❓ A WA parliamentary question on notice regarding the Department of Agriculture's apple breeding program, specifically concerning the varieties "Big Time" and "ST 23/74". The questioner raises concerns about expenditure, sales, losses, and accountability, accusing the Minister of failing in their duty of care.
AnsweredQoN 2270Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that apples are not always apples, especially when they have the nomenclatures “Big Time” and “ST 23/74” and are bred by the Department of Agriculture. As around $2.4 million was spent on this breeding venture between 2001 and 2005, I call on the Minister to provide appropriate answers to the following questions -
(1) From the date the Labor Government took office in 2001, to 1 May 2007 -
(a) how much, in dollar terms, has been the actual expenditure on this breeding program;
(b) how many tonnes of “Big Time” and “ST 23/74” have been released for sale;
(c) how many tonnes of "Big Time" and “ST 23/74” have been sold;
(d) how much, in dollar terms, has been made from the sale of “Big Time” and “ST 23/74”;
(e) what, in dollar terms, is the difference between the profit from sales compared to the cost of development of “Big Time” and “ST 23/74”;
(f) how many tonnes of “ST 23/74” have been left to rot in Newton Brothers cool-stores in Manjimup; and
(g) why was this volume of “ST 23/74” left to rot in Newton Brothers cool-stores in Manjimup?
(2) Does the Minister concede that no authority other than State Cabinet and himself, (including the Office of the Auditor General) has control over, or may review -
(a) where he directs research funding;
(b) to whom it is allocated; and
(c) for what purpose it is allocated?
(3) Does the Minister concede that no authority, other than State Cabinet and himself, bears any responsibility for any failure to adequately assess -
(a) the continuing practicality of a particular research program; and
(b) any other form of accountability for such research including, but not limited to -
(i) proper independent audits of cost;
(ii) proper independent, progressive performance reviews;
(iii) proper independent, progressive assessment of results;
(iv) appropriate social, economic and/or commercial outcomes; and
(v) public accountability and transparency regarding all such information?
(4) Does the Minister concede that he has failed in his duty-of-care to his portfolio by not demanding proper accountability, appropriate actions and outcomes from this research project over a period of 6 years, resulting in the loss of some $7 million dollars?
(1) From the date the Labor Government took office in 2001, to 1 May 2007 -
(a) how much, in dollar terms, has been the actual expenditure on this breeding program;
(b) how many tonnes of “Big Time” and “ST 23/74” have been released for sale;
(c) how many tonnes of "Big Time" and “ST 23/74” have been sold;
(d) how much, in dollar terms, has been made from the sale of “Big Time” and “ST 23/74”;
(e) what, in dollar terms, is the difference between the profit from sales compared to the cost of development of “Big Time” and “ST 23/74”;
(f) how many tonnes of “ST 23/74” have been left to rot in Newton Brothers cool-stores in Manjimup; and
(g) why was this volume of “ST 23/74” left to rot in Newton Brothers cool-stores in Manjimup?
(2) Does the Minister concede that no authority other than State Cabinet and himself, (including the Office of the Auditor General) has control over, or may review -
(a) where he directs research funding;
(b) to whom it is allocated; and
(c) for what purpose it is allocated?
(3) Does the Minister concede that no authority, other than State Cabinet and himself, bears any responsibility for any failure to adequately assess -
(a) the continuing practicality of a particular research program; and
(b) any other form of accountability for such research including, but not limited to -
(i) proper independent audits of cost;
(ii) proper independent, progressive performance reviews;
(iii) proper independent, progressive assessment of results;
(iv) appropriate social, economic and/or commercial outcomes; and
(v) public accountability and transparency regarding all such information?
(4) Does the Minister concede that he has failed in his duty-of-care to his portfolio by not demanding proper accountability, appropriate actions and outcomes from this research project over a period of 6 years, resulting in the loss of some $7 million dollars?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
12 June 2007
Responded by
Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Agriculture and Food
Response time
34 days
(b) how many tonnes of “Big Time” and “ST 23/74” have been released for sale; (c) how many tonnes of "Big Time" and “ST 23/74” have been sold; (d) how much, in dollar terms, has been made from the sale of “Big Time” and “ST 23/74”; (e) what, in dollar terms, is the difference between the profit from sales compared to the cost of development of “Big Time” and “ST 23/74”; (f) how many tonnes of “ST 23/74” have been left to rot in Newton Brothers cool-stores in Manjimup; and (g) why was this volume of “ST 23/74” left to rot in Newton Brothers cool-stores in Manjimup?
(c) how many tonnes of "Big Time" and “ST 23/74” have been sold; (d) how much, in dollar terms, has been made from the sale of “Big Time” and “ST 23/74”; (e) what, in dollar terms, is the difference between the profit from sales compared to the cost of development of “Big Time” and “ST 23/74”; (f) how many tonnes of “ST 23/74” have been left to rot in Newton Brothers cool-stores in Manjimup; and (g) why was this volume of “ST 23/74” left to rot in Newton Brothers cool-stores in Manjimup?
(d) how much, in dollar terms, has been made from the sale of “Big Time” and “ST 23/74”; (e) what, in dollar terms, is the difference between the profit from sales compared to the cost of development of “Big Time” and “ST 23/74”; (f) how many tonnes of “ST 23/74” have been left to rot in Newton Brothers cool-stores in Manjimup; and (g) why was this volume of “ST 23/74” left to rot in Newton Brothers cool-stores in Manjimup?
(e) what, in dollar terms, is the difference between the profit from sales compared to the cost of development of “Big Time” and “ST 23/74”; (f) how many tonnes of “ST 23/74” have been left to rot in Newton Brothers cool-stores in Manjimup; and (g) why was this volume of “ST 23/74” left to rot in Newton Brothers cool-stores in Manjimup?
(f) how many tonnes of “ST 23/74” have been left to rot in Newton Brothers cool-stores in Manjimup; and (g) why was this volume of “ST 23/74” left to rot in Newton Brothers cool-stores in Manjimup?
(g) why was this volume of “ST 23/74” left to rot in Newton Brothers cool-stores in Manjimup?
(b) to whom it is allocated; and (c) for what purpose it is allocated?
(c) for what purpose it is allocated?
(b) any other form of accountability for such research including, but not limited to - (i) proper independent audits of cost; (ii) proper independent, progressive performance reviews; (iii) proper independent, progressive assessment of results; (iv) appropriate social, economic and/or commercial outcomes; and (v) public accountability and transparency regarding all such information?
(ii) proper independent, progressive performance reviews; (iii) proper independent, progressive assessment of results; (iv) appropriate social, economic and/or commercial outcomes; and (v) public accountability and transparency regarding all such information?
(iii) proper independent, progressive assessment of results; (iv) appropriate social, economic and/or commercial outcomes; and (v) public accountability and transparency regarding all such information?
(iv) appropriate social, economic and/or commercial outcomes; and (v) public accountability and transparency regarding all such information?
(v) public accountability and transparency regarding all such information?
"Your questions have a focus on the apple breeding activities of the Department of Agriculture. These activities have been the subject of a number of reviews in recent years. There have been two Auditor General reports into the management of Intellectual Property in the Department of Agriculture. The commercialisation of fruit varieties was covered under these. A specific case study of the commercialisation process for ST 23/74 [Now named Western DawnA [1] ] was conducted in 2002 and described in the Auditor General's report submitted to Parliament on 4 December 2002, A Case Study of a New Apple Variety ." "The report above stated (page 15) that "Since 1999, the Department of Agriculture [Department of Agriculture Western Australia] has developed a more rigorous and formalised approach to address recognised shortcomings in its IP management process for breeding, evaluating and commercialising apple varieties."" "In the letter to the Director General [Department of Agriculture Western Australia] that accompanied the audit report from the Office of Auditor General it states "The audit found that while some aspects of past management of ST 23/74 could have been better (agreements with growers, earlier PBR and time taken to reach its current stage), action being taken now and current arrangements are appropriate."" "If the Honourable Member would like further discussions, I would be happy to arrange an appropriate senior officer from the Department of Agriculture to meet with him." "The variety [Big TimeA] was released with PBR protection, under licence agreement in 1996 to two nurseries in Australia (one major national nursery in the Eastern States and one nursery in Western Australia)." It therefore falls outside the time span detailed in the question that commences in 2001. The variety referred to as ST 23/74, now named Western DawnA, is not yet released. It is subject to a Request for Proposal [AG2007111] for exclusive licence rights in Australia for commercial development and management of the variety. If the 'breeding venture' referred to is the Australian National Apple Breeding Program, which is based at Manjimup Horticultural Research Institute, it includes many potential varieties. The cost of the program is shared between all the potential varieties and not to individual varieties. (a) If the question refers to the apple breeding program in which there are many potential varieties under evaluation, I refer to the answer provided to question 'h' of Legislative Assembly Question on Notice 357 in 2005. The direct investment "since 2001 has been - $428,725 in 2001/02, $534,517 in 2002/03, $482,365 in 2003/04, $477,160 in 2004/05", and is $545,342 for 2005/06. To date for this financial year the direct investment is $499,361. "These funds are made available from royalties from previous tree sales and research funds from Horticulture Australia Limited." (b) As indicated Western DawnA, previously called ST 23/74 has not been released. Therefore there has been no fruit of Western DawnA released for sale. "The variety [Big TimeA] was released with PBR protection, under licence agreement in 1996 to two nurseries in Australia (one major national nursery in the Eastern States and one nursery in Western Australia). Through this process there has been very limited uptake of the variety by industry." The Department does not have records of Big TimeA fruit sales. (c) As above, the Department has no records of Big TimeA fruit sales. There has been no Western DawnA [ST 23/74] fruit released for sale. (d) As above Western DawnA has not yet been released therefore there have been no sales. (e) There are no specific funding allocations to individual varieties. As detailed in the answer to question 'p' of Legislative Assembly Question on Notice 357 in 2005. In relation to Big TimeA: "There was no specific funding allocation to this variety." "The Department's records of domestic promotion and intellectual property protection show a total cost of $11,932." Since then there have been costs of $600 for annual Plant Breeders Rights fees bringing the total recorded costs to $12,532. The income from royalties is commercial information. As indicated above there has been very limited uptake of the variety Big TimeA by industry. However the direct costs attributed to this variety are only $12,532. Western DawnA [ST 23/74] is not yet released so there are no sales of this variety to date. (f) It is not appropriate to sell fruit prior to intellectual property protection of a variety nor before the commercialisation licence is in place. The Department however does use fruit for evaluation which is common practice in breeding projects, prior to commercial release. All fruit not used for evaluation is discarded without sale. When the commercialisation licence is in place, fruit will be able to be sold. (g) See (f) above. 2. The Government makes funding appropriations to the Department on an annual basis. This allocation process is informed by the Department's budget proposals which in turn are informed by input from stakeholders. Funds are then allocated by the Department to deliver outcomes for the State. The Director General of Agriculture is accountable for the delivery of these outcomes. (a) Specific priorities for research funding are determined by the Department via well developed needs analysis and investment decision making processes. The Department determines program and project level allocations within several priorities established by the Government. (b) The majority of research outputs are delivered by the Department often in partnership with other research funders and providers. The Department may contract service delivery by other parties where it considers the output or outcome is better achieved via that means. (c) Much of the work of the Department is co-funded by national industry based research and development corporations, National Co-operative Research Centres and Australian Government programs that ensure delivery of shared priorities at lower cost to the Government. 3. (a) This is a matter for the Department to determine. The Department of Agriculture and Food and Horticulture Australia Limited have well established processes for this purpose. (b) (i) Program and project costs are reviewed internally and externally. For the apple breeding program internal process are in place and the involvement of Apples and Pear Australia Limited and Horticulture Australia Limited provides external review mechanisms. All Departmental projects are subject to normal audit functions conducted by the Department's Internal Audit Branch and the Office of the Auditor-General. (ii) See (i) above. (iii) See (i) above. (iv) Industry and community outcomes are assessed where appropriate data is available. Stakeholder support for programs and projects is also assessed via industry and community consultation processes and customer surveys. (v) The normal range of accountability and transparency mechanisms an in place including Parliamentary reporting and scrutiny, public annual reporting, industry and community consultation, reporting to funding partners, Office of the Auditor-General, Freedom of Information and other means. 4. No. The National Apple Breeding Program is supported by both State funds in the form of royalties from released varieties and funding from the National apple industry (Apples and Pears Australia Limited) via Horticulture Australia Limited. The program has been subject to significant external scrutiny and has received positive reviews. Investment in plant breeding programs is long term and delivers long term benefits to industry and the economy. This investment supports future variety releases and cannot sensibly be considered as a 'loss', rather an investment in future delivery of new varieties. [1] A This symbol indicates that the variety is protected by Plant Breeder's Rights in Australia
"The report above stated (page 15) that "Since 1999, the Department of Agriculture [Department of Agriculture Western Australia] has developed a more rigorous and formalised approach to address recognised shortcomings in its IP management process for breeding, evaluating and commercialising apple varieties."" "In the letter to the Director General [Department of Agriculture Western Australia] that accompanied the audit report from the Office of Auditor General it states "The audit found that while some aspects of past management of ST 23/74 could have been better (agreements with growers, earlier PBR and time taken to reach its current stage), action being taken now and current arrangements are appropriate."" "If the Honourable Member would like further discussions, I would be happy to arrange an appropriate senior officer from the Department of Agriculture to meet with him." "The variety [Big TimeA] was released with PBR protection, under licence agreement in 1996 to two nurseries in Australia (one major national nursery in the Eastern States and one nursery in Western Australia)." It therefore falls outside the time span detailed in the question that commences in 2001. The variety referred to as ST 23/74, now named Western DawnA, is not yet released. It is subject to a Request for Proposal [AG2007111] for exclusive licence rights in Australia for commercial development and management of the variety. If the 'breeding venture' referred to is the Australian National Apple Breeding Program, which is based at Manjimup Horticultural Research Institute, it includes many potential varieties. The cost of the program is shared between all the potential varieties and not to individual varieties. (a) If the question refers to the apple breeding program in which there are many potential varieties under evaluation, I refer to the answer provided to question 'h' of Legislative Assembly Question on Notice 357 in 2005. The direct investment "since 2001 has been - $428,725 in 2001/02, $534,517 in 2002/03, $482,365 in 2003/04, $477,160 in 2004/05", and is $545,342 for 2005/06. To date for this financial year the direct investment is $499,361. "These funds are made available from royalties from previous tree sales and research funds from Horticulture Australia Limited." (b) As indicated Western DawnA, previously called ST 23/74 has not been released. Therefore there has been no fruit of Western DawnA released for sale. "The variety [Big TimeA] was released with PBR protection, under licence agreement in 1996 to two nurseries in Australia (one major national nursery in the Eastern States and one nursery in Western Australia). Through this process there has been very limited uptake of the variety by industry." The Department does not have records of Big TimeA fruit sales. (c) As above, the Department has no records of Big TimeA fruit sales. There has been no Western DawnA [ST 23/74] fruit released for sale. (d) As above Western DawnA has not yet been released therefore there have been no sales. (e) There are no specific funding allocations to individual varieties. As detailed in the answer to question 'p' of Legislative Assembly Question on Notice 357 in 2005. In relation to Big TimeA: "There was no specific funding allocation to this variety." "The Department's records of domestic promotion and intellectual property protection show a total cost of $11,932." Since then there have been costs of $600 for annual Plant Breeders Rights fees bringing the total recorded costs to $12,532. The income from royalties is commercial information. As indicated above there has been very limited uptake of the variety Big TimeA by industry. However the direct costs attributed to this variety are only $12,532. Western DawnA [ST 23/74] is not yet released so there are no sales of this variety to date. (f) It is not appropriate to sell fruit prior to intellectual property protection of a variety nor before the commercialisation licence is in place. The Department however does use fruit for evaluation which is common practice in breeding projects, prior to commercial release. All fruit not used for evaluation is discarded without sale. When the commercialisation licence is in place, fruit will be able to be sold. (g) See (f) above. 2. The Government makes funding appropriations to the Department on an annual basis. This allocation process is informed by the Department's budget proposals which in turn are informed by input from stakeholders. Funds are then allocated by the Department to deliver outcomes for the State. The Director General of Agriculture is accountable for the delivery of these outcomes. (a) Specific priorities for research funding are determined by the Department via well developed needs analysis and investment decision making processes. The Department determines program and project level allocations within several priorities established by the Government. (b) The majority of research outputs are delivered by the Department often in partnership with other research funders and providers. The Department may contract service delivery by other parties where it considers the output or outcome is better achieved via that means. (c) Much of the work of the Department is co-funded by national industry based research and development corporations, National Co-operative Research Centres and Australian Government programs that ensure delivery of shared priorities at lower cost to the Government. 3. (a) This is a matter for the Department to determine. The Department of Agriculture and Food and Horticulture Australia Limited have well established processes for this purpose. (b) (i) Program and project costs are reviewed internally and externally. For the apple breeding program internal process are in place and the involvement of Apples and Pear Australia Limited and Horticulture Australia Limited provides external review mechanisms. All Departmental projects are subject to normal audit functions conducted by the Department's Internal Audit Branch and the Office of the Auditor-General. (ii) See (i) above. (iii) See (i) above. (iv) Industry and community outcomes are assessed where appropriate data is available. Stakeholder support for programs and projects is also assessed via industry and community consultation processes and customer surveys. (v) The normal range of accountability and transparency mechanisms an in place including Parliamentary reporting and scrutiny, public annual reporting, industry and community consultation, reporting to funding partners, Office of the Auditor-General, Freedom of Information and other means. 4. No. The National Apple Breeding Program is supported by both State funds in the form of royalties from released varieties and funding from the National apple industry (Apples and Pears Australia Limited) via Horticulture Australia Limited. The program has been subject to significant external scrutiny and has received positive reviews. Investment in plant breeding programs is long term and delivers long term benefits to industry and the economy. This investment supports future variety releases and cannot sensibly be considered as a 'loss', rather an investment in future delivery of new varieties. [1] A This symbol indicates that the variety is protected by Plant Breeder's Rights in Australia
"In the letter to the Director General [Department of Agriculture Western Australia] that accompanied the audit report from the Office of Auditor General it states "The audit found that while some aspects of past management of ST 23/74 could have been better (agreements with growers, earlier PBR and time taken to reach its current stage), action being taken now and current arrangements are appropriate."" "If the Honourable Member would like further discussions, I would be happy to arrange an appropriate senior officer from the Department of Agriculture to meet with him." "The variety [Big TimeA] was released with PBR protection, under licence agreement in 1996 to two nurseries in Australia (one major national nursery in the Eastern States and one nursery in Western Australia)." It therefore falls outside the time span detailed in the question that commences in 2001. The variety referred to as ST 23/74, now named Western DawnA, is not yet released. It is subject to a Request for Proposal [AG2007111] for exclusive licence rights in Australia for commercial development and management of the variety. If the 'breeding venture' referred to is the Australian National Apple Breeding Program, which is based at Manjimup Horticultural Research Institute, it includes many potential varieties. The cost of the program is shared between all the potential varieties and not to individual varieties. (a) If the question refers to the apple breeding program in which there are many potential varieties under evaluation, I refer to the answer provided to question 'h' of Legislative Assembly Question on Notice 357 in 2005. The direct investment "since 2001 has been - $428,725 in 2001/02, $534,517 in 2002/03, $482,365 in 2003/04, $477,160 in 2004/05", and is $545,342 for 2005/06. To date for this financial year the direct investment is $499,361. "These funds are made available from royalties from previous tree sales and research funds from Horticulture Australia Limited." (b) As indicated Western DawnA, previously called ST 23/74 has not been released. Therefore there has been no fruit of Western DawnA released for sale. "The variety [Big TimeA] was released with PBR protection, under licence agreement in 1996 to two nurseries in Australia (one major national nursery in the Eastern States and one nursery in Western Australia). Through this process there has been very limited uptake of the variety by industry." The Department does not have records of Big TimeA fruit sales. (c) As above, the Department has no records of Big TimeA fruit sales. There has been no Western DawnA [ST 23/74] fruit released for sale. (d) As above Western DawnA has not yet been released therefore there have been no sales. (e) There are no specific funding allocations to individual varieties. As detailed in the answer to question 'p' of Legislative Assembly Question on Notice 357 in 2005. In relation to Big TimeA: "There was no specific funding allocation to this variety." "The Department's records of domestic promotion and intellectual property protection show a total cost of $11,932." Since then there have been costs of $600 for annual Plant Breeders Rights fees bringing the total recorded costs to $12,532. The income from royalties is commercial information. As indicated above there has been very limited uptake of the variety Big TimeA by industry. However the direct costs attributed to this variety are only $12,532. Western DawnA [ST 23/74] is not yet released so there are no sales of this variety to date. (f) It is not appropriate to sell fruit prior to intellectual property protection of a variety nor before the commercialisation licence is in place. The Department however does use fruit for evaluation which is common practice in breeding projects, prior to commercial release. All fruit not used for evaluation is discarded without sale. When the commercialisation licence is in place, fruit will be able to be sold. (g) See (f) above. 2. The Government makes funding appropriations to the Department on an annual basis. This allocation process is informed by the Department's budget proposals which in turn are informed by input from stakeholders. Funds are then allocated by the Department to deliver outcomes for the State. The Director General of Agriculture is accountable for the delivery of these outcomes. (a) Specific priorities for research funding are determined by the Department via well developed needs analysis and investment decision making processes. The Department determines program and project level allocations within several priorities established by the Government. (b) The majority of research outputs are delivered by the Department often in partnership with other research funders and providers. The Department may contract service delivery by other parties where it considers the output or outcome is better achieved via that means. (c) Much of the work of the Department is co-funded by national industry based research and development corporations, National Co-operative Research Centres and Australian Government programs that ensure delivery of shared priorities at lower cost to the Government. 3. (a) This is a matter for the Department to determine. The Department of Agriculture and Food and Horticulture Australia Limited have well established processes for this purpose. (b) (i) Program and project costs are reviewed internally and externally. For the apple breeding program internal process are in place and the involvement of Apples and Pear Australia Limited and Horticulture Australia Limited provides external review mechanisms. All Departmental projects are subject to normal audit functions conducted by the Department's Internal Audit Branch and the Office of the Auditor-General. (ii) See (i) above. (iii) See (i) above. (iv) Industry and community outcomes are assessed where appropriate data is available. Stakeholder support for programs and projects is also assessed via industry and community consultation processes and customer surveys. (v) The normal range of accountability and transparency mechanisms an in place including Parliamentary reporting and scrutiny, public annual reporting, industry and community consultation, reporting to funding partners, Office of the Auditor-General, Freedom of Information and other means. 4. No. The National Apple Breeding Program is supported by both State funds in the form of royalties from released varieties and funding from the National apple industry (Apples and Pears Australia Limited) via Horticulture Australia Limited. The program has been subject to significant external scrutiny and has received positive reviews. Investment in plant breeding programs is long term and delivers long term benefits to industry and the economy. This investment supports future variety releases and cannot sensibly be considered as a 'loss', rather an investment in future delivery of new varieties. [1] A This symbol indicates that the variety is protected by Plant Breeder's Rights in Australia
