say “subtle”? Mr D.T. REDMAN : It is a difference; the member asked the question and I am making a comparison between the two circumstances. The member made the point that I was able to waive some of the debt for the control of bedstraw and footrot and asked why I did not do the same for apple scab. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a fundraising mechanism in place. I will now go back to the other issue mentioned by the member, footrot and bedstraw. I inherited a $1.5 million debt, which was what the Department of Agriculture and Food had paid towards the industry’s contribution to the control of footrot and bedstraw. The industry had two concerns, and I inherited that circumstance. Hon Kim Chance put the biosecurity and agriculture management legislation through Parliament, but was lazy on the regulations. The regulations provide the mechanisms for the industry to raise funds to deal with these sorts of issues. I have fast-tracked the mechanisms. I gave the instruction in January this year and they will be in place by June 2010. Ms M.M. Quirk : That’s really fast! Mr D.T. REDMAN : We are talking about a bill that came into this Parliament under the watch of the previous government some two years ago, and those mechanisms are not yet in place. These are the steps I had to take. It was becoming a concern for industry people who wanted to be involved in drafting the regulations. They wanted to sit at the table with the government—which is what we wanted—to get these regulations in place and to provide the industry with funding mechanisms; yet we are sitting here with $1.5 million in retrospective debt, and it is creating a real problem for the negotiations. I think I took the right step in making that decision. I took a different stance on the issue of apple scab for the reason that there is already a funding mechanism in place. I have recently approved a new fee level to put to the industry, to raise funds and pay off the debt. Mr M.P. Murray : You’ve allowed one group to get away with it, and you’re charging another. You’re unfair. Mr D.T. REDMAN : There are quite significant differences between the two circumstances. I inherited a bedstraw and footrot problem which developed during the watch of the previous government, and which the previous government did not deal with. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am sure the minister does not need any help from members on either side of this place to answer his question. I notice that the member for Collie-Preston is interested in the minister’s answer. I would like other members in this place to at least allow the member to hear the answer the minister is attempting to give. Mr D.T. REDMAN : I will briefly summarise. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a mechanism in place to raise funds from the industry. In the bedstraw and footrot situation, there is no mechanism to raise funds. The build-up of debt was becoming prohibitive and it was compromising our capacity to work with the industry to get the regulations in place — Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am fully supportive of the industry’s position to try to maintain a level of control over apple scab. I think I have taken the appropriate steps as the minister responsible.
(1)-(4) I have met with a number of industry representatives to discuss their concerns about apple scab. With regard to the Apple and Pear Council’s debt, it has a mechanism in place to raise funds from its membership. The subtle difference between the Apple and Pear Council’s debt and the concerns about me waiving the debt for bedstraw and footrot eradication is the fact that the Apple and Pear Council has a fundraising mechanism. Mr M.P. Murray : You did say “subtle”? Mr D.T. REDMAN : It is a difference; the member asked the question and I am making a comparison between the two circumstances. The member made the point that I was able to waive some of the debt for the control of bedstraw and footrot and asked why I did not do the same for apple scab. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a fundraising mechanism in place. I will now go back to the other issue mentioned by the member, footrot and bedstraw. I inherited a $1.5 million debt, which was what the Department of Agriculture and Food had paid towards the industry’s contribution to the control of footrot and bedstraw. The industry had two concerns, and I inherited that circumstance. Hon Kim Chance put the biosecurity and agriculture management legislation through Parliament, but was lazy on the regulations. The regulations provide the mechanisms for the industry to raise funds to deal with these sorts of issues. I have fast-tracked the mechanisms. I gave the instruction in January this year and they will be in place by June 2010. Ms M.M. Quirk : That’s really fast! Mr D.T. REDMAN : We are talking about a bill that came into this Parliament under the watch of the previous government some two years ago, and those mechanisms are not yet in place. These are the steps I had to take. It was becoming a concern for industry people who wanted to be involved in drafting the regulations. They wanted to sit at the table with the government—which is what we wanted—to get these regulations in place and to provide the industry with funding mechanisms; yet we are sitting here with $1.5 million in retrospective debt, and it is creating a real problem for the negotiations. I think I took the right step in making that decision. I took a different stance on the issue of apple scab for the reason that there is already a funding mechanism in place. I have recently approved a new fee level to put to the industry, to raise funds and pay off the debt. Mr M.P. Murray : You’ve allowed one group to get away with it, and you’re charging another. You’re unfair. Mr D.T. REDMAN : There are quite significant differences between the two circumstances. I inherited a bedstraw and footrot problem which developed during the watch of the previous government, and which the previous government did not deal with. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am sure the minister does not need any help from members on either side of this place to answer his question. I notice that the member for Collie-Preston is interested in the minister’s answer. I would like other members in this place to at least allow the member to hear the answer the minister is attempting to give. Mr D.T. REDMAN : I will briefly summarise. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a mechanism in place to raise funds from the industry. In the bedstraw and footrot situation, there is no mechanism to raise funds. The build-up of debt was becoming prohibitive and it was compromising our capacity to work with the industry to get the regulations in place — Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am fully supportive of the industry’s position to try to maintain a level of control over apple scab. I think I have taken the appropriate steps as the minister responsible.