"If the Honourable Member would like further discussions, I would be happy to arrange an appropriate senior officer from the Department of Agriculture to meet with him." "The variety [Big TimeA] was released with PBR protection, under licence agreement in 1996 to two nurseries in Australia (one major national nursery in the Eastern States and one nursery in Western Australia)." It therefore falls outside the time span detailed in the question that commences in 2001. The variety referred to as ST 23/74, now named Western DawnA, is not yet released. It is subject to a Request for Proposal [AG2007111] for exclusive licence rights in Australia for commercial development and management of the variety. If the 'breeding venture' referred to is the Australian National Apple Breeding Program, which is based at Manjimup Horticultural Research Institute, it includes many potential varieties. The cost of the program is shared between all the potential varieties and not to individual varieties. (a) If the question refers to the apple breeding program in which there are many potential varieties under evaluation, I refer to the answer provided to question 'h' of Legislative Assembly Question on Notice 357 in 2005. The direct investment "since 2001 has been - $428,725 in 2001/02, $534,517 in 2002/03, $482,365 in 2003/04, $477,160 in 2004/05", and is $545,342 for 2005/06. To date for this financial year the direct investment is $499,361. "These funds are made available from royalties from previous tree sales and research funds from Horticulture Australia Limited." (b) As indicated Western DawnA, previously called ST 23/74 has not been released. Therefore there has been no fruit of Western DawnA released for sale. "The variety [Big TimeA] was released with PBR protection, under licence agreement in 1996 to two nurseries in Australia (one major national nursery in the Eastern States and one nursery in Western Australia). Through this process there has been very limited uptake of the variety by industry." The Department does not have records of Big TimeA fruit sales. (c) As above, the Department has no records of Big TimeA fruit sales. There has been no Western DawnA [ST 23/74] fruit released for sale. (d) As above Western DawnA has not yet been released therefore there have been no sales. (e) There are no specific funding allocations to individual varieties. As detailed in the answer to question 'p' of Legislative Assembly Question on Notice 357 in 2005. In relation to Big TimeA: "There was no specific funding allocation to this variety." "The Department's records of domestic promotion and intellectual property protection show a total cost of $11,932." Since then there have been costs of $600 for annual Plant Breeders Rights fees bringing the total recorded costs to $12,532. The income from royalties is commercial information. As indicated above there has been very limited uptake of the variety Big TimeA by industry. However the direct costs attributed to this variety are only $12,532. Western DawnA [ST 23/74] is not yet released so there are no sales of this variety to date. (f) It is not appropriate to sell fruit prior to intellectual property protection of a variety nor before the commercialisation licence is in place. The Department however does use fruit for evaluation which is common practice in breeding projects, prior to commercial release. All fruit not used for evaluation is discarded without sale. When the commercialisation licence is in place, fruit will be able to be sold. (g) See (f) above. 2. The Government makes funding appropriations to the Department on an annual basis. This allocation process is informed by the Department's budget proposals which in turn are informed by input from stakeholders. Funds are then allocated by the Department to deliver outcomes for the State. The Director General of Agriculture is accountable for the delivery of these outcomes. (a) Specific priorities for research funding are determined by the Department via well developed needs analysis and investment decision making processes. The Department determines program and project level allocations within several priorities established by the Government. (b) The majority of research outputs are delivered by the Department often in partnership with other research funders and providers. The Department may contract service delivery by other parties where it considers the output or outcome is better achieved via that means. (c) Much of the work of the Department is co-funded by national industry based research and development corporations, National Co-operative Research Centres and Australian Government programs that ensure delivery of shared priorities at lower cost to the Government. 3. (a) This is a matter for the Department to determine. The Department of Agriculture and Food and Horticulture Australia Limited have well established processes for this purpose. (b) (i) Program and project costs are reviewed internally and externally. For the apple breeding program internal process are in place and the involvement of Apples and Pear Australia Limited and Horticulture Australia Limited provides external review mechanisms. All Departmental projects are subject to normal audit functions conducted by the Department's Internal Audit Branch and the Office of the Auditor-General. (ii) See (i) above. (iii) See (i) above. (iv) Industry and community outcomes are assessed where appropriate data is available. Stakeholder support for programs and projects is also assessed via industry and community consultation processes and customer surveys. (v) The normal range of accountability and transparency mechanisms an in place including Parliamentary reporting and scrutiny, public annual reporting, industry and community consultation, reporting to funding partners, Office of the Auditor-General, Freedom of Information and other means. 4. No. The National Apple Breeding Program is supported by both State funds in the form of royalties from released varieties and funding from the National apple industry (Apples and Pears Australia Limited) via Horticulture Australia Limited. The program has been subject to significant external scrutiny and has received positive reviews. Investment in plant breeding programs is long term and delivers long term benefits to industry and the economy. This investment supports future variety releases and cannot sensibly be considered as a 'loss', rather an investment in future delivery of new varieties. [1] A This symbol indicates that the variety is protected by Plant Breeder's Rights in Australia
"The variety [Big TimeA] was released with PBR protection, under licence agreement in 1996 to two nurseries in Australia (one major national nursery in the Eastern States and one nursery in Western Australia)." It therefore falls outside the time span detailed in the question that commences in 2001. The variety referred to as ST 23/74, now named Western DawnA, is not yet released. It is subject to a Request for Proposal [AG2007111] for exclusive licence rights in Australia for commercial development and management of the variety. If the 'breeding venture' referred to is the Australian National Apple Breeding Program, which is based at Manjimup Horticultural Research Institute, it includes many potential varieties. The cost of the program is shared between all the potential varieties and not to individual varieties. (a) If the question refers to the apple breeding program in which there are many potential varieties under evaluation, I refer to the answer provided to question 'h' of Legislative Assembly Question on Notice 357 in 2005. The direct investment "since 2001 has been - $428,725 in 2001/02, $534,517 in 2002/03, $482,365 in 2003/04, $477,160 in 2004/05", and is $545,342 for 2005/06. To date for this financial year the direct investment is $499,361. "These funds are made available from royalties from previous tree sales and research funds from Horticulture Australia Limited." (b) As indicated Western DawnA, previously called ST 23/74 has not been released. Therefore there has been no fruit of Western DawnA released for sale. "The variety [Big TimeA] was released with PBR protection, under licence agreement in 1996 to two nurseries in Australia (one major national nursery in the Eastern States and one nursery in Western Australia). Through this process there has been very limited uptake of the variety by industry." The Department does not have records of Big TimeA fruit sales. (c) As above, the Department has no records of Big TimeA fruit sales. There has been no Western DawnA [ST 23/74] fruit released for sale. (d) As above Western DawnA has not yet been released therefore there have been no sales. (e) There are no specific funding allocations to individual varieties. As detailed in the answer to question 'p' of Legislative Assembly Question on Notice 357 in 2005. In relation to Big TimeA: "There was no specific funding allocation to this variety." "The Department's records of domestic promotion and intellectual property protection show a total cost of $11,932." Since then there have been costs of $600 for annual Plant Breeders Rights fees bringing the total recorded costs to $12,532. The income from royalties is commercial information. As indicated above there has been very limited uptake of the variety Big TimeA by industry. However the direct costs attributed to this variety are only $12,532. Western DawnA [ST 23/74] is not yet released so there are no sales of this variety to date. (f) It is not appropriate to sell fruit prior to intellectual property protection of a variety nor before the commercialisation licence is in place. The Department however does use fruit for evaluation which is common practice in breeding projects, prior to commercial release. All fruit not used for evaluation is discarded without sale. When the commercialisation licence is in place, fruit will be able to be sold. (g) See (f) above. 2. The Government makes funding appropriations to the Department on an annual basis. This allocation process is informed by the Department's budget proposals which in turn are informed by input from stakeholders. Funds are then allocated by the Department to deliver outcomes for the State. The Director General of Agriculture is accountable for the delivery of these outcomes. (a) Specific priorities for research funding are determined by the Department via well developed needs analysis and investment decision making processes. The Department determines program and project level allocations within several priorities established by the Government. (b) The majority of research outputs are delivered by the Department often in partnership with other research funders and providers. The Department may contract service delivery by other parties where it considers the output or outcome is better achieved via that means. (c) Much of the work of the Department is co-funded by national industry based research and development corporations, National Co-operative Research Centres and Australian Government programs that ensure delivery of shared priorities at lower cost to the Government. 3. (a) This is a matter for the Department to determine. The Department of Agriculture and Food and Horticulture Australia Limited have well established processes for this purpose. (b) (i) Program and project costs are reviewed internally and externally. For the apple breeding program internal process are in place and the involvement of Apples and Pear Australia Limited and Horticulture Australia Limited provides external review mechanisms. All Departmental projects are subject to normal audit functions conducted by the Department's Internal Audit Branch and the Office of the Auditor-General. (ii) See (i) above. (iii) See (i) above. (iv) Industry and community outcomes are assessed where appropriate data is available. Stakeholder support for programs and projects is also assessed via industry and community consultation processes and customer surveys. (v) The normal range of accountability and transparency mechanisms an in place including Parliamentary reporting and scrutiny, public annual reporting, industry and community consultation, reporting to funding partners, Office of the Auditor-General, Freedom of Information and other means. 4. No. The National Apple Breeding Program is supported by both State funds in the form of royalties from released varieties and funding from the National apple industry (Apples and Pears Australia Limited) via Horticulture Australia Limited. The program has been subject to significant external scrutiny and has received positive reviews. Investment in plant breeding programs is long term and delivers long term benefits to industry and the economy. This investment supports future variety releases and cannot sensibly be considered as a 'loss', rather an investment in future delivery of new varieties. [1] A This symbol indicates that the variety is protected by Plant Breeder's Rights in Australia
It therefore falls outside the time span detailed in the question that commences in 2001. The variety referred to as ST 23/74, now named Western DawnA, is not yet released. It is subject to a Request for Proposal [AG2007111] for exclusive licence rights in Australia for commercial development and management of the variety. If the 'breeding venture' referred to is the Australian National Apple Breeding Program, which is based at Manjimup Horticultural Research Institute, it includes many potential varieties. The cost of the program is shared between all the potential varieties and not to individual varieties. (a) If the question refers to the apple breeding program in which there are many potential varieties under evaluation, I refer to the answer provided to question 'h' of Legislative Assembly Question on Notice 357 in 2005. The direct investment "since 2001 has been - $428,725 in 2001/02, $534,517 in 2002/03, $482,365 in 2003/04, $477,160 in 2004/05", and is $545,342 for 2005/06. To date for this financial year the direct investment is $499,361. "These funds are made available from royalties from previous tree sales and research funds from Horticulture Australia Limited." (b) As indicated Western DawnA, previously called ST 23/74 has not been released. Therefore there has been no fruit of Western DawnA released for sale. "The variety [Big TimeA] was released with PBR protection, under licence agreement in 1996 to two nurseries in Australia (one major national nursery in the Eastern States and one nursery in Western Australia). Through this process there has been very limited uptake of the variety by industry." The Department does not have records of Big TimeA fruit sales. (c) As above, the Department has no records of Big TimeA fruit sales. There has been no Western DawnA [ST 23/74] fruit released for sale. (d) As above Western DawnA has not yet been released therefore there have been no sales. (e) There are no specific funding allocations to individual varieties. As detailed in the answer to question 'p' of Legislative Assembly Question on Notice 357 in 2005. In relation to Big TimeA: "There was no specific funding allocation to this variety." "The Department's records of domestic promotion and intellectual property protection show a total cost of $11,932." Since then there have been costs of $600 for annual Plant Breeders Rights fees bringing the total recorded costs to $12,532. The income from royalties is commercial information. As indicated above there has been very limited uptake of the variety Big TimeA by industry. However the direct costs attributed to this variety are only $12,532. Western DawnA [ST 23/74] is not yet released so there are no sales of this variety to date. (f) It is not appropriate to sell fruit prior to intellectual property protection of a variety nor before the commercialisation licence is in place. The Department however does use fruit for evaluation which is common practice in breeding projects, prior to commercial release. All fruit not used for evaluation is discarded without sale. When the commercialisation licence is in place, fruit will be able to be sold. (g) See (f) above. 2. The Government makes funding appropriations to the Department on an annual basis. This allocation process is informed by the Department's budget proposals which in turn are informed by input from stakeholders. Funds are then allocated by the Department to deliver outcomes for the State. The Director General of Agriculture is accountable for the delivery of these outcomes. (a) Specific priorities for research funding are determined by the Department via well developed needs analysis and investment decision making processes. The Department determines program and project level allocations within several priorities established by the Government. (b) The majority of research outputs are delivered by the Department often in partnership with other research funders and providers. The Department may contract service delivery by other parties where it considers the output or outcome is better achieved via that means. (c) Much of the work of the Department is co-funded by national industry based research and development corporations, National Co-operative Research Centres and Australian Government programs that ensure delivery of shared priorities at lower cost to the Government. 3. (a) This is a matter for the Department to determine. The Department of Agriculture and Food and Horticulture Australia Limited have well established processes for this purpose. (b) (i) Program and project costs are reviewed internally and externally. For the apple breeding program internal process are in place and the involvement of Apples and Pear Australia Limited and Horticulture Australia Limited provides external review mechanisms. All Departmental projects are subject to normal audit functions conducted by the Department's Internal Audit Branch and the Office of the Auditor-General. (ii) See (i) above. (iii) See (i) above. (iv) Industry and community outcomes are assessed where appropriate data is available. Stakeholder support for programs and projects is also assessed via industry and community consultation processes and customer surveys. (v) The normal range of accountability and transparency mechanisms an in place including Parliamentary reporting and scrutiny, public annual reporting, industry and community consultation, reporting to funding partners, Office of the Auditor-General, Freedom of Information and other means. 4. No. The National Apple Breeding Program is supported by both State funds in the form of royalties from released varieties and funding from the National apple industry (Apples and Pears Australia Limited) via Horticulture Australia Limited. The program has been subject to significant external scrutiny and has received positive reviews. Investment in plant breeding programs is long term and delivers long term benefits to industry and the economy. This investment supports future variety releases and cannot sensibly be considered as a 'loss', rather an investment in future delivery of new varieties. [1] A This symbol indicates that the variety is protected by Plant Breeder's Rights in Australia
The variety referred to as ST 23/74, now named Western DawnA, is not yet released. It is subject to a Request for Proposal [AG2007111] for exclusive licence rights in Australia for commercial development and management of the variety. If the 'breeding venture' referred to is the Australian National Apple Breeding Program, which is based at Manjimup Horticultural Research Institute, it includes many potential varieties. The cost of the program is shared between all the potential varieties and not to individual varieties. (a) If the question refers to the apple breeding program in which there are many potential varieties under evaluation, I refer to the answer provided to question 'h' of Legislative Assembly Question on Notice 357 in 2005. The direct investment "since 2001 has been - $428,725 in 2001/02, $534,517 in 2002/03, $482,365 in 2003/04, $477,160 in 2004/05", and is $545,342 for 2005/06. To date for this financial year the direct investment is $499,361. "These funds are made available from royalties from previous tree sales and research funds from Horticulture Australia Limited." (b) As indicated Western DawnA, previously called ST 23/74 has not been released. Therefore there has been no fruit of Western DawnA released for sale. "The variety [Big TimeA] was released with PBR protection, under licence agreement in 1996 to two nurseries in Australia (one major national nursery in the Eastern States and one nursery in Western Australia). Through this process there has been very limited uptake of the variety by industry." The Department does not have records of Big TimeA fruit sales. (c) As above, the Department has no records of Big TimeA fruit sales. There has been no Western DawnA [ST 23/74] fruit released for sale. (d) As above Western DawnA has not yet been released therefore there have been no sales. (e) There are no specific funding allocations to individual varieties. As detailed in the answer to question 'p' of Legislative Assembly Question on Notice 357 in 2005. In relation to Big TimeA: "There was no specific funding allocation to this variety." "The Department's records of domestic promotion and intellectual property protection show a total cost of $11,932." Since then there have been costs of $600 for annual Plant Breeders Rights fees bringing the total recorded costs to $12,532. The income from royalties is commercial information. As indicated above there has been very limited uptake of the variety Big TimeA by industry. However the direct costs attributed to this variety are only $12,532. Western DawnA [ST 23/74] is not yet released so there are no sales of this variety to date. (f) It is not appropriate to sell fruit prior to intellectual property protection of a variety nor before the commercialisation licence is in place. The Department however does use fruit for evaluation which is common practice in breeding projects, prior to commercial release. All fruit not used for evaluation is discarded without sale. When the commercialisation licence is in place, fruit will be able to be sold. (g) See (f) above. 2. The Government makes funding appropriations to the Department on an annual basis. This allocation process is informed by the Department's budget proposals which in turn are informed by input from stakeholders. Funds are then allocated by the Department to deliver outcomes for the State. The Director General of Agriculture is accountable for the delivery of these outcomes. (a) Specific priorities for research funding are determined by the Department via well developed needs analysis and investment decision making processes. The Department determines program and project level allocations within several priorities established by the Government. (b) The majority of research outputs are delivered by the Department often in partnership with other research funders and providers. The Department may contract service delivery by other parties where it considers the output or outcome is better achieved via that means. (c) Much of the work of the Department is co-funded by national industry based research and development corporations, National Co-operative Research Centres and Australian Government programs that ensure delivery of shared priorities at lower cost to the Government. 3. (a) This is a matter for the Department to determine. The Department of Agriculture and Food and Horticulture Australia Limited have well established processes for this purpose. (b) (i) Program and project costs are reviewed internally and externally. For the apple breeding program internal process are in place and the involvement of Apples and Pear Australia Limited and Horticulture Australia Limited provides external review mechanisms. All Departmental projects are subject to normal audit functions conducted by the Department's Internal Audit Branch and the Office of the Auditor-General. (ii) See (i) above. (iii) See (i) above. (iv) Industry and community outcomes are assessed where appropriate data is available. Stakeholder support for programs and projects is also assessed via industry and community consultation processes and customer surveys. (v) The normal range of accountability and transparency mechanisms an in place including Parliamentary reporting and scrutiny, public annual reporting, industry and community consultation, reporting to funding partners, Office of the Auditor-General, Freedom of Information and other means. 4. No. The National Apple Breeding Program is supported by both State funds in the form of royalties from released varieties and funding from the National apple industry (Apples and Pears Australia Limited) via Horticulture Australia Limited. The program has been subject to significant external scrutiny and has received positive reviews. Investment in plant breeding programs is long term and delivers long term benefits to industry and the economy. This investment supports future variety releases and cannot sensibly be considered as a 'loss', rather an investment in future delivery of new varieties. [1] A This symbol indicates that the variety is protected by Plant Breeder's Rights in Australia
If the 'breeding venture' referred to is the Australian National Apple Breeding Program, which is based at Manjimup Horticultural Research Institute, it includes many potential varieties. The cost of the program is shared between all the potential varieties and not to individual varieties. (a) If the question refers to the apple breeding program in which there are many potential varieties under evaluation, I refer to the answer provided to question 'h' of Legislative Assembly Question on Notice 357 in 2005. The direct investment "since 2001 has been - $428,725 in 2001/02, $534,517 in 2002/03, $482,365 in 2003/04, $477,160 in 2004/05", and is $545,342 for 2005/06. To date for this financial year the direct investment is $499,361. "These funds are made available from royalties from previous tree sales and research funds from Horticulture Australia Limited." (b) As indicated Western DawnA, previously called ST 23/74 has not been released. Therefore there has been no fruit of Western DawnA released for sale. "The variety [Big TimeA] was released with PBR protection, under licence agreement in 1996 to two nurseries in Australia (one major national nursery in the Eastern States and one nursery in Western Australia). Through this process there has been very limited uptake of the variety by industry." The Department does not have records of Big TimeA fruit sales. (c) As above, the Department has no records of Big TimeA fruit sales. There has been no Western DawnA [ST 23/74] fruit released for sale. (d) As above Western DawnA has not yet been released therefore there have been no sales. (e) There are no specific funding allocations to individual varieties. As detailed in the answer to question 'p' of Legislative Assembly Question on Notice 357 in 2005. In relation to Big TimeA: "There was no specific funding allocation to this variety." "The Department's records of domestic promotion and intellectual property protection show a total cost of $11,932." Since then there have been costs of $600 for annual Plant Breeders Rights fees bringing the total recorded costs to $12,532. The income from royalties is commercial information. As indicated above there has been very limited uptake of the variety Big TimeA by industry. However the direct costs attributed to this variety are only $12,532. Western DawnA [ST 23/74] is not yet released so there are no sales of this variety to date. (f) It is not appropriate to sell fruit prior to intellectual property protection of a variety nor before the commercialisation licence is in place. The Department however does use fruit for evaluation which is common practice in breeding projects, prior to commercial release. All fruit not used for evaluation is discarded without sale. When the commercialisation licence is in place, fruit will be able to be sold. (g) See (f) above. 2. The Government makes funding appropriations to the Department on an annual basis. This allocation process is informed by the Department's budget proposals which in turn are informed by input from stakeholders. Funds are then allocated by the Department to deliver outcomes for the State. The Director General of Agriculture is accountable for the delivery of these outcomes. (a) Specific priorities for research funding are determined by the Department via well developed needs analysis and investment decision making processes. The Department determines program and project level allocations within several priorities established by the Government. (b) The majority of research outputs are delivered by the Department often in partnership with other research funders and providers. The Department may contract service delivery by other parties where it considers the output or outcome is better achieved via that means. (c) Much of the work of the Department is co-funded by national industry based research and development corporations, National Co-operative Research Centres and Australian Government programs that ensure delivery of shared priorities at lower cost to the Government. 3. (a) This is a matter for the Department to determine. The Department of Agriculture and Food and Horticulture Australia Limited have well established processes for this purpose. (b) (i) Program and project costs are reviewed internally and externally. For the apple breeding program internal process are in place and the involvement of Apples and Pear Australia Limited and Horticulture Australia Limited provides external review mechanisms. All Departmental projects are subject to normal audit functions conducted by the Department's Internal Audit Branch and the Office of the Auditor-General. (ii) See (i) above. (iii) See (i) above. (iv) Industry and community outcomes are assessed where appropriate data is available. Stakeholder support for programs and projects is also assessed via industry and community consultation processes and customer surveys. (v) The normal range of accountability and transparency mechanisms an in place including Parliamentary reporting and scrutiny, public annual reporting, industry and community consultation, reporting to funding partners, Office of the Auditor-General, Freedom of Information and other means. 4. No. The National Apple Breeding Program is supported by both State funds in the form of royalties from released varieties and funding from the National apple industry (Apples and Pears Australia Limited) via Horticulture Australia Limited. The program has been subject to significant external scrutiny and has received positive reviews. Investment in plant breeding programs is long term and delivers long term benefits to industry and the economy. This investment supports future variety releases and cannot sensibly be considered as a 'loss', rather an investment in future delivery of new varieties. [1] A This symbol indicates that the variety is protected by Plant Breeder's Rights in Australia
(a) If the question refers to the apple breeding program in which there are many potential varieties under evaluation, I refer to the answer provided to question 'h' of Legislative Assembly Question on Notice 357 in 2005. The direct investment "since 2001 has been - $428,725 in 2001/02, $534,517 in 2002/03, $482,365 in 2003/04, $477,160 in 2004/05", and is $545,342 for 2005/06. To date for this financial year the direct investment is $499,361. "These funds are made available from royalties from previous tree sales and research funds from Horticulture Australia Limited." (b) As indicated Western DawnA, previously called ST 23/74 has not been released. Therefore there has been no fruit of Western DawnA released for sale. "The variety [Big TimeA] was released with PBR protection, under licence agreement in 1996 to two nurseries in Australia (one major national nursery in the Eastern States and one nursery in Western Australia). Through this process there has been very limited uptake of the variety by industry." The Department does not have records of Big TimeA fruit sales. (c) As above, the Department has no records of Big TimeA fruit sales. There has been no Western DawnA [ST 23/74] fruit released for sale. (d) As above Western DawnA has not yet been released therefore there have been no sales. (e) There are no specific funding allocations to individual varieties. As detailed in the answer to question 'p' of Legislative Assembly Question on Notice 357 in 2005. In relation to Big TimeA: "There was no specific funding allocation to this variety." "The Department's records of domestic promotion and intellectual property protection show a total cost of $11,932." Since then there have been costs of $600 for annual Plant Breeders Rights fees bringing the total recorded costs to $12,532. The income from royalties is commercial information. As indicated above there has been very limited uptake of the variety Big TimeA by industry. However the direct costs attributed to this variety are only $12,532. Western DawnA [ST 23/74] is not yet released so there are no sales of this variety to date. (f) It is not appropriate to sell fruit prior to intellectual property protection of a variety nor before the commercialisation licence is in place. The Department however does use fruit for evaluation which is common practice in breeding projects, prior to commercial release. All fruit not used for evaluation is discarded without sale. When the commercialisation licence is in place, fruit will be able to be sold. (g) See (f) above. 2. The Government makes funding appropriations to the Department on an annual basis. This allocation process is informed by the Department's budget proposals which in turn are informed by input from stakeholders. Funds are then allocated by the Department to deliver outcomes for the State. The Director General of Agriculture is accountable for the delivery of these outcomes. (a) Specific priorities for research funding are determined by the Department via well developed needs analysis and investment decision making processes. The Department determines program and project level allocations within several priorities established by the Government. (b) The majority of research outputs are delivered by the Department often in partnership with other research funders and providers. The Department may contract service delivery by other parties where it considers the output or outcome is better achieved via that means. (c) Much of the work of the Department is co-funded by national industry based research and development corporations, National Co-operative Research Centres and Australian Government programs that ensure delivery of shared priorities at lower cost to the Government. 3. (a) This is a matter for the Department to determine. The Department of Agriculture and Food and Horticulture Australia Limited have well established processes for this purpose. (b) (i) Program and project costs are reviewed internally and externally. For the apple breeding program internal process are in place and the involvement of Apples and Pear Australia Limited and Horticulture Australia Limited provides external review mechanisms. All Departmental projects are subject to normal audit functions conducted by the Department's Internal Audit Branch and the Office of the Auditor-General. (ii) See (i) above. (iii) See (i) above. (iv) Industry and community outcomes are assessed where appropriate data is available. Stakeholder support for programs and projects is also assessed via industry and community consultation processes and customer surveys. (v) The normal range of accountability and transparency mechanisms an in place including Parliamentary reporting and scrutiny, public annual reporting, industry and community consultation, reporting to funding partners, Office of the Auditor-General, Freedom of Information and other means. 4. No. The National Apple Breeding Program is supported by both State funds in the form of royalties from released varieties and funding from the National apple industry (Apples and Pears Australia Limited) via Horticulture Australia Limited. The program has been subject to significant external scrutiny and has received positive reviews. Investment in plant breeding programs is long term and delivers long term benefits to industry and the economy. This investment supports future variety releases and cannot sensibly be considered as a 'loss', rather an investment in future delivery of new varieties. [1] A This symbol indicates that the variety is protected by Plant Breeder's Rights in Australia
The direct investment "since 2001 has been - $428,725 in 2001/02, $534,517 in 2002/03, $482,365 in 2003/04, $477,160 in 2004/05", and is $545,342 for 2005/06. To date for this financial year the direct investment is $499,361. "These funds are made available from royalties from previous tree sales and research funds from Horticulture Australia Limited." (b) As indicated Western DawnA, previously called ST 23/74 has not been released. Therefore there has been no fruit of Western DawnA released for sale. "The variety [Big TimeA] was released with PBR protection, under licence agreement in 1996 to two nurseries in Australia (one major national nursery in the Eastern States and one nursery in Western Australia). Through this process there has been very limited uptake of the variety by industry." The Department does not have records of Big TimeA fruit sales. (c) As above, the Department has no records of Big TimeA fruit sales. There has been no Western DawnA [ST 23/74] fruit released for sale. (d) As above Western DawnA has not yet been released therefore there have been no sales. (e) There are no specific funding allocations to individual varieties. As detailed in the answer to question 'p' of Legislative Assembly Question on Notice 357 in 2005. In relation to Big TimeA: "There was no specific funding allocation to this variety." "The Department's records of domestic promotion and intellectual property protection show a total cost of $11,932." Since then there have been costs of $600 for annual Plant Breeders Rights fees bringing the total recorded costs to $12,532. The income from royalties is commercial information. As indicated above there has been very limited uptake of the variety Big TimeA by industry. However the direct costs attributed to this variety are only $12,532. Western DawnA [ST 23/74] is not yet released so there are no sales of this variety to date. (f) It is not appropriate to sell fruit prior to intellectual property protection of a variety nor before the commercialisation licence is in place. The Department however does use fruit for evaluation which is common practice in breeding projects, prior to commercial release. All fruit not used for evaluation is discarded without sale. When the commercialisation licence is in place, fruit will be able to be sold. (g) See (f) above. 2. The Government makes funding appropriations to the Department on an annual basis. This allocation process is informed by the Department's budget proposals which in turn are informed by input from stakeholders. Funds are then allocated by the Department to deliver outcomes for the State. The Director General of Agriculture is accountable for the delivery of these outcomes. (a) Specific priorities for research funding are determined by the Department via well developed needs analysis and investment decision making processes. The Department determines program and project level allocations within several priorities established by the Government. (b) The majority of research outputs are delivered by the Department often in partnership with other research funders and providers. The Department may contract service delivery by other parties where it considers the output or outcome is better achieved via that means. (c) Much of the work of the Department is co-funded by national industry based research and development corporations, National Co-operative Research Centres and Australian Government programs that ensure delivery of shared priorities at lower cost to the Government. 3. (a) This is a matter for the Department to determine. The Department of Agriculture and Food and Horticulture Australia Limited have well established processes for this purpose. (b) (i) Program and project costs are reviewed internally and externally. For the apple breeding program internal process are in place and the involvement of Apples and Pear Australia Limited and Horticulture Australia Limited provides external review mechanisms. All Departmental projects are subject to normal audit functions conducted by the Department's Internal Audit Branch and the Office of the Auditor-General. (ii) See (i) above. (iii) See (i) above. (iv) Industry and community outcomes are assessed where appropriate data is available. Stakeholder support for programs and projects is also assessed via industry and community consultation processes and customer surveys. (v) The normal range of accountability and transparency mechanisms an in place including Parliamentary reporting and scrutiny, public annual reporting, industry and community consultation, reporting to funding partners, Office of the Auditor-General, Freedom of Information and other means. 4. No. The National Apple Breeding Program is supported by both State funds in the form of royalties from released varieties and funding from the National apple industry (Apples and Pears Australia Limited) via Horticulture Australia Limited. The program has been subject to significant external scrutiny and has received positive reviews. Investment in plant breeding programs is long term and delivers long term benefits to industry and the economy. This investment supports future variety releases and cannot sensibly be considered as a 'loss', rather an investment in future delivery of new varieties. [1] A This symbol indicates that the variety is protected by Plant Breeder's Rights in Australia
"These funds are made available from royalties from previous tree sales and research funds from Horticulture Australia Limited." (b) As indicated Western DawnA, previously called ST 23/74 has not been released. Therefore there has been no fruit of Western DawnA released for sale. "The variety [Big TimeA] was released with PBR protection, under licence agreement in 1996 to two nurseries in Australia (one major national nursery in the Eastern States and one nursery in Western Australia). Through this process there has been very limited uptake of the variety by industry." The Department does not have records of Big TimeA fruit sales. (c) As above, the Department has no records of Big TimeA fruit sales. There has been no Western DawnA [ST 23/74] fruit released for sale. (d) As above Western DawnA has not yet been released therefore there have been no sales. (e) There are no specific funding allocations to individual varieties. As detailed in the answer to question 'p' of Legislative Assembly Question on Notice 357 in 2005. In relation to Big TimeA: "There was no specific funding allocation to this variety." "The Department's records of domestic promotion and intellectual property protection show a total cost of $11,932." Since then there have been costs of $600 for annual Plant Breeders Rights fees bringing the total recorded costs to $12,532. The income from royalties is commercial information. As indicated above there has been very limited uptake of the variety Big TimeA by industry. However the direct costs attributed to this variety are only $12,532. Western DawnA [ST 23/74] is not yet released so there are no sales of this variety to date. (f) It is not appropriate to sell fruit prior to intellectual property protection of a variety nor before the commercialisation licence is in place. The Department however does use fruit for evaluation which is common practice in breeding projects, prior to commercial release. All fruit not used for evaluation is discarded without sale. When the commercialisation licence is in place, fruit will be able to be sold. (g) See (f) above. 2. The Government makes funding appropriations to the Department on an annual basis. This allocation process is informed by the Department's budget proposals which in turn are informed by input from stakeholders. Funds are then allocated by the Department to deliver outcomes for the State. The Director General of Agriculture is accountable for the delivery of these outcomes. (a) Specific priorities for research funding are determined by the Department via well developed needs analysis and investment decision making processes. The Department determines program and project level allocations within several priorities established by the Government. (b) The majority of research outputs are delivered by the Department often in partnership with other research funders and providers. The Department may contract service delivery by other parties where it considers the output or outcome is better achieved via that means. (c) Much of the work of the Department is co-funded by national industry based research and development corporations, National Co-operative Research Centres and Australian Government programs that ensure delivery of shared priorities at lower cost to the Government. 3. (a) This is a matter for the Department to determine. The Department of Agriculture and Food and Horticulture Australia Limited have well established processes for this purpose. (b) (i) Program and project costs are reviewed internally and externally. For the apple breeding program internal process are in place and the involvement of Apples and Pear Australia Limited and Horticulture Australia Limited provides external review mechanisms. All Departmental projects are subject to normal audit functions conducted by the Department's Internal Audit Branch and the Office of the Auditor-General. (ii) See (i) above. (iii) See (i) above. (iv) Industry and community outcomes are assessed where appropriate data is available. Stakeholder support for programs and projects is also assessed via industry and community consultation processes and customer surveys. (v) The normal range of accountability and transparency mechanisms an in place including Parliamentary reporting and scrutiny, public annual reporting, industry and community consultation, reporting to funding partners, Office of the Auditor-General, Freedom of Information and other means. 4. No. The National Apple Breeding Program is supported by both State funds in the form of royalties from released varieties and funding from the National apple industry (Apples and Pears Australia Limited) via Horticulture Australia Limited. The program has been subject to significant external scrutiny and has received positive reviews. Investment in plant breeding programs is long term and delivers long term benefits to industry and the economy. This investment supports future variety releases and cannot sensibly be considered as a 'loss', rather an investment in future delivery of new varieties. [1] A This symbol indicates that the variety is protected by Plant Breeder's Rights in Australia
(b) As indicated Western DawnA, previously called ST 23/74 has not been released. Therefore there has been no fruit of Western DawnA released for sale. "The variety [Big TimeA] was released with PBR protection, under licence agreement in 1996 to two nurseries in Australia (one major national nursery in the Eastern States and one nursery in Western Australia). Through this process there has been very limited uptake of the variety by industry." The Department does not have records of Big TimeA fruit sales. (c) As above, the Department has no records of Big TimeA fruit sales. There has been no Western DawnA [ST 23/74] fruit released for sale. (d) As above Western DawnA has not yet been released therefore there have been no sales. (e) There are no specific funding allocations to individual varieties. As detailed in the answer to question 'p' of Legislative Assembly Question on Notice 357 in 2005. In relation to Big TimeA: "There was no specific funding allocation to this variety." "The Department's records of domestic promotion and intellectual property protection show a total cost of $11,932." Since then there have been costs of $600 for annual Plant Breeders Rights fees bringing the total recorded costs to $12,532. The income from royalties is commercial information. As indicated above there has been very limited uptake of the variety Big TimeA by industry. However the direct costs attributed to this variety are only $12,532. Western DawnA [ST 23/74] is not yet released so there are no sales of this variety to date. (f) It is not appropriate to sell fruit prior to intellectual property protection of a variety nor before the commercialisation licence is in place. The Department however does use fruit for evaluation which is common practice in breeding projects, prior to commercial release. All fruit not used for evaluation is discarded without sale. When the commercialisation licence is in place, fruit will be able to be sold. (g) See (f) above. 2. The Government makes funding appropriations to the Department on an annual basis. This allocation process is informed by the Department's budget proposals which in turn are informed by input from stakeholders. Funds are then allocated by the Department to deliver outcomes for the State. The Director General of Agriculture is accountable for the delivery of these outcomes. (a) Specific priorities for research funding are determined by the Department via well developed needs analysis and investment decision making processes. The Department determines program and project level allocations within several priorities established by the Government. (b) The majority of research outputs are delivered by the Department often in partnership with other research funders and providers. The Department may contract service delivery by other parties where it considers the output or outcome is better achieved via that means. (c) Much of the work of the Department is co-funded by national industry based research and development corporations, National Co-operative Research Centres and Australian Government programs that ensure delivery of shared priorities at lower cost to the Government. 3. (a) This is a matter for the Department to determine. The Department of Agriculture and Food and Horticulture Australia Limited have well established processes for this purpose. (b) (i) Program and project costs are reviewed internally and externally. For the apple breeding program internal process are in place and the involvement of Apples and Pear Australia Limited and Horticulture Australia Limited provides external review mechanisms. All Departmental projects are subject to normal audit functions conducted by the Department's Internal Audit Branch and the Office of the Auditor-General. (ii) See (i) above. (iii) See (i) above. (iv) Industry and community outcomes are assessed where appropriate data is available. Stakeholder support for programs and projects is also assessed via industry and community consultation processes and customer surveys. (v) The normal range of accountability and transparency mechanisms an in place including Parliamentary reporting and scrutiny, public annual reporting, industry and community consultation, reporting to funding partners, Office of the Auditor-General, Freedom of Information and other means. 4. No. The National Apple Breeding Program is supported by both State funds in the form of royalties from released varieties and funding from the National apple industry (Apples and Pears Australia Limited) via Horticulture Australia Limited. The program has been subject to significant external scrutiny and has received positive reviews. Investment in plant breeding programs is long term and delivers long term benefits to industry and the economy. This investment supports future variety releases and cannot sensibly be considered as a 'loss', rather an investment in future delivery of new varieties. [1] A This symbol indicates that the variety is protected by Plant Breeder's Rights in Australia
"The variety [Big TimeA] was released with PBR protection, under licence agreement in 1996 to two nurseries in Australia (one major national nursery in the Eastern States and one nursery in Western Australia). Through this process there has been very limited uptake of the variety by industry." The Department does not have records of Big TimeA fruit sales. (c) As above, the Department has no records of Big TimeA fruit sales. There has been no Western DawnA [ST 23/74] fruit released for sale. (d) As above Western DawnA has not yet been released therefore there have been no sales. (e) There are no specific funding allocations to individual varieties. As detailed in the answer to question 'p' of Legislative Assembly Question on Notice 357 in 2005. In relation to Big TimeA: "There was no specific funding allocation to this variety." "The Department's records of domestic promotion and intellectual property protection show a total cost of $11,932." Since then there have been costs of $600 for annual Plant Breeders Rights fees bringing the total recorded costs to $12,532. The income from royalties is commercial information. As indicated above there has been very limited uptake of the variety Big TimeA by industry. However the direct costs attributed to this variety are only $12,532. Western DawnA [ST 23/74] is not yet released so there are no sales of this variety to date. (f) It is not appropriate to sell fruit prior to intellectual property protection of a variety nor before the commercialisation licence is in place. The Department however does use fruit for evaluation which is common practice in breeding projects, prior to commercial release. All fruit not used for evaluation is discarded without sale. When the commercialisation licence is in place, fruit will be able to be sold. (g) See (f) above. 2. The Government makes funding appropriations to the Department on an annual basis. This allocation process is informed by the Department's budget proposals which in turn are informed by input from stakeholders. Funds are then allocated by the Department to deliver outcomes for the State. The Director General of Agriculture is accountable for the delivery of these outcomes. (a) Specific priorities for research funding are determined by the Department via well developed needs analysis and investment decision making processes. The Department determines program and project level allocations within several priorities established by the Government. (b) The majority of research outputs are delivered by the Department often in partnership with other research funders and providers. The Department may contract service delivery by other parties where it considers the output or outcome is better achieved via that means. (c) Much of the work of the Department is co-funded by national industry based research and development corporations, National Co-operative Research Centres and Australian Government programs that ensure delivery of shared priorities at lower cost to the Government. 3. (a) This is a matter for the Department to determine. The Department of Agriculture and Food and Horticulture Australia Limited have well established processes for this purpose. (b) (i) Program and project costs are reviewed internally and externally. For the apple breeding program internal process are in place and the involvement of Apples and Pear Australia Limited and Horticulture Australia Limited provides external review mechanisms. All Departmental projects are subject to normal audit functions conducted by the Department's Internal Audit Branch and the Office of the Auditor-General. (ii) See (i) above. (iii) See (i) above. (iv) Industry and community outcomes are assessed where appropriate data is available. Stakeholder support for programs and projects is also assessed via industry and community consultation processes and customer surveys. (v) The normal range of accountability and transparency mechanisms an in place including Parliamentary reporting and scrutiny, public annual reporting, industry and community consultation, reporting to funding partners, Office of the Auditor-General, Freedom of Information and other means. 4. No. The National Apple Breeding Program is supported by both State funds in the form of royalties from released varieties and funding from the National apple industry (Apples and Pears Australia Limited) via Horticulture Australia Limited. The program has been subject to significant external scrutiny and has received positive reviews. Investment in plant breeding programs is long term and delivers long term benefits to industry and the economy. This investment supports future variety releases and cannot sensibly be considered as a 'loss', rather an investment in future delivery of new varieties. [1] A This symbol indicates that the variety is protected by Plant Breeder's Rights in Australia
The Department does not have records of Big TimeA fruit sales. (c) As above, the Department has no records of Big TimeA fruit sales. There has been no Western DawnA [ST 23/74] fruit released for sale. (d) As above Western DawnA has not yet been released therefore there have been no sales. (e) There are no specific funding allocations to individual varieties. As detailed in the answer to question 'p' of Legislative Assembly Question on Notice 357 in 2005. In relation to Big TimeA: "There was no specific funding allocation to this variety." "The Department's records of domestic promotion and intellectual property protection show a total cost of $11,932." Since then there have been costs of $600 for annual Plant Breeders Rights fees bringing the total recorded costs to $12,532. The income from royalties is commercial information. As indicated above there has been very limited uptake of the variety Big TimeA by industry. However the direct costs attributed to this variety are only $12,532. Western DawnA [ST 23/74] is not yet released so there are no sales of this variety to date. (f) It is not appropriate to sell fruit prior to intellectual property protection of a variety nor before the commercialisation licence is in place. The Department however does use fruit for evaluation which is common practice in breeding projects, prior to commercial release. All fruit not used for evaluation is discarded without sale. When the commercialisation licence is in place, fruit will be able to be sold. (g) See (f) above. 2. The Government makes funding appropriations to the Department on an annual basis. This allocation process is informed by the Department's budget proposals which in turn are informed by input from stakeholders. Funds are then allocated by the Department to deliver outcomes for the State. The Director General of Agriculture is accountable for the delivery of these outcomes. (a) Specific priorities for research funding are determined by the Department via well developed needs analysis and investment decision making processes. The Department determines program and project level allocations within several priorities established by the Government. (b) The majority of research outputs are delivered by the Department often in partnership with other research funders and providers. The Department may contract service delivery by other parties where it considers the output or outcome is better achieved via that means. (c) Much of the work of the Department is co-funded by national industry based research and development corporations, National Co-operative Research Centres and Australian Government programs that ensure delivery of shared priorities at lower cost to the Government. 3. (a) This is a matter for the Department to determine. The Department of Agriculture and Food and Horticulture Australia Limited have well established processes for this purpose. (b) (i) Program and project costs are reviewed internally and externally. For the apple breeding program internal process are in place and the involvement of Apples and Pear Australia Limited and Horticulture Australia Limited provides external review mechanisms. All Departmental projects are subject to normal audit functions conducted by the Department's Internal Audit Branch and the Office of the Auditor-General. (ii) See (i) above. (iii) See (i) above. (iv) Industry and community outcomes are assessed where appropriate data is available. Stakeholder support for programs and projects is also assessed via industry and community consultation processes and customer surveys. (v) The normal range of accountability and transparency mechanisms an in place including Parliamentary reporting and scrutiny, public annual reporting, industry and community consultation, reporting to funding partners, Office of the Auditor-General, Freedom of Information and other means. 4. No. The National Apple Breeding Program is supported by both State funds in the form of royalties from released varieties and funding from the National apple industry (Apples and Pears Australia Limited) via Horticulture Australia Limited. The program has been subject to significant external scrutiny and has received positive reviews. Investment in plant breeding programs is long term and delivers long term benefits to industry and the economy. This investment supports future variety releases and cannot sensibly be considered as a 'loss', rather an investment in future delivery of new varieties. [1] A This symbol indicates that the variety is protected by Plant Breeder's Rights in Australia
(c) As above, the Department has no records of Big TimeA fruit sales. There has been no Western DawnA [ST 23/74] fruit released for sale. (d) As above Western DawnA has not yet been released therefore there have been no sales. (e) There are no specific funding allocations to individual varieties. As detailed in the answer to question 'p' of Legislative Assembly Question on Notice 357 in 2005. In relation to Big TimeA: "There was no specific funding allocation to this variety." "The Department's records of domestic promotion and intellectual property protection show a total cost of $11,932." Since then there have been costs of $600 for annual Plant Breeders Rights fees bringing the total recorded costs to $12,532. The income from royalties is commercial information. As indicated above there has been very limited uptake of the variety Big TimeA by industry. However the direct costs attributed to this variety are only $12,532. Western DawnA [ST 23/74] is not yet released so there are no sales of this variety to date. (f) It is not appropriate to sell fruit prior to intellectual property protection of a variety nor before the commercialisation licence is in place. The Department however does use fruit for evaluation which is common practice in breeding projects, prior to commercial release. All fruit not used for evaluation is discarded without sale. When the commercialisation licence is in place, fruit will be able to be sold. (g) See (f) above. 2. The Government makes funding appropriations to the Department on an annual basis. This allocation process is informed by the Department's budget proposals which in turn are informed by input from stakeholders. Funds are then allocated by the Department to deliver outcomes for the State. The Director General of Agriculture is accountable for the delivery of these outcomes. (a) Specific priorities for research funding are determined by the Department via well developed needs analysis and investment decision making processes. The Department determines program and project level allocations within several priorities established by the Government. (b) The majority of research outputs are delivered by the Department often in partnership with other research funders and providers. The Department may contract service delivery by other parties where it considers the output or outcome is better achieved via that means. (c) Much of the work of the Department is co-funded by national industry based research and development corporations, National Co-operative Research Centres and Australian Government programs that ensure delivery of shared priorities at lower cost to the Government. 3. (a) This is a matter for the Department to determine. The Department of Agriculture and Food and Horticulture Australia Limited have well established processes for this purpose. (b) (i) Program and project costs are reviewed internally and externally. For the apple breeding program internal process are in place and the involvement of Apples and Pear Australia Limited and Horticulture Australia Limited provides external review mechanisms. All Departmental projects are subject to normal audit functions conducted by the Department's Internal Audit Branch and the Office of the Auditor-General. (ii) See (i) above. (iii) See (i) above. (iv) Industry and community outcomes are assessed where appropriate data is available. Stakeholder support for programs and projects is also assessed via industry and community consultation processes and customer surveys. (v) The normal range of accountability and transparency mechanisms an in place including Parliamentary reporting and scrutiny, public annual reporting, industry and community consultation, reporting to funding partners, Office of the Auditor-General, Freedom of Information and other means. 4. No. The National Apple Breeding Program is supported by both State funds in the form of royalties from released varieties and funding from the National apple industry (Apples and Pears Australia Limited) via Horticulture Australia Limited. The program has been subject to significant external scrutiny and has received positive reviews. Investment in plant breeding programs is long term and delivers long term benefits to industry and the economy. This investment supports future variety releases and cannot sensibly be considered as a 'loss', rather an investment in future delivery of new varieties. [1] A This symbol indicates that the variety is protected by Plant Breeder's Rights in Australia