Mr M.P. Murray : You did say “subtle”? Mr D.T. REDMAN : It is a difference; the member asked the question and I am making a comparison between the two circumstances. The member made the point that I was able to waive some of the debt for the control of bedstraw and footrot and asked why I did not do the same for apple scab. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a fundraising mechanism in place. I will now go back to the other issue mentioned by the member, footrot and bedstraw. I inherited a $1.5 million debt, which was what the Department of Agriculture and Food had paid towards the industry’s contribution to the control of footrot and bedstraw. The industry had two concerns, and I inherited that circumstance. Hon Kim Chance put the biosecurity and agriculture management legislation through Parliament, but was lazy on the regulations. The regulations provide the mechanisms for the industry to raise funds to deal with these sorts of issues. I have fast-tracked the mechanisms. I gave the instruction in January this year and they will be in place by June 2010. Ms M.M. Quirk : That’s really fast! Mr D.T. REDMAN : We are talking about a bill that came into this Parliament under the watch of the previous government some two years ago, and those mechanisms are not yet in place. These are the steps I had to take. It was becoming a concern for industry people who wanted to be involved in drafting the regulations. They wanted to sit at the table with the government—which is what we wanted—to get these regulations in place and to provide the industry with funding mechanisms; yet we are sitting here with $1.5 million in retrospective debt, and it is creating a real problem for the negotiations. I think I took the right step in making that decision. I took a different stance on the issue of apple scab for the reason that there is already a funding mechanism in place. I have recently approved a new fee level to put to the industry, to raise funds and pay off the debt. Mr M.P. Murray : You’ve allowed one group to get away with it, and you’re charging another. You’re unfair. Mr D.T. REDMAN : There are quite significant differences between the two circumstances. I inherited a bedstraw and footrot problem which developed during the watch of the previous government, and which the previous government did not deal with. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am sure the minister does not need any help from members on either side of this place to answer his question. I notice that the member for Collie-Preston is interested in the minister’s answer. I would like other members in this place to at least allow the member to hear the answer the minister is attempting to give. Mr D.T. REDMAN : I will briefly summarise. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a mechanism in place to raise funds from the industry. In the bedstraw and footrot situation, there is no mechanism to raise funds. The build-up of debt was becoming prohibitive and it was compromising our capacity to work with the industry to get the regulations in place — Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am fully supportive of the industry’s position to try to maintain a level of control over apple scab. I think I have taken the appropriate steps as the minister responsible.
Mr D.T. REDMAN : It is a difference; the member asked the question and I am making a comparison between the two circumstances. The member made the point that I was able to waive some of the debt for the control of bedstraw and footrot and asked why I did not do the same for apple scab. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a fundraising mechanism in place. I will now go back to the other issue mentioned by the member, footrot and bedstraw. I inherited a $1.5 million debt, which was what the Department of Agriculture and Food had paid towards the industry’s contribution to the control of footrot and bedstraw. The industry had two concerns, and I inherited that circumstance. Hon Kim Chance put the biosecurity and agriculture management legislation through Parliament, but was lazy on the regulations. The regulations provide the mechanisms for the industry to raise funds to deal with these sorts of issues. I have fast-tracked the mechanisms. I gave the instruction in January this year and they will be in place by June 2010. Ms M.M. Quirk : That’s really fast! Mr D.T. REDMAN : We are talking about a bill that came into this Parliament under the watch of the previous government some two years ago, and those mechanisms are not yet in place. These are the steps I had to take. It was becoming a concern for industry people who wanted to be involved in drafting the regulations. They wanted to sit at the table with the government—which is what we wanted—to get these regulations in place and to provide the industry with funding mechanisms; yet we are sitting here with $1.5 million in retrospective debt, and it is creating a real problem for the negotiations. I think I took the right step in making that decision. I took a different stance on the issue of apple scab for the reason that there is already a funding mechanism in place. I have recently approved a new fee level to put to the industry, to raise funds and pay off the debt. Mr M.P. Murray : You’ve allowed one group to get away with it, and you’re charging another. You’re unfair. Mr D.T. REDMAN : There are quite significant differences between the two circumstances. I inherited a bedstraw and footrot problem which developed during the watch of the previous government, and which the previous government did not deal with. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am sure the minister does not need any help from members on either side of this place to answer his question. I notice that the member for Collie-Preston is interested in the minister’s answer. I would like other members in this place to at least allow the member to hear the answer the minister is attempting to give. Mr D.T. REDMAN : I will briefly summarise. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a mechanism in place to raise funds from the industry. In the bedstraw and footrot situation, there is no mechanism to raise funds. The build-up of debt was becoming prohibitive and it was compromising our capacity to work with the industry to get the regulations in place — Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am fully supportive of the industry’s position to try to maintain a level of control over apple scab. I think I have taken the appropriate steps as the minister responsible.