(d) As above Western DawnA has not yet been released therefore there have been no sales. (e) There are no specific funding allocations to individual varieties. As detailed in the answer to question 'p' of Legislative Assembly Question on Notice 357 in 2005. In relation to Big TimeA: "There was no specific funding allocation to this variety." "The Department's records of domestic promotion and intellectual property protection show a total cost of $11,932." Since then there have been costs of $600 for annual Plant Breeders Rights fees bringing the total recorded costs to $12,532. The income from royalties is commercial information. As indicated above there has been very limited uptake of the variety Big TimeA by industry. However the direct costs attributed to this variety are only $12,532. Western DawnA [ST 23/74] is not yet released so there are no sales of this variety to date. (f) It is not appropriate to sell fruit prior to intellectual property protection of a variety nor before the commercialisation licence is in place. The Department however does use fruit for evaluation which is common practice in breeding projects, prior to commercial release. All fruit not used for evaluation is discarded without sale. When the commercialisation licence is in place, fruit will be able to be sold. (g) See (f) above. 2. The Government makes funding appropriations to the Department on an annual basis. This allocation process is informed by the Department's budget proposals which in turn are informed by input from stakeholders. Funds are then allocated by the Department to deliver outcomes for the State. The Director General of Agriculture is accountable for the delivery of these outcomes. (a) Specific priorities for research funding are determined by the Department via well developed needs analysis and investment decision making processes. The Department determines program and project level allocations within several priorities established by the Government. (b) The majority of research outputs are delivered by the Department often in partnership with other research funders and providers. The Department may contract service delivery by other parties where it considers the output or outcome is better achieved via that means. (c) Much of the work of the Department is co-funded by national industry based research and development corporations, National Co-operative Research Centres and Australian Government programs that ensure delivery of shared priorities at lower cost to the Government. 3. (a) This is a matter for the Department to determine. The Department of Agriculture and Food and Horticulture Australia Limited have well established processes for this purpose. (b) (i) Program and project costs are reviewed internally and externally. For the apple breeding program internal process are in place and the involvement of Apples and Pear Australia Limited and Horticulture Australia Limited provides external review mechanisms. All Departmental projects are subject to normal audit functions conducted by the Department's Internal Audit Branch and the Office of the Auditor-General. (ii) See (i) above. (iii) See (i) above. (iv) Industry and community outcomes are assessed where appropriate data is available. Stakeholder support for programs and projects is also assessed via industry and community consultation processes and customer surveys. (v) The normal range of accountability and transparency mechanisms an in place including Parliamentary reporting and scrutiny, public annual reporting, industry and community consultation, reporting to funding partners, Office of the Auditor-General, Freedom of Information and other means. 4. No. The National Apple Breeding Program is supported by both State funds in the form of royalties from released varieties and funding from the National apple industry (Apples and Pears Australia Limited) via Horticulture Australia Limited. The program has been subject to significant external scrutiny and has received positive reviews. Investment in plant breeding programs is long term and delivers long term benefits to industry and the economy. This investment supports future variety releases and cannot sensibly be considered as a 'loss', rather an investment in future delivery of new varieties. [1] A This symbol indicates that the variety is protected by Plant Breeder's Rights in Australia
(e) There are no specific funding allocations to individual varieties. As detailed in the answer to question 'p' of Legislative Assembly Question on Notice 357 in 2005. In relation to Big TimeA: "There was no specific funding allocation to this variety." "The Department's records of domestic promotion and intellectual property protection show a total cost of $11,932." Since then there have been costs of $600 for annual Plant Breeders Rights fees bringing the total recorded costs to $12,532. The income from royalties is commercial information. As indicated above there has been very limited uptake of the variety Big TimeA by industry. However the direct costs attributed to this variety are only $12,532. Western DawnA [ST 23/74] is not yet released so there are no sales of this variety to date. (f) It is not appropriate to sell fruit prior to intellectual property protection of a variety nor before the commercialisation licence is in place. The Department however does use fruit for evaluation which is common practice in breeding projects, prior to commercial release. All fruit not used for evaluation is discarded without sale. When the commercialisation licence is in place, fruit will be able to be sold. (g) See (f) above. 2. The Government makes funding appropriations to the Department on an annual basis. This allocation process is informed by the Department's budget proposals which in turn are informed by input from stakeholders. Funds are then allocated by the Department to deliver outcomes for the State. The Director General of Agriculture is accountable for the delivery of these outcomes. (a) Specific priorities for research funding are determined by the Department via well developed needs analysis and investment decision making processes. The Department determines program and project level allocations within several priorities established by the Government. (b) The majority of research outputs are delivered by the Department often in partnership with other research funders and providers. The Department may contract service delivery by other parties where it considers the output or outcome is better achieved via that means. (c) Much of the work of the Department is co-funded by national industry based research and development corporations, National Co-operative Research Centres and Australian Government programs that ensure delivery of shared priorities at lower cost to the Government. 3. (a) This is a matter for the Department to determine. The Department of Agriculture and Food and Horticulture Australia Limited have well established processes for this purpose. (b) (i) Program and project costs are reviewed internally and externally. For the apple breeding program internal process are in place and the involvement of Apples and Pear Australia Limited and Horticulture Australia Limited provides external review mechanisms. All Departmental projects are subject to normal audit functions conducted by the Department's Internal Audit Branch and the Office of the Auditor-General. (ii) See (i) above. (iii) See (i) above. (iv) Industry and community outcomes are assessed where appropriate data is available. Stakeholder support for programs and projects is also assessed via industry and community consultation processes and customer surveys. (v) The normal range of accountability and transparency mechanisms an in place including Parliamentary reporting and scrutiny, public annual reporting, industry and community consultation, reporting to funding partners, Office of the Auditor-General, Freedom of Information and other means. 4. No. The National Apple Breeding Program is supported by both State funds in the form of royalties from released varieties and funding from the National apple industry (Apples and Pears Australia Limited) via Horticulture Australia Limited. The program has been subject to significant external scrutiny and has received positive reviews. Investment in plant breeding programs is long term and delivers long term benefits to industry and the economy. This investment supports future variety releases and cannot sensibly be considered as a 'loss', rather an investment in future delivery of new varieties. [1] A This symbol indicates that the variety is protected by Plant Breeder's Rights in Australia
As detailed in the answer to question 'p' of Legislative Assembly Question on Notice 357 in 2005. In relation to Big TimeA: "There was no specific funding allocation to this variety." "The Department's records of domestic promotion and intellectual property protection show a total cost of $11,932." Since then there have been costs of $600 for annual Plant Breeders Rights fees bringing the total recorded costs to $12,532. The income from royalties is commercial information. As indicated above there has been very limited uptake of the variety Big TimeA by industry. However the direct costs attributed to this variety are only $12,532. Western DawnA [ST 23/74] is not yet released so there are no sales of this variety to date. (f) It is not appropriate to sell fruit prior to intellectual property protection of a variety nor before the commercialisation licence is in place. The Department however does use fruit for evaluation which is common practice in breeding projects, prior to commercial release. All fruit not used for evaluation is discarded without sale. When the commercialisation licence is in place, fruit will be able to be sold. (g) See (f) above. 2. The Government makes funding appropriations to the Department on an annual basis. This allocation process is informed by the Department's budget proposals which in turn are informed by input from stakeholders. Funds are then allocated by the Department to deliver outcomes for the State. The Director General of Agriculture is accountable for the delivery of these outcomes. (a) Specific priorities for research funding are determined by the Department via well developed needs analysis and investment decision making processes. The Department determines program and project level allocations within several priorities established by the Government. (b) The majority of research outputs are delivered by the Department often in partnership with other research funders and providers. The Department may contract service delivery by other parties where it considers the output or outcome is better achieved via that means. (c) Much of the work of the Department is co-funded by national industry based research and development corporations, National Co-operative Research Centres and Australian Government programs that ensure delivery of shared priorities at lower cost to the Government. 3. (a) This is a matter for the Department to determine. The Department of Agriculture and Food and Horticulture Australia Limited have well established processes for this purpose. (b) (i) Program and project costs are reviewed internally and externally. For the apple breeding program internal process are in place and the involvement of Apples and Pear Australia Limited and Horticulture Australia Limited provides external review mechanisms. All Departmental projects are subject to normal audit functions conducted by the Department's Internal Audit Branch and the Office of the Auditor-General. (ii) See (i) above. (iii) See (i) above. (iv) Industry and community outcomes are assessed where appropriate data is available. Stakeholder support for programs and projects is also assessed via industry and community consultation processes and customer surveys. (v) The normal range of accountability and transparency mechanisms an in place including Parliamentary reporting and scrutiny, public annual reporting, industry and community consultation, reporting to funding partners, Office of the Auditor-General, Freedom of Information and other means. 4. No. The National Apple Breeding Program is supported by both State funds in the form of royalties from released varieties and funding from the National apple industry (Apples and Pears Australia Limited) via Horticulture Australia Limited. The program has been subject to significant external scrutiny and has received positive reviews. Investment in plant breeding programs is long term and delivers long term benefits to industry and the economy. This investment supports future variety releases and cannot sensibly be considered as a 'loss', rather an investment in future delivery of new varieties. [1] A This symbol indicates that the variety is protected by Plant Breeder's Rights in Australia
In relation to Big TimeA: "There was no specific funding allocation to this variety." "The Department's records of domestic promotion and intellectual property protection show a total cost of $11,932." Since then there have been costs of $600 for annual Plant Breeders Rights fees bringing the total recorded costs to $12,532. The income from royalties is commercial information. As indicated above there has been very limited uptake of the variety Big TimeA by industry. However the direct costs attributed to this variety are only $12,532. Western DawnA [ST 23/74] is not yet released so there are no sales of this variety to date. (f) It is not appropriate to sell fruit prior to intellectual property protection of a variety nor before the commercialisation licence is in place. The Department however does use fruit for evaluation which is common practice in breeding projects, prior to commercial release. All fruit not used for evaluation is discarded without sale. When the commercialisation licence is in place, fruit will be able to be sold. (g) See (f) above. 2. The Government makes funding appropriations to the Department on an annual basis. This allocation process is informed by the Department's budget proposals which in turn are informed by input from stakeholders. Funds are then allocated by the Department to deliver outcomes for the State. The Director General of Agriculture is accountable for the delivery of these outcomes. (a) Specific priorities for research funding are determined by the Department via well developed needs analysis and investment decision making processes. The Department determines program and project level allocations within several priorities established by the Government. (b) The majority of research outputs are delivered by the Department often in partnership with other research funders and providers. The Department may contract service delivery by other parties where it considers the output or outcome is better achieved via that means. (c) Much of the work of the Department is co-funded by national industry based research and development corporations, National Co-operative Research Centres and Australian Government programs that ensure delivery of shared priorities at lower cost to the Government. 3. (a) This is a matter for the Department to determine. The Department of Agriculture and Food and Horticulture Australia Limited have well established processes for this purpose. (b) (i) Program and project costs are reviewed internally and externally. For the apple breeding program internal process are in place and the involvement of Apples and Pear Australia Limited and Horticulture Australia Limited provides external review mechanisms. All Departmental projects are subject to normal audit functions conducted by the Department's Internal Audit Branch and the Office of the Auditor-General. (ii) See (i) above. (iii) See (i) above. (iv) Industry and community outcomes are assessed where appropriate data is available. Stakeholder support for programs and projects is also assessed via industry and community consultation processes and customer surveys. (v) The normal range of accountability and transparency mechanisms an in place including Parliamentary reporting and scrutiny, public annual reporting, industry and community consultation, reporting to funding partners, Office of the Auditor-General, Freedom of Information and other means. 4. No. The National Apple Breeding Program is supported by both State funds in the form of royalties from released varieties and funding from the National apple industry (Apples and Pears Australia Limited) via Horticulture Australia Limited. The program has been subject to significant external scrutiny and has received positive reviews. Investment in plant breeding programs is long term and delivers long term benefits to industry and the economy. This investment supports future variety releases and cannot sensibly be considered as a 'loss', rather an investment in future delivery of new varieties. [1] A This symbol indicates that the variety is protected by Plant Breeder's Rights in Australia
"There was no specific funding allocation to this variety." "The Department's records of domestic promotion and intellectual property protection show a total cost of $11,932." Since then there have been costs of $600 for annual Plant Breeders Rights fees bringing the total recorded costs to $12,532. The income from royalties is commercial information. As indicated above there has been very limited uptake of the variety Big TimeA by industry. However the direct costs attributed to this variety are only $12,532. Western DawnA [ST 23/74] is not yet released so there are no sales of this variety to date. (f) It is not appropriate to sell fruit prior to intellectual property protection of a variety nor before the commercialisation licence is in place. The Department however does use fruit for evaluation which is common practice in breeding projects, prior to commercial release. All fruit not used for evaluation is discarded without sale. When the commercialisation licence is in place, fruit will be able to be sold. (g) See (f) above. 2. The Government makes funding appropriations to the Department on an annual basis. This allocation process is informed by the Department's budget proposals which in turn are informed by input from stakeholders. Funds are then allocated by the Department to deliver outcomes for the State. The Director General of Agriculture is accountable for the delivery of these outcomes. (a) Specific priorities for research funding are determined by the Department via well developed needs analysis and investment decision making processes. The Department determines program and project level allocations within several priorities established by the Government. (b) The majority of research outputs are delivered by the Department often in partnership with other research funders and providers. The Department may contract service delivery by other parties where it considers the output or outcome is better achieved via that means. (c) Much of the work of the Department is co-funded by national industry based research and development corporations, National Co-operative Research Centres and Australian Government programs that ensure delivery of shared priorities at lower cost to the Government. 3. (a) This is a matter for the Department to determine. The Department of Agriculture and Food and Horticulture Australia Limited have well established processes for this purpose. (b) (i) Program and project costs are reviewed internally and externally. For the apple breeding program internal process are in place and the involvement of Apples and Pear Australia Limited and Horticulture Australia Limited provides external review mechanisms. All Departmental projects are subject to normal audit functions conducted by the Department's Internal Audit Branch and the Office of the Auditor-General. (ii) See (i) above. (iii) See (i) above. (iv) Industry and community outcomes are assessed where appropriate data is available. Stakeholder support for programs and projects is also assessed via industry and community consultation processes and customer surveys. (v) The normal range of accountability and transparency mechanisms an in place including Parliamentary reporting and scrutiny, public annual reporting, industry and community consultation, reporting to funding partners, Office of the Auditor-General, Freedom of Information and other means. 4. No. The National Apple Breeding Program is supported by both State funds in the form of royalties from released varieties and funding from the National apple industry (Apples and Pears Australia Limited) via Horticulture Australia Limited. The program has been subject to significant external scrutiny and has received positive reviews. Investment in plant breeding programs is long term and delivers long term benefits to industry and the economy. This investment supports future variety releases and cannot sensibly be considered as a 'loss', rather an investment in future delivery of new varieties. [1] A This symbol indicates that the variety is protected by Plant Breeder's Rights in Australia
"The Department's records of domestic promotion and intellectual property protection show a total cost of $11,932." Since then there have been costs of $600 for annual Plant Breeders Rights fees bringing the total recorded costs to $12,532. The income from royalties is commercial information. As indicated above there has been very limited uptake of the variety Big TimeA by industry. However the direct costs attributed to this variety are only $12,532. Western DawnA [ST 23/74] is not yet released so there are no sales of this variety to date. (f) It is not appropriate to sell fruit prior to intellectual property protection of a variety nor before the commercialisation licence is in place. The Department however does use fruit for evaluation which is common practice in breeding projects, prior to commercial release. All fruit not used for evaluation is discarded without sale. When the commercialisation licence is in place, fruit will be able to be sold. (g) See (f) above. 2. The Government makes funding appropriations to the Department on an annual basis. This allocation process is informed by the Department's budget proposals which in turn are informed by input from stakeholders. Funds are then allocated by the Department to deliver outcomes for the State. The Director General of Agriculture is accountable for the delivery of these outcomes. (a) Specific priorities for research funding are determined by the Department via well developed needs analysis and investment decision making processes. The Department determines program and project level allocations within several priorities established by the Government. (b) The majority of research outputs are delivered by the Department often in partnership with other research funders and providers. The Department may contract service delivery by other parties where it considers the output or outcome is better achieved via that means. (c) Much of the work of the Department is co-funded by national industry based research and development corporations, National Co-operative Research Centres and Australian Government programs that ensure delivery of shared priorities at lower cost to the Government. 3. (a) This is a matter for the Department to determine. The Department of Agriculture and Food and Horticulture Australia Limited have well established processes for this purpose. (b) (i) Program and project costs are reviewed internally and externally. For the apple breeding program internal process are in place and the involvement of Apples and Pear Australia Limited and Horticulture Australia Limited provides external review mechanisms. All Departmental projects are subject to normal audit functions conducted by the Department's Internal Audit Branch and the Office of the Auditor-General. (ii) See (i) above. (iii) See (i) above. (iv) Industry and community outcomes are assessed where appropriate data is available. Stakeholder support for programs and projects is also assessed via industry and community consultation processes and customer surveys. (v) The normal range of accountability and transparency mechanisms an in place including Parliamentary reporting and scrutiny, public annual reporting, industry and community consultation, reporting to funding partners, Office of the Auditor-General, Freedom of Information and other means. 4. No. The National Apple Breeding Program is supported by both State funds in the form of royalties from released varieties and funding from the National apple industry (Apples and Pears Australia Limited) via Horticulture Australia Limited. The program has been subject to significant external scrutiny and has received positive reviews. Investment in plant breeding programs is long term and delivers long term benefits to industry and the economy. This investment supports future variety releases and cannot sensibly be considered as a 'loss', rather an investment in future delivery of new varieties. [1] A This symbol indicates that the variety is protected by Plant Breeder's Rights in Australia
Since then there have been costs of $600 for annual Plant Breeders Rights fees bringing the total recorded costs to $12,532. The income from royalties is commercial information. As indicated above there has been very limited uptake of the variety Big TimeA by industry. However the direct costs attributed to this variety are only $12,532. Western DawnA [ST 23/74] is not yet released so there are no sales of this variety to date. (f) It is not appropriate to sell fruit prior to intellectual property protection of a variety nor before the commercialisation licence is in place. The Department however does use fruit for evaluation which is common practice in breeding projects, prior to commercial release. All fruit not used for evaluation is discarded without sale. When the commercialisation licence is in place, fruit will be able to be sold. (g) See (f) above. 2. The Government makes funding appropriations to the Department on an annual basis. This allocation process is informed by the Department's budget proposals which in turn are informed by input from stakeholders. Funds are then allocated by the Department to deliver outcomes for the State. The Director General of Agriculture is accountable for the delivery of these outcomes. (a) Specific priorities for research funding are determined by the Department via well developed needs analysis and investment decision making processes. The Department determines program and project level allocations within several priorities established by the Government. (b) The majority of research outputs are delivered by the Department often in partnership with other research funders and providers. The Department may contract service delivery by other parties where it considers the output or outcome is better achieved via that means. (c) Much of the work of the Department is co-funded by national industry based research and development corporations, National Co-operative Research Centres and Australian Government programs that ensure delivery of shared priorities at lower cost to the Government. 3. (a) This is a matter for the Department to determine. The Department of Agriculture and Food and Horticulture Australia Limited have well established processes for this purpose. (b) (i) Program and project costs are reviewed internally and externally. For the apple breeding program internal process are in place and the involvement of Apples and Pear Australia Limited and Horticulture Australia Limited provides external review mechanisms. All Departmental projects are subject to normal audit functions conducted by the Department's Internal Audit Branch and the Office of the Auditor-General. (ii) See (i) above. (iii) See (i) above. (iv) Industry and community outcomes are assessed where appropriate data is available. Stakeholder support for programs and projects is also assessed via industry and community consultation processes and customer surveys. (v) The normal range of accountability and transparency mechanisms an in place including Parliamentary reporting and scrutiny, public annual reporting, industry and community consultation, reporting to funding partners, Office of the Auditor-General, Freedom of Information and other means. 4. No. The National Apple Breeding Program is supported by both State funds in the form of royalties from released varieties and funding from the National apple industry (Apples and Pears Australia Limited) via Horticulture Australia Limited. The program has been subject to significant external scrutiny and has received positive reviews. Investment in plant breeding programs is long term and delivers long term benefits to industry and the economy. This investment supports future variety releases and cannot sensibly be considered as a 'loss', rather an investment in future delivery of new varieties. [1] A This symbol indicates that the variety is protected by Plant Breeder's Rights in Australia
The income from royalties is commercial information. As indicated above there has been very limited uptake of the variety Big TimeA by industry. However the direct costs attributed to this variety are only $12,532. Western DawnA [ST 23/74] is not yet released so there are no sales of this variety to date. (f) It is not appropriate to sell fruit prior to intellectual property protection of a variety nor before the commercialisation licence is in place. The Department however does use fruit for evaluation which is common practice in breeding projects, prior to commercial release. All fruit not used for evaluation is discarded without sale. When the commercialisation licence is in place, fruit will be able to be sold. (g) See (f) above. 2. The Government makes funding appropriations to the Department on an annual basis. This allocation process is informed by the Department's budget proposals which in turn are informed by input from stakeholders. Funds are then allocated by the Department to deliver outcomes for the State. The Director General of Agriculture is accountable for the delivery of these outcomes. (a) Specific priorities for research funding are determined by the Department via well developed needs analysis and investment decision making processes. The Department determines program and project level allocations within several priorities established by the Government. (b) The majority of research outputs are delivered by the Department often in partnership with other research funders and providers. The Department may contract service delivery by other parties where it considers the output or outcome is better achieved via that means. (c) Much of the work of the Department is co-funded by national industry based research and development corporations, National Co-operative Research Centres and Australian Government programs that ensure delivery of shared priorities at lower cost to the Government. 3. (a) This is a matter for the Department to determine. The Department of Agriculture and Food and Horticulture Australia Limited have well established processes for this purpose. (b) (i) Program and project costs are reviewed internally and externally. For the apple breeding program internal process are in place and the involvement of Apples and Pear Australia Limited and Horticulture Australia Limited provides external review mechanisms. All Departmental projects are subject to normal audit functions conducted by the Department's Internal Audit Branch and the Office of the Auditor-General. (ii) See (i) above. (iii) See (i) above. (iv) Industry and community outcomes are assessed where appropriate data is available. Stakeholder support for programs and projects is also assessed via industry and community consultation processes and customer surveys. (v) The normal range of accountability and transparency mechanisms an in place including Parliamentary reporting and scrutiny, public annual reporting, industry and community consultation, reporting to funding partners, Office of the Auditor-General, Freedom of Information and other means. 4. No. The National Apple Breeding Program is supported by both State funds in the form of royalties from released varieties and funding from the National apple industry (Apples and Pears Australia Limited) via Horticulture Australia Limited. The program has been subject to significant external scrutiny and has received positive reviews. Investment in plant breeding programs is long term and delivers long term benefits to industry and the economy. This investment supports future variety releases and cannot sensibly be considered as a 'loss', rather an investment in future delivery of new varieties. [1] A This symbol indicates that the variety is protected by Plant Breeder's Rights in Australia
Western DawnA [ST 23/74] is not yet released so there are no sales of this variety to date. (f) It is not appropriate to sell fruit prior to intellectual property protection of a variety nor before the commercialisation licence is in place. The Department however does use fruit for evaluation which is common practice in breeding projects, prior to commercial release. All fruit not used for evaluation is discarded without sale. When the commercialisation licence is in place, fruit will be able to be sold. (g) See (f) above. 2. The Government makes funding appropriations to the Department on an annual basis. This allocation process is informed by the Department's budget proposals which in turn are informed by input from stakeholders. Funds are then allocated by the Department to deliver outcomes for the State. The Director General of Agriculture is accountable for the delivery of these outcomes. (a) Specific priorities for research funding are determined by the Department via well developed needs analysis and investment decision making processes. The Department determines program and project level allocations within several priorities established by the Government. (b) The majority of research outputs are delivered by the Department often in partnership with other research funders and providers. The Department may contract service delivery by other parties where it considers the output or outcome is better achieved via that means. (c) Much of the work of the Department is co-funded by national industry based research and development corporations, National Co-operative Research Centres and Australian Government programs that ensure delivery of shared priorities at lower cost to the Government. 3. (a) This is a matter for the Department to determine. The Department of Agriculture and Food and Horticulture Australia Limited have well established processes for this purpose. (b) (i) Program and project costs are reviewed internally and externally. For the apple breeding program internal process are in place and the involvement of Apples and Pear Australia Limited and Horticulture Australia Limited provides external review mechanisms. All Departmental projects are subject to normal audit functions conducted by the Department's Internal Audit Branch and the Office of the Auditor-General. (ii) See (i) above. (iii) See (i) above. (iv) Industry and community outcomes are assessed where appropriate data is available. Stakeholder support for programs and projects is also assessed via industry and community consultation processes and customer surveys. (v) The normal range of accountability and transparency mechanisms an in place including Parliamentary reporting and scrutiny, public annual reporting, industry and community consultation, reporting to funding partners, Office of the Auditor-General, Freedom of Information and other means. 4. No. The National Apple Breeding Program is supported by both State funds in the form of royalties from released varieties and funding from the National apple industry (Apples and Pears Australia Limited) via Horticulture Australia Limited. The program has been subject to significant external scrutiny and has received positive reviews. Investment in plant breeding programs is long term and delivers long term benefits to industry and the economy. This investment supports future variety releases and cannot sensibly be considered as a 'loss', rather an investment in future delivery of new varieties. [1] A This symbol indicates that the variety is protected by Plant Breeder's Rights in Australia
(f) It is not appropriate to sell fruit prior to intellectual property protection of a variety nor before the commercialisation licence is in place. The Department however does use fruit for evaluation which is common practice in breeding projects, prior to commercial release. All fruit not used for evaluation is discarded without sale. When the commercialisation licence is in place, fruit will be able to be sold. (g) See (f) above. 2. The Government makes funding appropriations to the Department on an annual basis. This allocation process is informed by the Department's budget proposals which in turn are informed by input from stakeholders. Funds are then allocated by the Department to deliver outcomes for the State. The Director General of Agriculture is accountable for the delivery of these outcomes. (a) Specific priorities for research funding are determined by the Department via well developed needs analysis and investment decision making processes. The Department determines program and project level allocations within several priorities established by the Government. (b) The majority of research outputs are delivered by the Department often in partnership with other research funders and providers. The Department may contract service delivery by other parties where it considers the output or outcome is better achieved via that means. (c) Much of the work of the Department is co-funded by national industry based research and development corporations, National Co-operative Research Centres and Australian Government programs that ensure delivery of shared priorities at lower cost to the Government. 3. (a) This is a matter for the Department to determine. The Department of Agriculture and Food and Horticulture Australia Limited have well established processes for this purpose. (b) (i) Program and project costs are reviewed internally and externally. For the apple breeding program internal process are in place and the involvement of Apples and Pear Australia Limited and Horticulture Australia Limited provides external review mechanisms. All Departmental projects are subject to normal audit functions conducted by the Department's Internal Audit Branch and the Office of the Auditor-General. (ii) See (i) above. (iii) See (i) above. (iv) Industry and community outcomes are assessed where appropriate data is available. Stakeholder support for programs and projects is also assessed via industry and community consultation processes and customer surveys. (v) The normal range of accountability and transparency mechanisms an in place including Parliamentary reporting and scrutiny, public annual reporting, industry and community consultation, reporting to funding partners, Office of the Auditor-General, Freedom of Information and other means. 4. No. The National Apple Breeding Program is supported by both State funds in the form of royalties from released varieties and funding from the National apple industry (Apples and Pears Australia Limited) via Horticulture Australia Limited. The program has been subject to significant external scrutiny and has received positive reviews. Investment in plant breeding programs is long term and delivers long term benefits to industry and the economy. This investment supports future variety releases and cannot sensibly be considered as a 'loss', rather an investment in future delivery of new varieties. [1] A This symbol indicates that the variety is protected by Plant Breeder's Rights in Australia
(g) See (f) above. 2. The Government makes funding appropriations to the Department on an annual basis. This allocation process is informed by the Department's budget proposals which in turn are informed by input from stakeholders. Funds are then allocated by the Department to deliver outcomes for the State. The Director General of Agriculture is accountable for the delivery of these outcomes. (a) Specific priorities for research funding are determined by the Department via well developed needs analysis and investment decision making processes. The Department determines program and project level allocations within several priorities established by the Government. (b) The majority of research outputs are delivered by the Department often in partnership with other research funders and providers. The Department may contract service delivery by other parties where it considers the output or outcome is better achieved via that means. (c) Much of the work of the Department is co-funded by national industry based research and development corporations, National Co-operative Research Centres and Australian Government programs that ensure delivery of shared priorities at lower cost to the Government. 3. (a) This is a matter for the Department to determine. The Department of Agriculture and Food and Horticulture Australia Limited have well established processes for this purpose. (b) (i) Program and project costs are reviewed internally and externally. For the apple breeding program internal process are in place and the involvement of Apples and Pear Australia Limited and Horticulture Australia Limited provides external review mechanisms. All Departmental projects are subject to normal audit functions conducted by the Department's Internal Audit Branch and the Office of the Auditor-General. (ii) See (i) above. (iii) See (i) above. (iv) Industry and community outcomes are assessed where appropriate data is available. Stakeholder support for programs and projects is also assessed via industry and community consultation processes and customer surveys. (v) The normal range of accountability and transparency mechanisms an in place including Parliamentary reporting and scrutiny, public annual reporting, industry and community consultation, reporting to funding partners, Office of the Auditor-General, Freedom of Information and other means. 4. No. The National Apple Breeding Program is supported by both State funds in the form of royalties from released varieties and funding from the National apple industry (Apples and Pears Australia Limited) via Horticulture Australia Limited. The program has been subject to significant external scrutiny and has received positive reviews. Investment in plant breeding programs is long term and delivers long term benefits to industry and the economy. This investment supports future variety releases and cannot sensibly be considered as a 'loss', rather an investment in future delivery of new varieties. [1] A This symbol indicates that the variety is protected by Plant Breeder's Rights in Australia
2. The Government makes funding appropriations to the Department on an annual basis. This allocation process is informed by the Department's budget proposals which in turn are informed by input from stakeholders. Funds are then allocated by the Department to deliver outcomes for the State. The Director General of Agriculture is accountable for the delivery of these outcomes. (a) Specific priorities for research funding are determined by the Department via well developed needs analysis and investment decision making processes. The Department determines program and project level allocations within several priorities established by the Government. (b) The majority of research outputs are delivered by the Department often in partnership with other research funders and providers. The Department may contract service delivery by other parties where it considers the output or outcome is better achieved via that means. (c) Much of the work of the Department is co-funded by national industry based research and development corporations, National Co-operative Research Centres and Australian Government programs that ensure delivery of shared priorities at lower cost to the Government. 3. (a) This is a matter for the Department to determine. The Department of Agriculture and Food and Horticulture Australia Limited have well established processes for this purpose. (b) (i) Program and project costs are reviewed internally and externally. For the apple breeding program internal process are in place and the involvement of Apples and Pear Australia Limited and Horticulture Australia Limited provides external review mechanisms. All Departmental projects are subject to normal audit functions conducted by the Department's Internal Audit Branch and the Office of the Auditor-General. (ii) See (i) above. (iii) See (i) above. (iv) Industry and community outcomes are assessed where appropriate data is available. Stakeholder support for programs and projects is also assessed via industry and community consultation processes and customer surveys. (v) The normal range of accountability and transparency mechanisms an in place including Parliamentary reporting and scrutiny, public annual reporting, industry and community consultation, reporting to funding partners, Office of the Auditor-General, Freedom of Information and other means. 4. No. The National Apple Breeding Program is supported by both State funds in the form of royalties from released varieties and funding from the National apple industry (Apples and Pears Australia Limited) via Horticulture Australia Limited. The program has been subject to significant external scrutiny and has received positive reviews. Investment in plant breeding programs is long term and delivers long term benefits to industry and the economy. This investment supports future variety releases and cannot sensibly be considered as a 'loss', rather an investment in future delivery of new varieties. [1] A This symbol indicates that the variety is protected by Plant Breeder's Rights in Australia
(a) Specific priorities for research funding are determined by the Department via well developed needs analysis and investment decision making processes. The Department determines program and project level allocations within several priorities established by the Government. (b) The majority of research outputs are delivered by the Department often in partnership with other research funders and providers. The Department may contract service delivery by other parties where it considers the output or outcome is better achieved via that means. (c) Much of the work of the Department is co-funded by national industry based research and development corporations, National Co-operative Research Centres and Australian Government programs that ensure delivery of shared priorities at lower cost to the Government. 3. (a) This is a matter for the Department to determine. The Department of Agriculture and Food and Horticulture Australia Limited have well established processes for this purpose. (b) (i) Program and project costs are reviewed internally and externally. For the apple breeding program internal process are in place and the involvement of Apples and Pear Australia Limited and Horticulture Australia Limited provides external review mechanisms. All Departmental projects are subject to normal audit functions conducted by the Department's Internal Audit Branch and the Office of the Auditor-General. (ii) See (i) above. (iii) See (i) above. (iv) Industry and community outcomes are assessed where appropriate data is available. Stakeholder support for programs and projects is also assessed via industry and community consultation processes and customer surveys. (v) The normal range of accountability and transparency mechanisms an in place including Parliamentary reporting and scrutiny, public annual reporting, industry and community consultation, reporting to funding partners, Office of the Auditor-General, Freedom of Information and other means. 4. No. The National Apple Breeding Program is supported by both State funds in the form of royalties from released varieties and funding from the National apple industry (Apples and Pears Australia Limited) via Horticulture Australia Limited. The program has been subject to significant external scrutiny and has received positive reviews. Investment in plant breeding programs is long term and delivers long term benefits to industry and the economy. This investment supports future variety releases and cannot sensibly be considered as a 'loss', rather an investment in future delivery of new varieties. [1] A This symbol indicates that the variety is protected by Plant Breeder's Rights in Australia
(b) The majority of research outputs are delivered by the Department often in partnership with other research funders and providers. The Department may contract service delivery by other parties where it considers the output or outcome is better achieved via that means. (c) Much of the work of the Department is co-funded by national industry based research and development corporations, National Co-operative Research Centres and Australian Government programs that ensure delivery of shared priorities at lower cost to the Government. 3. (a) This is a matter for the Department to determine. The Department of Agriculture and Food and Horticulture Australia Limited have well established processes for this purpose. (b) (i) Program and project costs are reviewed internally and externally. For the apple breeding program internal process are in place and the involvement of Apples and Pear Australia Limited and Horticulture Australia Limited provides external review mechanisms. All Departmental projects are subject to normal audit functions conducted by the Department's Internal Audit Branch and the Office of the Auditor-General. (ii) See (i) above. (iii) See (i) above. (iv) Industry and community outcomes are assessed where appropriate data is available. Stakeholder support for programs and projects is also assessed via industry and community consultation processes and customer surveys. (v) The normal range of accountability and transparency mechanisms an in place including Parliamentary reporting and scrutiny, public annual reporting, industry and community consultation, reporting to funding partners, Office of the Auditor-General, Freedom of Information and other means. 4. No. The National Apple Breeding Program is supported by both State funds in the form of royalties from released varieties and funding from the National apple industry (Apples and Pears Australia Limited) via Horticulture Australia Limited. The program has been subject to significant external scrutiny and has received positive reviews. Investment in plant breeding programs is long term and delivers long term benefits to industry and the economy. This investment supports future variety releases and cannot sensibly be considered as a 'loss', rather an investment in future delivery of new varieties. [1] A This symbol indicates that the variety is protected by Plant Breeder's Rights in Australia
(c) Much of the work of the Department is co-funded by national industry based research and development corporations, National Co-operative Research Centres and Australian Government programs that ensure delivery of shared priorities at lower cost to the Government. 3. (a) This is a matter for the Department to determine. The Department of Agriculture and Food and Horticulture Australia Limited have well established processes for this purpose. (b) (i) Program and project costs are reviewed internally and externally. For the apple breeding program internal process are in place and the involvement of Apples and Pear Australia Limited and Horticulture Australia Limited provides external review mechanisms. All Departmental projects are subject to normal audit functions conducted by the Department's Internal Audit Branch and the Office of the Auditor-General. (ii) See (i) above. (iii) See (i) above. (iv) Industry and community outcomes are assessed where appropriate data is available. Stakeholder support for programs and projects is also assessed via industry and community consultation processes and customer surveys. (v) The normal range of accountability and transparency mechanisms an in place including Parliamentary reporting and scrutiny, public annual reporting, industry and community consultation, reporting to funding partners, Office of the Auditor-General, Freedom of Information and other means. 4. No. The National Apple Breeding Program is supported by both State funds in the form of royalties from released varieties and funding from the National apple industry (Apples and Pears Australia Limited) via Horticulture Australia Limited. The program has been subject to significant external scrutiny and has received positive reviews. Investment in plant breeding programs is long term and delivers long term benefits to industry and the economy. This investment supports future variety releases and cannot sensibly be considered as a 'loss', rather an investment in future delivery of new varieties. [1] A This symbol indicates that the variety is protected by Plant Breeder's Rights in Australia
3. (a) This is a matter for the Department to determine. The Department of Agriculture and Food and Horticulture Australia Limited have well established processes for this purpose. (b) (i) Program and project costs are reviewed internally and externally. For the apple breeding program internal process are in place and the involvement of Apples and Pear Australia Limited and Horticulture Australia Limited provides external review mechanisms. All Departmental projects are subject to normal audit functions conducted by the Department's Internal Audit Branch and the Office of the Auditor-General. (ii) See (i) above. (iii) See (i) above. (iv) Industry and community outcomes are assessed where appropriate data is available. Stakeholder support for programs and projects is also assessed via industry and community consultation processes and customer surveys. (v) The normal range of accountability and transparency mechanisms an in place including Parliamentary reporting and scrutiny, public annual reporting, industry and community consultation, reporting to funding partners, Office of the Auditor-General, Freedom of Information and other means. 4. No. The National Apple Breeding Program is supported by both State funds in the form of royalties from released varieties and funding from the National apple industry (Apples and Pears Australia Limited) via Horticulture Australia Limited. The program has been subject to significant external scrutiny and has received positive reviews. Investment in plant breeding programs is long term and delivers long term benefits to industry and the economy. This investment supports future variety releases and cannot sensibly be considered as a 'loss', rather an investment in future delivery of new varieties. [1] A This symbol indicates that the variety is protected by Plant Breeder's Rights in Australia
(b) (i) Program and project costs are reviewed internally and externally. For the apple breeding program internal process are in place and the involvement of Apples and Pear Australia Limited and Horticulture Australia Limited provides external review mechanisms. All Departmental projects are subject to normal audit functions conducted by the Department's Internal Audit Branch and the Office of the Auditor-General. (ii) See (i) above. (iii) See (i) above. (iv) Industry and community outcomes are assessed where appropriate data is available. Stakeholder support for programs and projects is also assessed via industry and community consultation processes and customer surveys. (v) The normal range of accountability and transparency mechanisms an in place including Parliamentary reporting and scrutiny, public annual reporting, industry and community consultation, reporting to funding partners, Office of the Auditor-General, Freedom of Information and other means. 4. No. The National Apple Breeding Program is supported by both State funds in the form of royalties from released varieties and funding from the National apple industry (Apples and Pears Australia Limited) via Horticulture Australia Limited. The program has been subject to significant external scrutiny and has received positive reviews. Investment in plant breeding programs is long term and delivers long term benefits to industry and the economy. This investment supports future variety releases and cannot sensibly be considered as a 'loss', rather an investment in future delivery of new varieties. [1] A This symbol indicates that the variety is protected by Plant Breeder's Rights in Australia
(ii) See (i) above. (iii) See (i) above. (iv) Industry and community outcomes are assessed where appropriate data is available. Stakeholder support for programs and projects is also assessed via industry and community consultation processes and customer surveys. (v) The normal range of accountability and transparency mechanisms an in place including Parliamentary reporting and scrutiny, public annual reporting, industry and community consultation, reporting to funding partners, Office of the Auditor-General, Freedom of Information and other means. 4. No. The National Apple Breeding Program is supported by both State funds in the form of royalties from released varieties and funding from the National apple industry (Apples and Pears Australia Limited) via Horticulture Australia Limited. The program has been subject to significant external scrutiny and has received positive reviews. Investment in plant breeding programs is long term and delivers long term benefits to industry and the economy. This investment supports future variety releases and cannot sensibly be considered as a 'loss', rather an investment in future delivery of new varieties. [1] A This symbol indicates that the variety is protected by Plant Breeder's Rights in Australia
(iii) See (i) above. (iv) Industry and community outcomes are assessed where appropriate data is available. Stakeholder support for programs and projects is also assessed via industry and community consultation processes and customer surveys. (v) The normal range of accountability and transparency mechanisms an in place including Parliamentary reporting and scrutiny, public annual reporting, industry and community consultation, reporting to funding partners, Office of the Auditor-General, Freedom of Information and other means. 4. No. The National Apple Breeding Program is supported by both State funds in the form of royalties from released varieties and funding from the National apple industry (Apples and Pears Australia Limited) via Horticulture Australia Limited. The program has been subject to significant external scrutiny and has received positive reviews. Investment in plant breeding programs is long term and delivers long term benefits to industry and the economy. This investment supports future variety releases and cannot sensibly be considered as a 'loss', rather an investment in future delivery of new varieties. [1] A This symbol indicates that the variety is protected by Plant Breeder's Rights in Australia
(iv) Industry and community outcomes are assessed where appropriate data is available. Stakeholder support for programs and projects is also assessed via industry and community consultation processes and customer surveys. (v) The normal range of accountability and transparency mechanisms an in place including Parliamentary reporting and scrutiny, public annual reporting, industry and community consultation, reporting to funding partners, Office of the Auditor-General, Freedom of Information and other means. 4. No. The National Apple Breeding Program is supported by both State funds in the form of royalties from released varieties and funding from the National apple industry (Apples and Pears Australia Limited) via Horticulture Australia Limited. The program has been subject to significant external scrutiny and has received positive reviews. Investment in plant breeding programs is long term and delivers long term benefits to industry and the economy. This investment supports future variety releases and cannot sensibly be considered as a 'loss', rather an investment in future delivery of new varieties. [1] A This symbol indicates that the variety is protected by Plant Breeder's Rights in Australia
(v) The normal range of accountability and transparency mechanisms an in place including Parliamentary reporting and scrutiny, public annual reporting, industry and community consultation, reporting to funding partners, Office of the Auditor-General, Freedom of Information and other means. 4. No. The National Apple Breeding Program is supported by both State funds in the form of royalties from released varieties and funding from the National apple industry (Apples and Pears Australia Limited) via Horticulture Australia Limited. The program has been subject to significant external scrutiny and has received positive reviews. Investment in plant breeding programs is long term and delivers long term benefits to industry and the economy. This investment supports future variety releases and cannot sensibly be considered as a 'loss', rather an investment in future delivery of new varieties. [1] A This symbol indicates that the variety is protected by Plant Breeder's Rights in Australia
4. No. The National Apple Breeding Program is supported by both State funds in the form of royalties from released varieties and funding from the National apple industry (Apples and Pears Australia Limited) via Horticulture Australia Limited. The program has been subject to significant external scrutiny and has received positive reviews. Investment in plant breeding programs is long term and delivers long term benefits to industry and the economy. This investment supports future variety releases and cannot sensibly be considered as a 'loss', rather an investment in future delivery of new varieties. [1] A This symbol indicates that the variety is protected by Plant Breeder's Rights in Australia
The National Apple Breeding Program is supported by both State funds in the form of royalties from released varieties and funding from the National apple industry (Apples and Pears Australia Limited) via Horticulture Australia Limited. The program has been subject to significant external scrutiny and has received positive reviews. Investment in plant breeding programs is long term and delivers long term benefits to industry and the economy. This investment supports future variety releases and cannot sensibly be considered as a 'loss', rather an investment in future delivery of new varieties. [1] A This symbol indicates that the variety is protected by Plant Breeder's Rights in Australia
Investment in plant breeding programs is long term and delivers long term benefits to industry and the economy. This investment supports future variety releases and cannot sensibly be considered as a 'loss', rather an investment in future delivery of new varieties. [1] A This symbol indicates that the variety is protected by Plant Breeder's Rights in Australia
[1] A This symbol indicates that the variety is protected by Plant Breeder's Rights in Australia
[1] A This symbol indicates that the variety is protected by Plant Breeder's Rights in Australia
(c) how many tonnes of "Big Time" and “ST 23/74” have been sold; (d) how much, in dollar terms, has been made from the sale of “Big Time” and “ST 23/74”; (e) what, in dollar terms, is the difference between the profit from sales compared to the cost of development of “Big Time” and “ST 23/74”; (f) how many tonnes of “ST 23/74” have been left to rot in Newton Brothers cool-stores in Manjimup; and (g) why was this volume of “ST 23/74” left to rot in Newton Brothers cool-stores in Manjimup?
(d) how much, in dollar terms, has been made from the sale of “Big Time” and “ST 23/74”; (e) what, in dollar terms, is the difference between the profit from sales compared to the cost of development of “Big Time” and “ST 23/74”; (f) how many tonnes of “ST 23/74” have been left to rot in Newton Brothers cool-stores in Manjimup; and (g) why was this volume of “ST 23/74” left to rot in Newton Brothers cool-stores in Manjimup?
(e) what, in dollar terms, is the difference between the profit from sales compared to the cost of development of “Big Time” and “ST 23/74”; (f) how many tonnes of “ST 23/74” have been left to rot in Newton Brothers cool-stores in Manjimup; and (g) why was this volume of “ST 23/74” left to rot in Newton Brothers cool-stores in Manjimup?
(f) how many tonnes of “ST 23/74” have been left to rot in Newton Brothers cool-stores in Manjimup; and (g) why was this volume of “ST 23/74” left to rot in Newton Brothers cool-stores in Manjimup?
(g) why was this volume of “ST 23/74” left to rot in Newton Brothers cool-stores in Manjimup?
(b) to whom it is allocated; and (c) for what purpose it is allocated?
(c) for what purpose it is allocated?
(b) any other form of accountability for such research including, but not limited to - (i) proper independent audits of cost; (ii) proper independent, progressive performance reviews; (iii) proper independent, progressive assessment of results; (iv) appropriate social, economic and/or commercial outcomes; and (v) public accountability and transparency regarding all such information?
(ii) proper independent, progressive performance reviews; (iii) proper independent, progressive assessment of results; (iv) appropriate social, economic and/or commercial outcomes; and (v) public accountability and transparency regarding all such information?
(iii) proper independent, progressive assessment of results; (iv) appropriate social, economic and/or commercial outcomes; and (v) public accountability and transparency regarding all such information?
(iv) appropriate social, economic and/or commercial outcomes; and (v) public accountability and transparency regarding all such information?
(v) public accountability and transparency regarding all such information?