I will now go back to the other issue mentioned by the member, footrot and bedstraw. I inherited a $1.5 million debt, which was what the Department of Agriculture and Food had paid towards the industry’s contribution to the control of footrot and bedstraw. The industry had two concerns, and I inherited that circumstance. Hon Kim Chance put the biosecurity and agriculture management legislation through Parliament, but was lazy on the regulations. The regulations provide the mechanisms for the industry to raise funds to deal with these sorts of issues. I have fast-tracked the mechanisms. I gave the instruction in January this year and they will be in place by June 2010. Ms M.M. Quirk : That’s really fast! Mr D.T. REDMAN : We are talking about a bill that came into this Parliament under the watch of the previous government some two years ago, and those mechanisms are not yet in place. These are the steps I had to take. It was becoming a concern for industry people who wanted to be involved in drafting the regulations. They wanted to sit at the table with the government—which is what we wanted—to get these regulations in place and to provide the industry with funding mechanisms; yet we are sitting here with $1.5 million in retrospective debt, and it is creating a real problem for the negotiations. I think I took the right step in making that decision. I took a different stance on the issue of apple scab for the reason that there is already a funding mechanism in place. I have recently approved a new fee level to put to the industry, to raise funds and pay off the debt. Mr M.P. Murray : You’ve allowed one group to get away with it, and you’re charging another. You’re unfair. Mr D.T. REDMAN : There are quite significant differences between the two circumstances. I inherited a bedstraw and footrot problem which developed during the watch of the previous government, and which the previous government did not deal with. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am sure the minister does not need any help from members on either side of this place to answer his question. I notice that the member for Collie-Preston is interested in the minister’s answer. I would like other members in this place to at least allow the member to hear the answer the minister is attempting to give. Mr D.T. REDMAN : I will briefly summarise. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a mechanism in place to raise funds from the industry. In the bedstraw and footrot situation, there is no mechanism to raise funds. The build-up of debt was becoming prohibitive and it was compromising our capacity to work with the industry to get the regulations in place — Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am fully supportive of the industry’s position to try to maintain a level of control over apple scab. I think I have taken the appropriate steps as the minister responsible.
Ms M.M. Quirk : That’s really fast! Mr D.T. REDMAN : We are talking about a bill that came into this Parliament under the watch of the previous government some two years ago, and those mechanisms are not yet in place. These are the steps I had to take. It was becoming a concern for industry people who wanted to be involved in drafting the regulations. They wanted to sit at the table with the government—which is what we wanted—to get these regulations in place and to provide the industry with funding mechanisms; yet we are sitting here with $1.5 million in retrospective debt, and it is creating a real problem for the negotiations. I think I took the right step in making that decision. I took a different stance on the issue of apple scab for the reason that there is already a funding mechanism in place. I have recently approved a new fee level to put to the industry, to raise funds and pay off the debt. Mr M.P. Murray : You’ve allowed one group to get away with it, and you’re charging another. You’re unfair. Mr D.T. REDMAN : There are quite significant differences between the two circumstances. I inherited a bedstraw and footrot problem which developed during the watch of the previous government, and which the previous government did not deal with. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am sure the minister does not need any help from members on either side of this place to answer his question. I notice that the member for Collie-Preston is interested in the minister’s answer. I would like other members in this place to at least allow the member to hear the answer the minister is attempting to give. Mr D.T. REDMAN : I will briefly summarise. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a mechanism in place to raise funds from the industry. In the bedstraw and footrot situation, there is no mechanism to raise funds. The build-up of debt was becoming prohibitive and it was compromising our capacity to work with the industry to get the regulations in place — Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am fully supportive of the industry’s position to try to maintain a level of control over apple scab. I think I have taken the appropriate steps as the minister responsible.