"Your questions have a focus on the apple breeding activities of the Department of Agriculture. These activities have been the subject of a number of reviews in recent years. There have been two Auditor General reports into the management of Intellectual Property in the Department of Agriculture. The commercialisation of fruit varieties was covered under these. A specific case study of the commercialisation process for ST 23/74 [Now named Western DawnA [1] ] was conducted in 2002 and described in the Auditor General's report submitted to Parliament on 4 December 2002, A Case Study of a New Apple Variety ." "The report above stated (page 15) that "Since 1999, the Department of Agriculture [Department of Agriculture Western Australia] has developed a more rigorous and formalised approach to address recognised shortcomings in its IP management process for breeding, evaluating and commercialising apple varieties."" "In the letter to the Director General [Department of Agriculture Western Australia] that accompanied the audit report from the Office of Auditor General it states "The audit found that while some aspects of past management of ST 23/74 could have been better (agreements with growers, earlier PBR and time taken to reach its current stage), action being taken now and current arrangements are appropriate."" "If the Honourable Member would like further discussions, I would be happy to arrange an appropriate senior officer from the Department of Agriculture to meet with him." "The variety [Big TimeA] was released with PBR protection, under licence agreement in 1996 to two nurseries in Australia (one major national nursery in the Eastern States and one nursery in Western Australia)." It therefore falls outside the time span detailed in the question that commences in 2001. The variety referred to as ST 23/74, now named Western DawnA, is not yet released. It is subject to a Request for Proposal [AG2007111] for exclusive licence rights in Australia for commercial development and management of the variety. If the 'breeding venture' referred to is the Australian National Apple Breeding Program, which is based at Manjimup Horticultural Research Institute, it includes many potential varieties. The cost of the program is shared between all the potential varieties and not to individual varieties. (a) If the question refers to the apple breeding program in which there are many potential varieties under evaluation, I refer to the answer provided to question 'h' of Legislative Assembly Question on Notice 357 in 2005. The direct investment "since 2001 has been - $428,725 in 2001/02, $534,517 in 2002/03, $482,365 in 2003/04, $477,160 in 2004/05", and is $545,342 for 2005/06. To date for this financial year the direct investment is $499,361. "These funds are made available from royalties from previous tree sales and research funds from Horticulture Australia Limited." (b) As indicated Western DawnA, previously called ST 23/74 has not been released. Therefore there has been no fruit of Western DawnA released for sale. "The variety [Big TimeA] was released with PBR protection, under licence agreement in 1996 to two nurseries in Australia (one major national nursery in the Eastern States and one nursery in Western Australia). Through this process there has been very limited uptake of the variety by industry." The Department does not have records of Big TimeA fruit sales. (c) As above, the Department has no records of Big TimeA fruit sales. There has been no Western DawnA [ST 23/74] fruit released for sale. (d) As above Western DawnA has not yet been released therefore there have been no sales. (e) There are no specific funding allocations to individual varieties. As detailed in the answer to question 'p' of Legislative Assembly Question on Notice 357 in 2005. In relation to Big TimeA: "There was no specific funding allocation to this variety." "The Department's records of domestic promotion and intellectual property protection show a total cost of $11,932." Since then there have been costs of $600 for annual Plant Breeders Rights fees bringing the total recorded costs to $12,532. The income from royalties is commercial information. As indicated above there has been very limited uptake of the variety Big TimeA by industry. However the direct costs attributed to this variety are only $12,532. Western DawnA [ST 23/74] is not yet released so there are no sales of this variety to date. (f) It is not appropriate to sell fruit prior to intellectual property protection of a variety nor before the commercialisation licence is in place. The Department however does use fruit for evaluation which is common practice in breeding projects, prior to commercial release. All fruit not used for evaluation is discarded without sale. When the commercialisation licence is in place, fruit will be able to be sold. (g) See (f) above. 2. The Government makes funding appropriations to the Department on an annual basis. This allocation process is informed by the Department's budget proposals which in turn are informed by input from stakeholders. Funds are then allocated by the Department to deliver outcomes for the State. The Director General of Agriculture is accountable for the delivery of these outcomes. (a) Specific priorities for research funding are determined by the Department via well developed needs analysis and investment decision making processes. The Department determines program and project level allocations within several priorities established by the Government. (b) The majority of research outputs are delivered by the Department often in partnership with other research funders and providers. The Department may contract service delivery by other parties where it considers the output or outcome is better achieved via that means. (c) Much of the work of the Department is co-funded by national industry based research and development corporations, National Co-operative Research Centres and Australian Government programs that ensure delivery of shared priorities at lower cost to the Government. 3. (a) This is a matter for the Department to determine. The Department of Agriculture and Food and Horticulture Australia Limited have well established processes for this purpose. (b) (i) Program and project costs are reviewed internally and externally. For the apple breeding program internal process are in place and the involvement of Apples and Pear Australia Limited and Horticulture Australia Limited provides external review mechanisms. All Departmental projects are subject to normal audit functions conducted by the Department's Internal Audit Branch and the Office of the Auditor-General. (ii) See (i) above. (iii) See (i) above. (iv) Industry and community outcomes are assessed where appropriate data is available. Stakeholder support for programs and projects is also assessed via industry and community consultation processes and customer surveys. (v) The normal range of accountability and transparency mechanisms an in place including Parliamentary reporting and scrutiny, public annual reporting, industry and community consultation, reporting to funding partners, Office of the Auditor-General, Freedom of Information and other means. 4. No. The National Apple Breeding Program is supported by both State funds in the form of royalties from released varieties and funding from the National apple industry (Apples and Pears Australia Limited) via Horticulture Australia Limited. The program has been subject to significant external scrutiny and has received positive reviews. Investment in plant breeding programs is long term and delivers long term benefits to industry and the economy. This investment supports future variety releases and cannot sensibly be considered as a 'loss', rather an investment in future delivery of new varieties. [1] A This symbol indicates that the variety is protected by Plant Breeder's Rights in Australia
"The report above stated (page 15) that "Since 1999, the Department of Agriculture [Department of Agriculture Western Australia] has developed a more rigorous and formalised approach to address recognised shortcomings in its IP management process for breeding, evaluating and commercialising apple varieties."" "In the letter to the Director General [Department of Agriculture Western Australia] that accompanied the audit report from the Office of Auditor General it states "The audit found that while some aspects of past management of ST 23/74 could have been better (agreements with growers, earlier PBR and time taken to reach its current stage), action being taken now and current arrangements are appropriate."" "If the Honourable Member would like further discussions, I would be happy to arrange an appropriate senior officer from the Department of Agriculture to meet with him." "The variety [Big TimeA] was released with PBR protection, under licence agreement in 1996 to two nurseries in Australia (one major national nursery in the Eastern States and one nursery in Western Australia)." It therefore falls outside the time span detailed in the question that commences in 2001. The variety referred to as ST 23/74, now named Western DawnA, is not yet released. It is subject to a Request for Proposal [AG2007111] for exclusive licence rights in Australia for commercial development and management of the variety. If the 'breeding venture' referred to is the Australian National Apple Breeding Program, which is based at Manjimup Horticultural Research Institute, it includes many potential varieties. The cost of the program is shared between all the potential varieties and not to individual varieties. (a) If the question refers to the apple breeding program in which there are many potential varieties under evaluation, I refer to the answer provided to question 'h' of Legislative Assembly Question on Notice 357 in 2005. The direct investment "since 2001 has been - $428,725 in 2001/02, $534,517 in 2002/03, $482,365 in 2003/04, $477,160 in 2004/05", and is $545,342 for 2005/06. To date for this financial year the direct investment is $499,361. "These funds are made available from royalties from previous tree sales and research funds from Horticulture Australia Limited." (b) As indicated Western DawnA, previously called ST 23/74 has not been released. Therefore there has been no fruit of Western DawnA released for sale. "The variety [Big TimeA] was released with PBR protection, under licence agreement in 1996 to two nurseries in Australia (one major national nursery in the Eastern States and one nursery in Western Australia). Through this process there has been very limited uptake of the variety by industry." The Department does not have records of Big TimeA fruit sales. (c) As above, the Department has no records of Big TimeA fruit sales. There has been no Western DawnA [ST 23/74] fruit released for sale. (d) As above Western DawnA has not yet been released therefore there have been no sales. (e) There are no specific funding allocations to individual varieties. As detailed in the answer to question 'p' of Legislative Assembly Question on Notice 357 in 2005. In relation to Big TimeA: "There was no specific funding allocation to this variety." "The Department's records of domestic promotion and intellectual property protection show a total cost of $11,932." Since then there have been costs of $600 for annual Plant Breeders Rights fees bringing the total recorded costs to $12,532. The income from royalties is commercial information. As indicated above there has been very limited uptake of the variety Big TimeA by industry. However the direct costs attributed to this variety are only $12,532. Western DawnA [ST 23/74] is not yet released so there are no sales of this variety to date. (f) It is not appropriate to sell fruit prior to intellectual property protection of a variety nor before the commercialisation licence is in place. The Department however does use fruit for evaluation which is common practice in breeding projects, prior to commercial release. All fruit not used for evaluation is discarded without sale. When the commercialisation licence is in place, fruit will be able to be sold. (g) See (f) above. 2. The Government makes funding appropriations to the Department on an annual basis. This allocation process is informed by the Department's budget proposals which in turn are informed by input from stakeholders. Funds are then allocated by the Department to deliver outcomes for the State. The Director General of Agriculture is accountable for the delivery of these outcomes. (a) Specific priorities for research funding are determined by the Department via well developed needs analysis and investment decision making processes. The Department determines program and project level allocations within several priorities established by the Government. (b) The majority of research outputs are delivered by the Department often in partnership with other research funders and providers. The Department may contract service delivery by other parties where it considers the output or outcome is better achieved via that means. (c) Much of the work of the Department is co-funded by national industry based research and development corporations, National Co-operative Research Centres and Australian Government programs that ensure delivery of shared priorities at lower cost to the Government. 3. (a) This is a matter for the Department to determine. The Department of Agriculture and Food and Horticulture Australia Limited have well established processes for this purpose. (b) (i) Program and project costs are reviewed internally and externally. For the apple breeding program internal process are in place and the involvement of Apples and Pear Australia Limited and Horticulture Australia Limited provides external review mechanisms. All Departmental projects are subject to normal audit functions conducted by the Department's Internal Audit Branch and the Office of the Auditor-General. (ii) See (i) above. (iii) See (i) above. (iv) Industry and community outcomes are assessed where appropriate data is available. Stakeholder support for programs and projects is also assessed via industry and community consultation processes and customer surveys. (v) The normal range of accountability and transparency mechanisms an in place including Parliamentary reporting and scrutiny, public annual reporting, industry and community consultation, reporting to funding partners, Office of the Auditor-General, Freedom of Information and other means. 4. No. The National Apple Breeding Program is supported by both State funds in the form of royalties from released varieties and funding from the National apple industry (Apples and Pears Australia Limited) via Horticulture Australia Limited. The program has been subject to significant external scrutiny and has received positive reviews. Investment in plant breeding programs is long term and delivers long term benefits to industry and the economy. This investment supports future variety releases and cannot sensibly be considered as a 'loss', rather an investment in future delivery of new varieties. [1] A This symbol indicates that the variety is protected by Plant Breeder's Rights in Australia
"In the letter to the Director General [Department of Agriculture Western Australia] that accompanied the audit report from the Office of Auditor General it states "The audit found that while some aspects of past management of ST 23/74 could have been better (agreements with growers, earlier PBR and time taken to reach its current stage), action being taken now and current arrangements are appropriate."" "If the Honourable Member would like further discussions, I would be happy to arrange an appropriate senior officer from the Department of Agriculture to meet with him." "The variety [Big TimeA] was released with PBR protection, under licence agreement in 1996 to two nurseries in Australia (one major national nursery in the Eastern States and one nursery in Western Australia)." It therefore falls outside the time span detailed in the question that commences in 2001. The variety referred to as ST 23/74, now named Western DawnA, is not yet released. It is subject to a Request for Proposal [AG2007111] for exclusive licence rights in Australia for commercial development and management of the variety. If the 'breeding venture' referred to is the Australian National Apple Breeding Program, which is based at Manjimup Horticultural Research Institute, it includes many potential varieties. The cost of the program is shared between all the potential varieties and not to individual varieties. (a) If the question refers to the apple breeding program in which there are many potential varieties under evaluation, I refer to the answer provided to question 'h' of Legislative Assembly Question on Notice 357 in 2005. The direct investment "since 2001 has been - $428,725 in 2001/02, $534,517 in 2002/03, $482,365 in 2003/04, $477,160 in 2004/05", and is $545,342 for 2005/06. To date for this financial year the direct investment is $499,361. "These funds are made available from royalties from previous tree sales and research funds from Horticulture Australia Limited." (b) As indicated Western DawnA, previously called ST 23/74 has not been released. Therefore there has been no fruit of Western DawnA released for sale. "The variety [Big TimeA] was released with PBR protection, under licence agreement in 1996 to two nurseries in Australia (one major national nursery in the Eastern States and one nursery in Western Australia). Through this process there has been very limited uptake of the variety by industry." The Department does not have records of Big TimeA fruit sales. (c) As above, the Department has no records of Big TimeA fruit sales. There has been no Western DawnA [ST 23/74] fruit released for sale. (d) As above Western DawnA has not yet been released therefore there have been no sales. (e) There are no specific funding allocations to individual varieties. As detailed in the answer to question 'p' of Legislative Assembly Question on Notice 357 in 2005. In relation to Big TimeA: "There was no specific funding allocation to this variety." "The Department's records of domestic promotion and intellectual property protection show a total cost of $11,932." Since then there have been costs of $600 for annual Plant Breeders Rights fees bringing the total recorded costs to $12,532. The income from royalties is commercial information. As indicated above there has been very limited uptake of the variety Big TimeA by industry. However the direct costs attributed to this variety are only $12,532. Western DawnA [ST 23/74] is not yet released so there are no sales of this variety to date. (f) It is not appropriate to sell fruit prior to intellectual property protection of a variety nor before the commercialisation licence is in place. The Department however does use fruit for evaluation which is common practice in breeding projects, prior to commercial release. All fruit not used for evaluation is discarded without sale. When the commercialisation licence is in place, fruit will be able to be sold. (g) See (f) above. 2. The Government makes funding appropriations to the Department on an annual basis. This allocation process is informed by the Department's budget proposals which in turn are informed by input from stakeholders. Funds are then allocated by the Department to deliver outcomes for the State. The Director General of Agriculture is accountable for the delivery of these outcomes. (a) Specific priorities for research funding are determined by the Department via well developed needs analysis and investment decision making processes. The Department determines program and project level allocations within several priorities established by the Government. (b) The majority of research outputs are delivered by the Department often in partnership with other research funders and providers. The Department may contract service delivery by other parties where it considers the output or outcome is better achieved via that means. (c) Much of the work of the Department is co-funded by national industry based research and development corporations, National Co-operative Research Centres and Australian Government programs that ensure delivery of shared priorities at lower cost to the Government. 3. (a) This is a matter for the Department to determine. The Department of Agriculture and Food and Horticulture Australia Limited have well established processes for this purpose. (b) (i) Program and project costs are reviewed internally and externally. For the apple breeding program internal process are in place and the involvement of Apples and Pear Australia Limited and Horticulture Australia Limited provides external review mechanisms. All Departmental projects are subject to normal audit functions conducted by the Department's Internal Audit Branch and the Office of the Auditor-General. (ii) See (i) above. (iii) See (i) above. (iv) Industry and community outcomes are assessed where appropriate data is available. Stakeholder support for programs and projects is also assessed via industry and community consultation processes and customer surveys. (v) The normal range of accountability and transparency mechanisms an in place including Parliamentary reporting and scrutiny, public annual reporting, industry and community consultation, reporting to funding partners, Office of the Auditor-General, Freedom of Information and other means. 4. No. The National Apple Breeding Program is supported by both State funds in the form of royalties from released varieties and funding from the National apple industry (Apples and Pears Australia Limited) via Horticulture Australia Limited. The program has been subject to significant external scrutiny and has received positive reviews. Investment in plant breeding programs is long term and delivers long term benefits to industry and the economy. This investment supports future variety releases and cannot sensibly be considered as a 'loss', rather an investment in future delivery of new varieties. [1] A This symbol indicates that the variety is protected by Plant Breeder's Rights in Australia
"If the Honourable Member would like further discussions, I would be happy to arrange an appropriate senior officer from the Department of Agriculture to meet with him." "The variety [Big TimeA] was released with PBR protection, under licence agreement in 1996 to two nurseries in Australia (one major national nursery in the Eastern States and one nursery in Western Australia)." It therefore falls outside the time span detailed in the question that commences in 2001. The variety referred to as ST 23/74, now named Western DawnA, is not yet released. It is subject to a Request for Proposal [AG2007111] for exclusive licence rights in Australia for commercial development and management of the variety. If the 'breeding venture' referred to is the Australian National Apple Breeding Program, which is based at Manjimup Horticultural Research Institute, it includes many potential varieties. The cost of the program is shared between all the potential varieties and not to individual varieties. (a) If the question refers to the apple breeding program in which there are many potential varieties under evaluation, I refer to the answer provided to question 'h' of Legislative Assembly Question on Notice 357 in 2005. The direct investment "since 2001 has been - $428,725 in 2001/02, $534,517 in 2002/03, $482,365 in 2003/04, $477,160 in 2004/05", and is $545,342 for 2005/06. To date for this financial year the direct investment is $499,361. "These funds are made available from royalties from previous tree sales and research funds from Horticulture Australia Limited." (b) As indicated Western DawnA, previously called ST 23/74 has not been released. Therefore there has been no fruit of Western DawnA released for sale. "The variety [Big TimeA] was released with PBR protection, under licence agreement in 1996 to two nurseries in Australia (one major national nursery in the Eastern States and one nursery in Western Australia). Through this process there has been very limited uptake of the variety by industry." The Department does not have records of Big TimeA fruit sales. (c) As above, the Department has no records of Big TimeA fruit sales. There has been no Western DawnA [ST 23/74] fruit released for sale. (d) As above Western DawnA has not yet been released therefore there have been no sales. (e) There are no specific funding allocations to individual varieties. As detailed in the answer to question 'p' of Legislative Assembly Question on Notice 357 in 2005. In relation to Big TimeA: "There was no specific funding allocation to this variety." "The Department's records of domestic promotion and intellectual property protection show a total cost of $11,932." Since then there have been costs of $600 for annual Plant Breeders Rights fees bringing the total recorded costs to $12,532. The income from royalties is commercial information. As indicated above there has been very limited uptake of the variety Big TimeA by industry. However the direct costs attributed to this variety are only $12,532. Western DawnA [ST 23/74] is not yet released so there are no sales of this variety to date. (f) It is not appropriate to sell fruit prior to intellectual property protection of a variety nor before the commercialisation licence is in place. The Department however does use fruit for evaluation which is common practice in breeding projects, prior to commercial release. All fruit not used for evaluation is discarded without sale. When the commercialisation licence is in place, fruit will be able to be sold. (g) See (f) above. 2. The Government makes funding appropriations to the Department on an annual basis. This allocation process is informed by the Department's budget proposals which in turn are informed by input from stakeholders. Funds are then allocated by the Department to deliver outcomes for the State. The Director General of Agriculture is accountable for the delivery of these outcomes. (a) Specific priorities for research funding are determined by the Department via well developed needs analysis and investment decision making processes. The Department determines program and project level allocations within several priorities established by the Government. (b) The majority of research outputs are delivered by the Department often in partnership with other research funders and providers. The Department may contract service delivery by other parties where it considers the output or outcome is better achieved via that means. (c) Much of the work of the Department is co-funded by national industry based research and development corporations, National Co-operative Research Centres and Australian Government programs that ensure delivery of shared priorities at lower cost to the Government. 3. (a) This is a matter for the Department to determine. The Department of Agriculture and Food and Horticulture Australia Limited have well established processes for this purpose. (b) (i) Program and project costs are reviewed internally and externally. For the apple breeding program internal process are in place and the involvement of Apples and Pear Australia Limited and Horticulture Australia Limited provides external review mechanisms. All Departmental projects are subject to normal audit functions conducted by the Department's Internal Audit Branch and the Office of the Auditor-General. (ii) See (i) above. (iii) See (i) above. (iv) Industry and community outcomes are assessed where appropriate data is available. Stakeholder support for programs and projects is also assessed via industry and community consultation processes and customer surveys. (v) The normal range of accountability and transparency mechanisms an in place including Parliamentary reporting and scrutiny, public annual reporting, industry and community consultation, reporting to funding partners, Office of the Auditor-General, Freedom of Information and other means. 4. No. The National Apple Breeding Program is supported by both State funds in the form of royalties from released varieties and funding from the National apple industry (Apples and Pears Australia Limited) via Horticulture Australia Limited. The program has been subject to significant external scrutiny and has received positive reviews. Investment in plant breeding programs is long term and delivers long term benefits to industry and the economy. This investment supports future variety releases and cannot sensibly be considered as a 'loss', rather an investment in future delivery of new varieties. [1] A This symbol indicates that the variety is protected by Plant Breeder's Rights in Australia
"The variety [Big TimeA] was released with PBR protection, under licence agreement in 1996 to two nurseries in Australia (one major national nursery in the Eastern States and one nursery in Western Australia)." It therefore falls outside the time span detailed in the question that commences in 2001. The variety referred to as ST 23/74, now named Western DawnA, is not yet released. It is subject to a Request for Proposal [AG2007111] for exclusive licence rights in Australia for commercial development and management of the variety. If the 'breeding venture' referred to is the Australian National Apple Breeding Program, which is based at Manjimup Horticultural Research Institute, it includes many potential varieties. The cost of the program is shared between all the potential varieties and not to individual varieties. (a) If the question refers to the apple breeding program in which there are many potential varieties under evaluation, I refer to the answer provided to question 'h' of Legislative Assembly Question on Notice 357 in 2005. The direct investment "since 2001 has been - $428,725 in 2001/02, $534,517 in 2002/03, $482,365 in 2003/04, $477,160 in 2004/05", and is $545,342 for 2005/06. To date for this financial year the direct investment is $499,361. "These funds are made available from royalties from previous tree sales and research funds from Horticulture Australia Limited." (b) As indicated Western DawnA, previously called ST 23/74 has not been released. Therefore there has been no fruit of Western DawnA released for sale. "The variety [Big TimeA] was released with PBR protection, under licence agreement in 1996 to two nurseries in Australia (one major national nursery in the Eastern States and one nursery in Western Australia). Through this process there has been very limited uptake of the variety by industry." The Department does not have records of Big TimeA fruit sales. (c) As above, the Department has no records of Big TimeA fruit sales. There has been no Western DawnA [ST 23/74] fruit released for sale. (d) As above Western DawnA has not yet been released therefore there have been no sales. (e) There are no specific funding allocations to individual varieties. As detailed in the answer to question 'p' of Legislative Assembly Question on Notice 357 in 2005. In relation to Big TimeA: "There was no specific funding allocation to this variety." "The Department's records of domestic promotion and intellectual property protection show a total cost of $11,932." Since then there have been costs of $600 for annual Plant Breeders Rights fees bringing the total recorded costs to $12,532. The income from royalties is commercial information. As indicated above there has been very limited uptake of the variety Big TimeA by industry. However the direct costs attributed to this variety are only $12,532. Western DawnA [ST 23/74] is not yet released so there are no sales of this variety to date. (f) It is not appropriate to sell fruit prior to intellectual property protection of a variety nor before the commercialisation licence is in place. The Department however does use fruit for evaluation which is common practice in breeding projects, prior to commercial release. All fruit not used for evaluation is discarded without sale. When the commercialisation licence is in place, fruit will be able to be sold. (g) See (f) above. 2. The Government makes funding appropriations to the Department on an annual basis. This allocation process is informed by the Department's budget proposals which in turn are informed by input from stakeholders. Funds are then allocated by the Department to deliver outcomes for the State. The Director General of Agriculture is accountable for the delivery of these outcomes. (a) Specific priorities for research funding are determined by the Department via well developed needs analysis and investment decision making processes. The Department determines program and project level allocations within several priorities established by the Government. (b) The majority of research outputs are delivered by the Department often in partnership with other research funders and providers. The Department may contract service delivery by other parties where it considers the output or outcome is better achieved via that means. (c) Much of the work of the Department is co-funded by national industry based research and development corporations, National Co-operative Research Centres and Australian Government programs that ensure delivery of shared priorities at lower cost to the Government. 3. (a) This is a matter for the Department to determine. The Department of Agriculture and Food and Horticulture Australia Limited have well established processes for this purpose. (b) (i) Program and project costs are reviewed internally and externally. For the apple breeding program internal process are in place and the involvement of Apples and Pear Australia Limited and Horticulture Australia Limited provides external review mechanisms. All Departmental projects are subject to normal audit functions conducted by the Department's Internal Audit Branch and the Office of the Auditor-General. (ii) See (i) above. (iii) See (i) above. (iv) Industry and community outcomes are assessed where appropriate data is available. Stakeholder support for programs and projects is also assessed via industry and community consultation processes and customer surveys. (v) The normal range of accountability and transparency mechanisms an in place including Parliamentary reporting and scrutiny, public annual reporting, industry and community consultation, reporting to funding partners, Office of the Auditor-General, Freedom of Information and other means. 4. No. The National Apple Breeding Program is supported by both State funds in the form of royalties from released varieties and funding from the National apple industry (Apples and Pears Australia Limited) via Horticulture Australia Limited. The program has been subject to significant external scrutiny and has received positive reviews. Investment in plant breeding programs is long term and delivers long term benefits to industry and the economy. This investment supports future variety releases and cannot sensibly be considered as a 'loss', rather an investment in future delivery of new varieties. [1] A This symbol indicates that the variety is protected by Plant Breeder's Rights in Australia
It therefore falls outside the time span detailed in the question that commences in 2001. The variety referred to as ST 23/74, now named Western DawnA, is not yet released. It is subject to a Request for Proposal [AG2007111] for exclusive licence rights in Australia for commercial development and management of the variety. If the 'breeding venture' referred to is the Australian National Apple Breeding Program, which is based at Manjimup Horticultural Research Institute, it includes many potential varieties. The cost of the program is shared between all the potential varieties and not to individual varieties. (a) If the question refers to the apple breeding program in which there are many potential varieties under evaluation, I refer to the answer provided to question 'h' of Legislative Assembly Question on Notice 357 in 2005. The direct investment "since 2001 has been - $428,725 in 2001/02, $534,517 in 2002/03, $482,365 in 2003/04, $477,160 in 2004/05", and is $545,342 for 2005/06. To date for this financial year the direct investment is $499,361. "These funds are made available from royalties from previous tree sales and research funds from Horticulture Australia Limited." (b) As indicated Western DawnA, previously called ST 23/74 has not been released. Therefore there has been no fruit of Western DawnA released for sale. "The variety [Big TimeA] was released with PBR protection, under licence agreement in 1996 to two nurseries in Australia (one major national nursery in the Eastern States and one nursery in Western Australia). Through this process there has been very limited uptake of the variety by industry." The Department does not have records of Big TimeA fruit sales. (c) As above, the Department has no records of Big TimeA fruit sales. There has been no Western DawnA [ST 23/74] fruit released for sale. (d) As above Western DawnA has not yet been released therefore there have been no sales. (e) There are no specific funding allocations to individual varieties. As detailed in the answer to question 'p' of Legislative Assembly Question on Notice 357 in 2005. In relation to Big TimeA: "There was no specific funding allocation to this variety." "The Department's records of domestic promotion and intellectual property protection show a total cost of $11,932." Since then there have been costs of $600 for annual Plant Breeders Rights fees bringing the total recorded costs to $12,532. The income from royalties is commercial information. As indicated above there has been very limited uptake of the variety Big TimeA by industry. However the direct costs attributed to this variety are only $12,532. Western DawnA [ST 23/74] is not yet released so there are no sales of this variety to date. (f) It is not appropriate to sell fruit prior to intellectual property protection of a variety nor before the commercialisation licence is in place. The Department however does use fruit for evaluation which is common practice in breeding projects, prior to commercial release. All fruit not used for evaluation is discarded without sale. When the commercialisation licence is in place, fruit will be able to be sold. (g) See (f) above. 2. The Government makes funding appropriations to the Department on an annual basis. This allocation process is informed by the Department's budget proposals which in turn are informed by input from stakeholders. Funds are then allocated by the Department to deliver outcomes for the State. The Director General of Agriculture is accountable for the delivery of these outcomes. (a) Specific priorities for research funding are determined by the Department via well developed needs analysis and investment decision making processes. The Department determines program and project level allocations within several priorities established by the Government. (b) The majority of research outputs are delivered by the Department often in partnership with other research funders and providers. The Department may contract service delivery by other parties where it considers the output or outcome is better achieved via that means. (c) Much of the work of the Department is co-funded by national industry based research and development corporations, National Co-operative Research Centres and Australian Government programs that ensure delivery of shared priorities at lower cost to the Government. 3. (a) This is a matter for the Department to determine. The Department of Agriculture and Food and Horticulture Australia Limited have well established processes for this purpose. (b) (i) Program and project costs are reviewed internally and externally. For the apple breeding program internal process are in place and the involvement of Apples and Pear Australia Limited and Horticulture Australia Limited provides external review mechanisms. All Departmental projects are subject to normal audit functions conducted by the Department's Internal Audit Branch and the Office of the Auditor-General. (ii) See (i) above. (iii) See (i) above. (iv) Industry and community outcomes are assessed where appropriate data is available. Stakeholder support for programs and projects is also assessed via industry and community consultation processes and customer surveys. (v) The normal range of accountability and transparency mechanisms an in place including Parliamentary reporting and scrutiny, public annual reporting, industry and community consultation, reporting to funding partners, Office of the Auditor-General, Freedom of Information and other means. 4. No. The National Apple Breeding Program is supported by both State funds in the form of royalties from released varieties and funding from the National apple industry (Apples and Pears Australia Limited) via Horticulture Australia Limited. The program has been subject to significant external scrutiny and has received positive reviews. Investment in plant breeding programs is long term and delivers long term benefits to industry and the economy. This investment supports future variety releases and cannot sensibly be considered as a 'loss', rather an investment in future delivery of new varieties. [1] A This symbol indicates that the variety is protected by Plant Breeder's Rights in Australia
The variety referred to as ST 23/74, now named Western DawnA, is not yet released. It is subject to a Request for Proposal [AG2007111] for exclusive licence rights in Australia for commercial development and management of the variety. If the 'breeding venture' referred to is the Australian National Apple Breeding Program, which is based at Manjimup Horticultural Research Institute, it includes many potential varieties. The cost of the program is shared between all the potential varieties and not to individual varieties. (a) If the question refers to the apple breeding program in which there are many potential varieties under evaluation, I refer to the answer provided to question 'h' of Legislative Assembly Question on Notice 357 in 2005. The direct investment "since 2001 has been - $428,725 in 2001/02, $534,517 in 2002/03, $482,365 in 2003/04, $477,160 in 2004/05", and is $545,342 for 2005/06. To date for this financial year the direct investment is $499,361. "These funds are made available from royalties from previous tree sales and research funds from Horticulture Australia Limited." (b) As indicated Western DawnA, previously called ST 23/74 has not been released. Therefore there has been no fruit of Western DawnA released for sale. "The variety [Big TimeA] was released with PBR protection, under licence agreement in 1996 to two nurseries in Australia (one major national nursery in the Eastern States and one nursery in Western Australia). Through this process there has been very limited uptake of the variety by industry." The Department does not have records of Big TimeA fruit sales. (c) As above, the Department has no records of Big TimeA fruit sales. There has been no Western DawnA [ST 23/74] fruit released for sale. (d) As above Western DawnA has not yet been released therefore there have been no sales. (e) There are no specific funding allocations to individual varieties. As detailed in the answer to question 'p' of Legislative Assembly Question on Notice 357 in 2005. In relation to Big TimeA: "There was no specific funding allocation to this variety." "The Department's records of domestic promotion and intellectual property protection show a total cost of $11,932." Since then there have been costs of $600 for annual Plant Breeders Rights fees bringing the total recorded costs to $12,532. The income from royalties is commercial information. As indicated above there has been very limited uptake of the variety Big TimeA by industry. However the direct costs attributed to this variety are only $12,532. Western DawnA [ST 23/74] is not yet released so there are no sales of this variety to date. (f) It is not appropriate to sell fruit prior to intellectual property protection of a variety nor before the commercialisation licence is in place. The Department however does use fruit for evaluation which is common practice in breeding projects, prior to commercial release. All fruit not used for evaluation is discarded without sale. When the commercialisation licence is in place, fruit will be able to be sold. (g) See (f) above. 2. The Government makes funding appropriations to the Department on an annual basis. This allocation process is informed by the Department's budget proposals which in turn are informed by input from stakeholders. Funds are then allocated by the Department to deliver outcomes for the State. The Director General of Agriculture is accountable for the delivery of these outcomes. (a) Specific priorities for research funding are determined by the Department via well developed needs analysis and investment decision making processes. The Department determines program and project level allocations within several priorities established by the Government. (b) The majority of research outputs are delivered by the Department often in partnership with other research funders and providers. The Department may contract service delivery by other parties where it considers the output or outcome is better achieved via that means. (c) Much of the work of the Department is co-funded by national industry based research and development corporations, National Co-operative Research Centres and Australian Government programs that ensure delivery of shared priorities at lower cost to the Government. 3. (a) This is a matter for the Department to determine. The Department of Agriculture and Food and Horticulture Australia Limited have well established processes for this purpose. (b) (i) Program and project costs are reviewed internally and externally. For the apple breeding program internal process are in place and the involvement of Apples and Pear Australia Limited and Horticulture Australia Limited provides external review mechanisms. All Departmental projects are subject to normal audit functions conducted by the Department's Internal Audit Branch and the Office of the Auditor-General. (ii) See (i) above. (iii) See (i) above. (iv) Industry and community outcomes are assessed where appropriate data is available. Stakeholder support for programs and projects is also assessed via industry and community consultation processes and customer surveys. (v) The normal range of accountability and transparency mechanisms an in place including Parliamentary reporting and scrutiny, public annual reporting, industry and community consultation, reporting to funding partners, Office of the Auditor-General, Freedom of Information and other means. 4. No. The National Apple Breeding Program is supported by both State funds in the form of royalties from released varieties and funding from the National apple industry (Apples and Pears Australia Limited) via Horticulture Australia Limited. The program has been subject to significant external scrutiny and has received positive reviews. Investment in plant breeding programs is long term and delivers long term benefits to industry and the economy. This investment supports future variety releases and cannot sensibly be considered as a 'loss', rather an investment in future delivery of new varieties. [1] A This symbol indicates that the variety is protected by Plant Breeder's Rights in Australia
If the 'breeding venture' referred to is the Australian National Apple Breeding Program, which is based at Manjimup Horticultural Research Institute, it includes many potential varieties. The cost of the program is shared between all the potential varieties and not to individual varieties. (a) If the question refers to the apple breeding program in which there are many potential varieties under evaluation, I refer to the answer provided to question 'h' of Legislative Assembly Question on Notice 357 in 2005. The direct investment "since 2001 has been - $428,725 in 2001/02, $534,517 in 2002/03, $482,365 in 2003/04, $477,160 in 2004/05", and is $545,342 for 2005/06. To date for this financial year the direct investment is $499,361. "These funds are made available from royalties from previous tree sales and research funds from Horticulture Australia Limited." (b) As indicated Western DawnA, previously called ST 23/74 has not been released. Therefore there has been no fruit of Western DawnA released for sale. "The variety [Big TimeA] was released with PBR protection, under licence agreement in 1996 to two nurseries in Australia (one major national nursery in the Eastern States and one nursery in Western Australia). Through this process there has been very limited uptake of the variety by industry." The Department does not have records of Big TimeA fruit sales. (c) As above, the Department has no records of Big TimeA fruit sales. There has been no Western DawnA [ST 23/74] fruit released for sale. (d) As above Western DawnA has not yet been released therefore there have been no sales. (e) There are no specific funding allocations to individual varieties. As detailed in the answer to question 'p' of Legislative Assembly Question on Notice 357 in 2005. In relation to Big TimeA: "There was no specific funding allocation to this variety." "The Department's records of domestic promotion and intellectual property protection show a total cost of $11,932." Since then there have been costs of $600 for annual Plant Breeders Rights fees bringing the total recorded costs to $12,532. The income from royalties is commercial information. As indicated above there has been very limited uptake of the variety Big TimeA by industry. However the direct costs attributed to this variety are only $12,532. Western DawnA [ST 23/74] is not yet released so there are no sales of this variety to date. (f) It is not appropriate to sell fruit prior to intellectual property protection of a variety nor before the commercialisation licence is in place. The Department however does use fruit for evaluation which is common practice in breeding projects, prior to commercial release. All fruit not used for evaluation is discarded without sale. When the commercialisation licence is in place, fruit will be able to be sold. (g) See (f) above. 2. The Government makes funding appropriations to the Department on an annual basis. This allocation process is informed by the Department's budget proposals which in turn are informed by input from stakeholders. Funds are then allocated by the Department to deliver outcomes for the State. The Director General of Agriculture is accountable for the delivery of these outcomes. (a) Specific priorities for research funding are determined by the Department via well developed needs analysis and investment decision making processes. The Department determines program and project level allocations within several priorities established by the Government. (b) The majority of research outputs are delivered by the Department often in partnership with other research funders and providers. The Department may contract service delivery by other parties where it considers the output or outcome is better achieved via that means. (c) Much of the work of the Department is co-funded by national industry based research and development corporations, National Co-operative Research Centres and Australian Government programs that ensure delivery of shared priorities at lower cost to the Government. 3. (a) This is a matter for the Department to determine. The Department of Agriculture and Food and Horticulture Australia Limited have well established processes for this purpose. (b) (i) Program and project costs are reviewed internally and externally. For the apple breeding program internal process are in place and the involvement of Apples and Pear Australia Limited and Horticulture Australia Limited provides external review mechanisms. All Departmental projects are subject to normal audit functions conducted by the Department's Internal Audit Branch and the Office of the Auditor-General. (ii) See (i) above. (iii) See (i) above. (iv) Industry and community outcomes are assessed where appropriate data is available. Stakeholder support for programs and projects is also assessed via industry and community consultation processes and customer surveys. (v) The normal range of accountability and transparency mechanisms an in place including Parliamentary reporting and scrutiny, public annual reporting, industry and community consultation, reporting to funding partners, Office of the Auditor-General, Freedom of Information and other means. 4. No. The National Apple Breeding Program is supported by both State funds in the form of royalties from released varieties and funding from the National apple industry (Apples and Pears Australia Limited) via Horticulture Australia Limited. The program has been subject to significant external scrutiny and has received positive reviews. Investment in plant breeding programs is long term and delivers long term benefits to industry and the economy. This investment supports future variety releases and cannot sensibly be considered as a 'loss', rather an investment in future delivery of new varieties. [1] A This symbol indicates that the variety is protected by Plant Breeder's Rights in Australia
(a) If the question refers to the apple breeding program in which there are many potential varieties under evaluation, I refer to the answer provided to question 'h' of Legislative Assembly Question on Notice 357 in 2005. The direct investment "since 2001 has been - $428,725 in 2001/02, $534,517 in 2002/03, $482,365 in 2003/04, $477,160 in 2004/05", and is $545,342 for 2005/06. To date for this financial year the direct investment is $499,361. "These funds are made available from royalties from previous tree sales and research funds from Horticulture Australia Limited." (b) As indicated Western DawnA, previously called ST 23/74 has not been released. Therefore there has been no fruit of Western DawnA released for sale. "The variety [Big TimeA] was released with PBR protection, under licence agreement in 1996 to two nurseries in Australia (one major national nursery in the Eastern States and one nursery in Western Australia). Through this process there has been very limited uptake of the variety by industry." The Department does not have records of Big TimeA fruit sales. (c) As above, the Department has no records of Big TimeA fruit sales. There has been no Western DawnA [ST 23/74] fruit released for sale. (d) As above Western DawnA has not yet been released therefore there have been no sales. (e) There are no specific funding allocations to individual varieties. As detailed in the answer to question 'p' of Legislative Assembly Question on Notice 357 in 2005. In relation to Big TimeA: "There was no specific funding allocation to this variety." "The Department's records of domestic promotion and intellectual property protection show a total cost of $11,932." Since then there have been costs of $600 for annual Plant Breeders Rights fees bringing the total recorded costs to $12,532. The income from royalties is commercial information. As indicated above there has been very limited uptake of the variety Big TimeA by industry. However the direct costs attributed to this variety are only $12,532. Western DawnA [ST 23/74] is not yet released so there are no sales of this variety to date. (f) It is not appropriate to sell fruit prior to intellectual property protection of a variety nor before the commercialisation licence is in place. The Department however does use fruit for evaluation which is common practice in breeding projects, prior to commercial release. All fruit not used for evaluation is discarded without sale. When the commercialisation licence is in place, fruit will be able to be sold. (g) See (f) above. 2. The Government makes funding appropriations to the Department on an annual basis. This allocation process is informed by the Department's budget proposals which in turn are informed by input from stakeholders. Funds are then allocated by the Department to deliver outcomes for the State. The Director General of Agriculture is accountable for the delivery of these outcomes. (a) Specific priorities for research funding are determined by the Department via well developed needs analysis and investment decision making processes. The Department determines program and project level allocations within several priorities established by the Government. (b) The majority of research outputs are delivered by the Department often in partnership with other research funders and providers. The Department may contract service delivery by other parties where it considers the output or outcome is better achieved via that means. (c) Much of the work of the Department is co-funded by national industry based research and development corporations, National Co-operative Research Centres and Australian Government programs that ensure delivery of shared priorities at lower cost to the Government. 3. (a) This is a matter for the Department to determine. The Department of Agriculture and Food and Horticulture Australia Limited have well established processes for this purpose. (b) (i) Program and project costs are reviewed internally and externally. For the apple breeding program internal process are in place and the involvement of Apples and Pear Australia Limited and Horticulture Australia Limited provides external review mechanisms. All Departmental projects are subject to normal audit functions conducted by the Department's Internal Audit Branch and the Office of the Auditor-General. (ii) See (i) above. (iii) See (i) above. (iv) Industry and community outcomes are assessed where appropriate data is available. Stakeholder support for programs and projects is also assessed via industry and community consultation processes and customer surveys. (v) The normal range of accountability and transparency mechanisms an in place including Parliamentary reporting and scrutiny, public annual reporting, industry and community consultation, reporting to funding partners, Office of the Auditor-General, Freedom of Information and other means. 4. No. The National Apple Breeding Program is supported by both State funds in the form of royalties from released varieties and funding from the National apple industry (Apples and Pears Australia Limited) via Horticulture Australia Limited. The program has been subject to significant external scrutiny and has received positive reviews. Investment in plant breeding programs is long term and delivers long term benefits to industry and the economy. This investment supports future variety releases and cannot sensibly be considered as a 'loss', rather an investment in future delivery of new varieties. [1] A This symbol indicates that the variety is protected by Plant Breeder's Rights in Australia
The direct investment "since 2001 has been - $428,725 in 2001/02, $534,517 in 2002/03, $482,365 in 2003/04, $477,160 in 2004/05", and is $545,342 for 2005/06. To date for this financial year the direct investment is $499,361. "These funds are made available from royalties from previous tree sales and research funds from Horticulture Australia Limited." (b) As indicated Western DawnA, previously called ST 23/74 has not been released. Therefore there has been no fruit of Western DawnA released for sale. "The variety [Big TimeA] was released with PBR protection, under licence agreement in 1996 to two nurseries in Australia (one major national nursery in the Eastern States and one nursery in Western Australia). Through this process there has been very limited uptake of the variety by industry." The Department does not have records of Big TimeA fruit sales. (c) As above, the Department has no records of Big TimeA fruit sales. There has been no Western DawnA [ST 23/74] fruit released for sale. (d) As above Western DawnA has not yet been released therefore there have been no sales. (e) There are no specific funding allocations to individual varieties. As detailed in the answer to question 'p' of Legislative Assembly Question on Notice 357 in 2005. In relation to Big TimeA: "There was no specific funding allocation to this variety." "The Department's records of domestic promotion and intellectual property protection show a total cost of $11,932." Since then there have been costs of $600 for annual Plant Breeders Rights fees bringing the total recorded costs to $12,532. The income from royalties is commercial information. As indicated above there has been very limited uptake of the variety Big TimeA by industry. However the direct costs attributed to this variety are only $12,532. Western DawnA [ST 23/74] is not yet released so there are no sales of this variety to date. (f) It is not appropriate to sell fruit prior to intellectual property protection of a variety nor before the commercialisation licence is in place. The Department however does use fruit for evaluation which is common practice in breeding projects, prior to commercial release. All fruit not used for evaluation is discarded without sale. When the commercialisation licence is in place, fruit will be able to be sold. (g) See (f) above. 2. The Government makes funding appropriations to the Department on an annual basis. This allocation process is informed by the Department's budget proposals which in turn are informed by input from stakeholders. Funds are then allocated by the Department to deliver outcomes for the State. The Director General of Agriculture is accountable for the delivery of these outcomes. (a) Specific priorities for research funding are determined by the Department via well developed needs analysis and investment decision making processes. The Department determines program and project level allocations within several priorities established by the Government. (b) The majority of research outputs are delivered by the Department often in partnership with other research funders and providers. The Department may contract service delivery by other parties where it considers the output or outcome is better achieved via that means. (c) Much of the work of the Department is co-funded by national industry based research and development corporations, National Co-operative Research Centres and Australian Government programs that ensure delivery of shared priorities at lower cost to the Government. 3. (a) This is a matter for the Department to determine. The Department of Agriculture and Food and Horticulture Australia Limited have well established processes for this purpose. (b) (i) Program and project costs are reviewed internally and externally. For the apple breeding program internal process are in place and the involvement of Apples and Pear Australia Limited and Horticulture Australia Limited provides external review mechanisms. All Departmental projects are subject to normal audit functions conducted by the Department's Internal Audit Branch and the Office of the Auditor-General. (ii) See (i) above. (iii) See (i) above. (iv) Industry and community outcomes are assessed where appropriate data is available. Stakeholder support for programs and projects is also assessed via industry and community consultation processes and customer surveys. (v) The normal range of accountability and transparency mechanisms an in place including Parliamentary reporting and scrutiny, public annual reporting, industry and community consultation, reporting to funding partners, Office of the Auditor-General, Freedom of Information and other means. 4. No. The National Apple Breeding Program is supported by both State funds in the form of royalties from released varieties and funding from the National apple industry (Apples and Pears Australia Limited) via Horticulture Australia Limited. The program has been subject to significant external scrutiny and has received positive reviews. Investment in plant breeding programs is long term and delivers long term benefits to industry and the economy. This investment supports future variety releases and cannot sensibly be considered as a 'loss', rather an investment in future delivery of new varieties. [1] A This symbol indicates that the variety is protected by Plant Breeder's Rights in Australia