Mr D.T. REDMAN : We are talking about a bill that came into this Parliament under the watch of the previous government some two years ago, and those mechanisms are not yet in place. These are the steps I had to take. It was becoming a concern for industry people who wanted to be involved in drafting the regulations. They wanted to sit at the table with the government—which is what we wanted—to get these regulations in place and to provide the industry with funding mechanisms; yet we are sitting here with $1.5 million in retrospective debt, and it is creating a real problem for the negotiations. I think I took the right step in making that decision. I took a different stance on the issue of apple scab for the reason that there is already a funding mechanism in place. I have recently approved a new fee level to put to the industry, to raise funds and pay off the debt. Mr M.P. Murray : You’ve allowed one group to get away with it, and you’re charging another. You’re unfair. Mr D.T. REDMAN : There are quite significant differences between the two circumstances. I inherited a bedstraw and footrot problem which developed during the watch of the previous government, and which the previous government did not deal with. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am sure the minister does not need any help from members on either side of this place to answer his question. I notice that the member for Collie-Preston is interested in the minister’s answer. I would like other members in this place to at least allow the member to hear the answer the minister is attempting to give. Mr D.T. REDMAN : I will briefly summarise. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a mechanism in place to raise funds from the industry. In the bedstraw and footrot situation, there is no mechanism to raise funds. The build-up of debt was becoming prohibitive and it was compromising our capacity to work with the industry to get the regulations in place — Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am fully supportive of the industry’s position to try to maintain a level of control over apple scab. I think I have taken the appropriate steps as the minister responsible.
Mr M.P. Murray : You’ve allowed one group to get away with it, and you’re charging another. You’re unfair. Mr D.T. REDMAN : There are quite significant differences between the two circumstances. I inherited a bedstraw and footrot problem which developed during the watch of the previous government, and which the previous government did not deal with. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am sure the minister does not need any help from members on either side of this place to answer his question. I notice that the member for Collie-Preston is interested in the minister’s answer. I would like other members in this place to at least allow the member to hear the answer the minister is attempting to give. Mr D.T. REDMAN : I will briefly summarise. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a mechanism in place to raise funds from the industry. In the bedstraw and footrot situation, there is no mechanism to raise funds. The build-up of debt was becoming prohibitive and it was compromising our capacity to work with the industry to get the regulations in place — Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am fully supportive of the industry’s position to try to maintain a level of control over apple scab. I think I have taken the appropriate steps as the minister responsible.
Mr D.T. REDMAN : There are quite significant differences between the two circumstances. I inherited a bedstraw and footrot problem which developed during the watch of the previous government, and which the previous government did not deal with. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am sure the minister does not need any help from members on either side of this place to answer his question. I notice that the member for Collie-Preston is interested in the minister’s answer. I would like other members in this place to at least allow the member to hear the answer the minister is attempting to give. Mr D.T. REDMAN : I will briefly summarise. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a mechanism in place to raise funds from the industry. In the bedstraw and footrot situation, there is no mechanism to raise funds. The build-up of debt was becoming prohibitive and it was compromising our capacity to work with the industry to get the regulations in place — Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am fully supportive of the industry’s position to try to maintain a level of control over apple scab. I think I have taken the appropriate steps as the minister responsible.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am sure the minister does not need any help from members on either side of this place to answer his question. I notice that the member for Collie-Preston is interested in the minister’s answer. I would like other members in this place to at least allow the member to hear the answer the minister is attempting to give. Mr D.T. REDMAN : I will briefly summarise. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a mechanism in place to raise funds from the industry. In the bedstraw and footrot situation, there is no mechanism to raise funds. The build-up of debt was becoming prohibitive and it was compromising our capacity to work with the industry to get the regulations in place — Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am fully supportive of the industry’s position to try to maintain a level of control over apple scab. I think I have taken the appropriate steps as the minister responsible.
The SPEAKER : I am sure the minister does not need any help from members on either side of this place to answer his question. I notice that the member for Collie-Preston is interested in the minister’s answer. I would like other members in this place to at least allow the member to hear the answer the minister is attempting to give. Mr D.T. REDMAN : I will briefly summarise. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a mechanism in place to raise funds from the industry. In the bedstraw and footrot situation, there is no mechanism to raise funds. The build-up of debt was becoming prohibitive and it was compromising our capacity to work with the industry to get the regulations in place — Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am fully supportive of the industry’s position to try to maintain a level of control over apple scab. I think I have taken the appropriate steps as the minister responsible.
Mr D.T. REDMAN : I will briefly summarise. The difference is that the Apple and Pear Council has a mechanism in place to raise funds from the industry. In the bedstraw and footrot situation, there is no mechanism to raise funds. The build-up of debt was becoming prohibitive and it was compromising our capacity to work with the industry to get the regulations in place — Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am fully supportive of the industry’s position to try to maintain a level of control over apple scab. I think I have taken the appropriate steps as the minister responsible.
Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am fully supportive of the industry’s position to try to maintain a level of control over apple scab. I think I have taken the appropriate steps as the minister responsible.
The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am fully supportive of the industry’s position to try to maintain a level of control over apple scab. I think I have taken the appropriate steps as the minister responsible.
Mr D.T. REDMAN : I am fully supportive of the industry’s position to try to maintain a level of control over apple scab. I think I have taken the appropriate steps as the minister responsible.
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.