"These funds are made available from royalties from previous tree sales and research funds from Horticulture Australia Limited." (b) As indicated Western DawnA, previously called ST 23/74 has not been released. Therefore there has been no fruit of Western DawnA released for sale. "The variety [Big TimeA] was released with PBR protection, under licence agreement in 1996 to two nurseries in Australia (one major national nursery in the Eastern States and one nursery in Western Australia). Through this process there has been very limited uptake of the variety by industry." The Department does not have records of Big TimeA fruit sales. (c) As above, the Department has no records of Big TimeA fruit sales. There has been no Western DawnA [ST 23/74] fruit released for sale. (d) As above Western DawnA has not yet been released therefore there have been no sales. (e) There are no specific funding allocations to individual varieties. As detailed in the answer to question 'p' of Legislative Assembly Question on Notice 357 in 2005. In relation to Big TimeA: "There was no specific funding allocation to this variety." "The Department's records of domestic promotion and intellectual property protection show a total cost of $11,932." Since then there have been costs of $600 for annual Plant Breeders Rights fees bringing the total recorded costs to $12,532. The income from royalties is commercial information. As indicated above there has been very limited uptake of the variety Big TimeA by industry. However the direct costs attributed to this variety are only $12,532. Western DawnA [ST 23/74] is not yet released so there are no sales of this variety to date. (f) It is not appropriate to sell fruit prior to intellectual property protection of a variety nor before the commercialisation licence is in place. The Department however does use fruit for evaluation which is common practice in breeding projects, prior to commercial release. All fruit not used for evaluation is discarded without sale. When the commercialisation licence is in place, fruit will be able to be sold. (g) See (f) above. 2. The Government makes funding appropriations to the Department on an annual basis. This allocation process is informed by the Department's budget proposals which in turn are informed by input from stakeholders. Funds are then allocated by the Department to deliver outcomes for the State. The Director General of Agriculture is accountable for the delivery of these outcomes. (a) Specific priorities for research funding are determined by the Department via well developed needs analysis and investment decision making processes. The Department determines program and project level allocations within several priorities established by the Government. (b) The majority of research outputs are delivered by the Department often in partnership with other research funders and providers. The Department may contract service delivery by other parties where it considers the output or outcome is better achieved via that means. (c) Much of the work of the Department is co-funded by national industry based research and development corporations, National Co-operative Research Centres and Australian Government programs that ensure delivery of shared priorities at lower cost to the Government. 3. (a) This is a matter for the Department to determine. The Department of Agriculture and Food and Horticulture Australia Limited have well established processes for this purpose. (b) (i) Program and project costs are reviewed internally and externally. For the apple breeding program internal process are in place and the involvement of Apples and Pear Australia Limited and Horticulture Australia Limited provides external review mechanisms. All Departmental projects are subject to normal audit functions conducted by the Department's Internal Audit Branch and the Office of the Auditor-General. (ii) See (i) above. (iii) See (i) above. (iv) Industry and community outcomes are assessed where appropriate data is available. Stakeholder support for programs and projects is also assessed via industry and community consultation processes and customer surveys. (v) The normal range of accountability and transparency mechanisms an in place including Parliamentary reporting and scrutiny, public annual reporting, industry and community consultation, reporting to funding partners, Office of the Auditor-General, Freedom of Information and other means. 4. No. The National Apple Breeding Program is supported by both State funds in the form of royalties from released varieties and funding from the National apple industry (Apples and Pears Australia Limited) via Horticulture Australia Limited. The program has been subject to significant external scrutiny and has received positive reviews. Investment in plant breeding programs is long term and delivers long term benefits to industry and the economy. This investment supports future variety releases and cannot sensibly be considered as a 'loss', rather an investment in future delivery of new varieties. [1] A This symbol indicates that the variety is protected by Plant Breeder's Rights in Australia
(b) As indicated Western DawnA, previously called ST 23/74 has not been released. Therefore there has been no fruit of Western DawnA released for sale. "The variety [Big TimeA] was released with PBR protection, under licence agreement in 1996 to two nurseries in Australia (one major national nursery in the Eastern States and one nursery in Western Australia). Through this process there has been very limited uptake of the variety by industry." The Department does not have records of Big TimeA fruit sales. (c) As above, the Department has no records of Big TimeA fruit sales. There has been no Western DawnA [ST 23/74] fruit released for sale. (d) As above Western DawnA has not yet been released therefore there have been no sales. (e) There are no specific funding allocations to individual varieties. As detailed in the answer to question 'p' of Legislative Assembly Question on Notice 357 in 2005. In relation to Big TimeA: "There was no specific funding allocation to this variety." "The Department's records of domestic promotion and intellectual property protection show a total cost of $11,932." Since then there have been costs of $600 for annual Plant Breeders Rights fees bringing the total recorded costs to $12,532. The income from royalties is commercial information. As indicated above there has been very limited uptake of the variety Big TimeA by industry. However the direct costs attributed to this variety are only $12,532. Western DawnA [ST 23/74] is not yet released so there are no sales of this variety to date. (f) It is not appropriate to sell fruit prior to intellectual property protection of a variety nor before the commercialisation licence is in place. The Department however does use fruit for evaluation which is common practice in breeding projects, prior to commercial release. All fruit not used for evaluation is discarded without sale. When the commercialisation licence is in place, fruit will be able to be sold. (g) See (f) above. 2. The Government makes funding appropriations to the Department on an annual basis. This allocation process is informed by the Department's budget proposals which in turn are informed by input from stakeholders. Funds are then allocated by the Department to deliver outcomes for the State. The Director General of Agriculture is accountable for the delivery of these outcomes. (a) Specific priorities for research funding are determined by the Department via well developed needs analysis and investment decision making processes. The Department determines program and project level allocations within several priorities established by the Government. (b) The majority of research outputs are delivered by the Department often in partnership with other research funders and providers. The Department may contract service delivery by other parties where it considers the output or outcome is better achieved via that means. (c) Much of the work of the Department is co-funded by national industry based research and development corporations, National Co-operative Research Centres and Australian Government programs that ensure delivery of shared priorities at lower cost to the Government. 3. (a) This is a matter for the Department to determine. The Department of Agriculture and Food and Horticulture Australia Limited have well established processes for this purpose. (b) (i) Program and project costs are reviewed internally and externally. For the apple breeding program internal process are in place and the involvement of Apples and Pear Australia Limited and Horticulture Australia Limited provides external review mechanisms. All Departmental projects are subject to normal audit functions conducted by the Department's Internal Audit Branch and the Office of the Auditor-General. (ii) See (i) above. (iii) See (i) above. (iv) Industry and community outcomes are assessed where appropriate data is available. Stakeholder support for programs and projects is also assessed via industry and community consultation processes and customer surveys. (v) The normal range of accountability and transparency mechanisms an in place including Parliamentary reporting and scrutiny, public annual reporting, industry and community consultation, reporting to funding partners, Office of the Auditor-General, Freedom of Information and other means. 4. No. The National Apple Breeding Program is supported by both State funds in the form of royalties from released varieties and funding from the National apple industry (Apples and Pears Australia Limited) via Horticulture Australia Limited. The program has been subject to significant external scrutiny and has received positive reviews. Investment in plant breeding programs is long term and delivers long term benefits to industry and the economy. This investment supports future variety releases and cannot sensibly be considered as a 'loss', rather an investment in future delivery of new varieties. [1] A This symbol indicates that the variety is protected by Plant Breeder's Rights in Australia
"The variety [Big TimeA] was released with PBR protection, under licence agreement in 1996 to two nurseries in Australia (one major national nursery in the Eastern States and one nursery in Western Australia). Through this process there has been very limited uptake of the variety by industry." The Department does not have records of Big TimeA fruit sales. (c) As above, the Department has no records of Big TimeA fruit sales. There has been no Western DawnA [ST 23/74] fruit released for sale. (d) As above Western DawnA has not yet been released therefore there have been no sales. (e) There are no specific funding allocations to individual varieties. As detailed in the answer to question 'p' of Legislative Assembly Question on Notice 357 in 2005. In relation to Big TimeA: "There was no specific funding allocation to this variety." "The Department's records of domestic promotion and intellectual property protection show a total cost of $11,932." Since then there have been costs of $600 for annual Plant Breeders Rights fees bringing the total recorded costs to $12,532. The income from royalties is commercial information. As indicated above there has been very limited uptake of the variety Big TimeA by industry. However the direct costs attributed to this variety are only $12,532. Western DawnA [ST 23/74] is not yet released so there are no sales of this variety to date. (f) It is not appropriate to sell fruit prior to intellectual property protection of a variety nor before the commercialisation licence is in place. The Department however does use fruit for evaluation which is common practice in breeding projects, prior to commercial release. All fruit not used for evaluation is discarded without sale. When the commercialisation licence is in place, fruit will be able to be sold. (g) See (f) above. 2. The Government makes funding appropriations to the Department on an annual basis. This allocation process is informed by the Department's budget proposals which in turn are informed by input from stakeholders. Funds are then allocated by the Department to deliver outcomes for the State. The Director General of Agriculture is accountable for the delivery of these outcomes. (a) Specific priorities for research funding are determined by the Department via well developed needs analysis and investment decision making processes. The Department determines program and project level allocations within several priorities established by the Government. (b) The majority of research outputs are delivered by the Department often in partnership with other research funders and providers. The Department may contract service delivery by other parties where it considers the output or outcome is better achieved via that means. (c) Much of the work of the Department is co-funded by national industry based research and development corporations, National Co-operative Research Centres and Australian Government programs that ensure delivery of shared priorities at lower cost to the Government. 3. (a) This is a matter for the Department to determine. The Department of Agriculture and Food and Horticulture Australia Limited have well established processes for this purpose. (b) (i) Program and project costs are reviewed internally and externally. For the apple breeding program internal process are in place and the involvement of Apples and Pear Australia Limited and Horticulture Australia Limited provides external review mechanisms. All Departmental projects are subject to normal audit functions conducted by the Department's Internal Audit Branch and the Office of the Auditor-General. (ii) See (i) above. (iii) See (i) above. (iv) Industry and community outcomes are assessed where appropriate data is available. Stakeholder support for programs and projects is also assessed via industry and community consultation processes and customer surveys. (v) The normal range of accountability and transparency mechanisms an in place including Parliamentary reporting and scrutiny, public annual reporting, industry and community consultation, reporting to funding partners, Office of the Auditor-General, Freedom of Information and other means. 4. No. The National Apple Breeding Program is supported by both State funds in the form of royalties from released varieties and funding from the National apple industry (Apples and Pears Australia Limited) via Horticulture Australia Limited. The program has been subject to significant external scrutiny and has received positive reviews. Investment in plant breeding programs is long term and delivers long term benefits to industry and the economy. This investment supports future variety releases and cannot sensibly be considered as a 'loss', rather an investment in future delivery of new varieties. [1] A This symbol indicates that the variety is protected by Plant Breeder's Rights in Australia
The Department does not have records of Big TimeA fruit sales. (c) As above, the Department has no records of Big TimeA fruit sales. There has been no Western DawnA [ST 23/74] fruit released for sale. (d) As above Western DawnA has not yet been released therefore there have been no sales. (e) There are no specific funding allocations to individual varieties. As detailed in the answer to question 'p' of Legislative Assembly Question on Notice 357 in 2005. In relation to Big TimeA: "There was no specific funding allocation to this variety." "The Department's records of domestic promotion and intellectual property protection show a total cost of $11,932." Since then there have been costs of $600 for annual Plant Breeders Rights fees bringing the total recorded costs to $12,532. The income from royalties is commercial information. As indicated above there has been very limited uptake of the variety Big TimeA by industry. However the direct costs attributed to this variety are only $12,532. Western DawnA [ST 23/74] is not yet released so there are no sales of this variety to date. (f) It is not appropriate to sell fruit prior to intellectual property protection of a variety nor before the commercialisation licence is in place. The Department however does use fruit for evaluation which is common practice in breeding projects, prior to commercial release. All fruit not used for evaluation is discarded without sale. When the commercialisation licence is in place, fruit will be able to be sold. (g) See (f) above. 2. The Government makes funding appropriations to the Department on an annual basis. This allocation process is informed by the Department's budget proposals which in turn are informed by input from stakeholders. Funds are then allocated by the Department to deliver outcomes for the State. The Director General of Agriculture is accountable for the delivery of these outcomes. (a) Specific priorities for research funding are determined by the Department via well developed needs analysis and investment decision making processes. The Department determines program and project level allocations within several priorities established by the Government. (b) The majority of research outputs are delivered by the Department often in partnership with other research funders and providers. The Department may contract service delivery by other parties where it considers the output or outcome is better achieved via that means. (c) Much of the work of the Department is co-funded by national industry based research and development corporations, National Co-operative Research Centres and Australian Government programs that ensure delivery of shared priorities at lower cost to the Government. 3. (a) This is a matter for the Department to determine. The Department of Agriculture and Food and Horticulture Australia Limited have well established processes for this purpose. (b) (i) Program and project costs are reviewed internally and externally. For the apple breeding program internal process are in place and the involvement of Apples and Pear Australia Limited and Horticulture Australia Limited provides external review mechanisms. All Departmental projects are subject to normal audit functions conducted by the Department's Internal Audit Branch and the Office of the Auditor-General. (ii) See (i) above. (iii) See (i) above. (iv) Industry and community outcomes are assessed where appropriate data is available. Stakeholder support for programs and projects is also assessed via industry and community consultation processes and customer surveys. (v) The normal range of accountability and transparency mechanisms an in place including Parliamentary reporting and scrutiny, public annual reporting, industry and community consultation, reporting to funding partners, Office of the Auditor-General, Freedom of Information and other means. 4. No. The National Apple Breeding Program is supported by both State funds in the form of royalties from released varieties and funding from the National apple industry (Apples and Pears Australia Limited) via Horticulture Australia Limited. The program has been subject to significant external scrutiny and has received positive reviews. Investment in plant breeding programs is long term and delivers long term benefits to industry and the economy. This investment supports future variety releases and cannot sensibly be considered as a 'loss', rather an investment in future delivery of new varieties. [1] A This symbol indicates that the variety is protected by Plant Breeder's Rights in Australia
(c) As above, the Department has no records of Big TimeA fruit sales. There has been no Western DawnA [ST 23/74] fruit released for sale. (d) As above Western DawnA has not yet been released therefore there have been no sales. (e) There are no specific funding allocations to individual varieties. As detailed in the answer to question 'p' of Legislative Assembly Question on Notice 357 in 2005. In relation to Big TimeA: "There was no specific funding allocation to this variety." "The Department's records of domestic promotion and intellectual property protection show a total cost of $11,932." Since then there have been costs of $600 for annual Plant Breeders Rights fees bringing the total recorded costs to $12,532. The income from royalties is commercial information. As indicated above there has been very limited uptake of the variety Big TimeA by industry. However the direct costs attributed to this variety are only $12,532. Western DawnA [ST 23/74] is not yet released so there are no sales of this variety to date. (f) It is not appropriate to sell fruit prior to intellectual property protection of a variety nor before the commercialisation licence is in place. The Department however does use fruit for evaluation which is common practice in breeding projects, prior to commercial release. All fruit not used for evaluation is discarded without sale. When the commercialisation licence is in place, fruit will be able to be sold. (g) See (f) above. 2. The Government makes funding appropriations to the Department on an annual basis. This allocation process is informed by the Department's budget proposals which in turn are informed by input from stakeholders. Funds are then allocated by the Department to deliver outcomes for the State. The Director General of Agriculture is accountable for the delivery of these outcomes. (a) Specific priorities for research funding are determined by the Department via well developed needs analysis and investment decision making processes. The Department determines program and project level allocations within several priorities established by the Government. (b) The majority of research outputs are delivered by the Department often in partnership with other research funders and providers. The Department may contract service delivery by other parties where it considers the output or outcome is better achieved via that means. (c) Much of the work of the Department is co-funded by national industry based research and development corporations, National Co-operative Research Centres and Australian Government programs that ensure delivery of shared priorities at lower cost to the Government. 3. (a) This is a matter for the Department to determine. The Department of Agriculture and Food and Horticulture Australia Limited have well established processes for this purpose. (b) (i) Program and project costs are reviewed internally and externally. For the apple breeding program internal process are in place and the involvement of Apples and Pear Australia Limited and Horticulture Australia Limited provides external review mechanisms. All Departmental projects are subject to normal audit functions conducted by the Department's Internal Audit Branch and the Office of the Auditor-General. (ii) See (i) above. (iii) See (i) above. (iv) Industry and community outcomes are assessed where appropriate data is available. Stakeholder support for programs and projects is also assessed via industry and community consultation processes and customer surveys. (v) The normal range of accountability and transparency mechanisms an in place including Parliamentary reporting and scrutiny, public annual reporting, industry and community consultation, reporting to funding partners, Office of the Auditor-General, Freedom of Information and other means. 4. No. The National Apple Breeding Program is supported by both State funds in the form of royalties from released varieties and funding from the National apple industry (Apples and Pears Australia Limited) via Horticulture Australia Limited. The program has been subject to significant external scrutiny and has received positive reviews. Investment in plant breeding programs is long term and delivers long term benefits to industry and the economy. This investment supports future variety releases and cannot sensibly be considered as a 'loss', rather an investment in future delivery of new varieties. [1] A This symbol indicates that the variety is protected by Plant Breeder's Rights in Australia
(d) As above Western DawnA has not yet been released therefore there have been no sales. (e) There are no specific funding allocations to individual varieties. As detailed in the answer to question 'p' of Legislative Assembly Question on Notice 357 in 2005. In relation to Big TimeA: "There was no specific funding allocation to this variety." "The Department's records of domestic promotion and intellectual property protection show a total cost of $11,932." Since then there have been costs of $600 for annual Plant Breeders Rights fees bringing the total recorded costs to $12,532. The income from royalties is commercial information. As indicated above there has been very limited uptake of the variety Big TimeA by industry. However the direct costs attributed to this variety are only $12,532. Western DawnA [ST 23/74] is not yet released so there are no sales of this variety to date. (f) It is not appropriate to sell fruit prior to intellectual property protection of a variety nor before the commercialisation licence is in place. The Department however does use fruit for evaluation which is common practice in breeding projects, prior to commercial release. All fruit not used for evaluation is discarded without sale. When the commercialisation licence is in place, fruit will be able to be sold. (g) See (f) above. 2. The Government makes funding appropriations to the Department on an annual basis. This allocation process is informed by the Department's budget proposals which in turn are informed by input from stakeholders. Funds are then allocated by the Department to deliver outcomes for the State. The Director General of Agriculture is accountable for the delivery of these outcomes. (a) Specific priorities for research funding are determined by the Department via well developed needs analysis and investment decision making processes. The Department determines program and project level allocations within several priorities established by the Government. (b) The majority of research outputs are delivered by the Department often in partnership with other research funders and providers. The Department may contract service delivery by other parties where it considers the output or outcome is better achieved via that means. (c) Much of the work of the Department is co-funded by national industry based research and development corporations, National Co-operative Research Centres and Australian Government programs that ensure delivery of shared priorities at lower cost to the Government. 3. (a) This is a matter for the Department to determine. The Department of Agriculture and Food and Horticulture Australia Limited have well established processes for this purpose. (b) (i) Program and project costs are reviewed internally and externally. For the apple breeding program internal process are in place and the involvement of Apples and Pear Australia Limited and Horticulture Australia Limited provides external review mechanisms. All Departmental projects are subject to normal audit functions conducted by the Department's Internal Audit Branch and the Office of the Auditor-General. (ii) See (i) above. (iii) See (i) above. (iv) Industry and community outcomes are assessed where appropriate data is available. Stakeholder support for programs and projects is also assessed via industry and community consultation processes and customer surveys. (v) The normal range of accountability and transparency mechanisms an in place including Parliamentary reporting and scrutiny, public annual reporting, industry and community consultation, reporting to funding partners, Office of the Auditor-General, Freedom of Information and other means. 4. No. The National Apple Breeding Program is supported by both State funds in the form of royalties from released varieties and funding from the National apple industry (Apples and Pears Australia Limited) via Horticulture Australia Limited. The program has been subject to significant external scrutiny and has received positive reviews. Investment in plant breeding programs is long term and delivers long term benefits to industry and the economy. This investment supports future variety releases and cannot sensibly be considered as a 'loss', rather an investment in future delivery of new varieties. [1] A This symbol indicates that the variety is protected by Plant Breeder's Rights in Australia
(e) There are no specific funding allocations to individual varieties. As detailed in the answer to question 'p' of Legislative Assembly Question on Notice 357 in 2005. In relation to Big TimeA: "There was no specific funding allocation to this variety." "The Department's records of domestic promotion and intellectual property protection show a total cost of $11,932." Since then there have been costs of $600 for annual Plant Breeders Rights fees bringing the total recorded costs to $12,532. The income from royalties is commercial information. As indicated above there has been very limited uptake of the variety Big TimeA by industry. However the direct costs attributed to this variety are only $12,532. Western DawnA [ST 23/74] is not yet released so there are no sales of this variety to date. (f) It is not appropriate to sell fruit prior to intellectual property protection of a variety nor before the commercialisation licence is in place. The Department however does use fruit for evaluation which is common practice in breeding projects, prior to commercial release. All fruit not used for evaluation is discarded without sale. When the commercialisation licence is in place, fruit will be able to be sold. (g) See (f) above. 2. The Government makes funding appropriations to the Department on an annual basis. This allocation process is informed by the Department's budget proposals which in turn are informed by input from stakeholders. Funds are then allocated by the Department to deliver outcomes for the State. The Director General of Agriculture is accountable for the delivery of these outcomes. (a) Specific priorities for research funding are determined by the Department via well developed needs analysis and investment decision making processes. The Department determines program and project level allocations within several priorities established by the Government. (b) The majority of research outputs are delivered by the Department often in partnership with other research funders and providers. The Department may contract service delivery by other parties where it considers the output or outcome is better achieved via that means. (c) Much of the work of the Department is co-funded by national industry based research and development corporations, National Co-operative Research Centres and Australian Government programs that ensure delivery of shared priorities at lower cost to the Government. 3. (a) This is a matter for the Department to determine. The Department of Agriculture and Food and Horticulture Australia Limited have well established processes for this purpose. (b) (i) Program and project costs are reviewed internally and externally. For the apple breeding program internal process are in place and the involvement of Apples and Pear Australia Limited and Horticulture Australia Limited provides external review mechanisms. All Departmental projects are subject to normal audit functions conducted by the Department's Internal Audit Branch and the Office of the Auditor-General. (ii) See (i) above. (iii) See (i) above. (iv) Industry and community outcomes are assessed where appropriate data is available. Stakeholder support for programs and projects is also assessed via industry and community consultation processes and customer surveys. (v) The normal range of accountability and transparency mechanisms an in place including Parliamentary reporting and scrutiny, public annual reporting, industry and community consultation, reporting to funding partners, Office of the Auditor-General, Freedom of Information and other means. 4. No. The National Apple Breeding Program is supported by both State funds in the form of royalties from released varieties and funding from the National apple industry (Apples and Pears Australia Limited) via Horticulture Australia Limited. The program has been subject to significant external scrutiny and has received positive reviews. Investment in plant breeding programs is long term and delivers long term benefits to industry and the economy. This investment supports future variety releases and cannot sensibly be considered as a 'loss', rather an investment in future delivery of new varieties. [1] A This symbol indicates that the variety is protected by Plant Breeder's Rights in Australia
As detailed in the answer to question 'p' of Legislative Assembly Question on Notice 357 in 2005. In relation to Big TimeA: "There was no specific funding allocation to this variety." "The Department's records of domestic promotion and intellectual property protection show a total cost of $11,932." Since then there have been costs of $600 for annual Plant Breeders Rights fees bringing the total recorded costs to $12,532. The income from royalties is commercial information. As indicated above there has been very limited uptake of the variety Big TimeA by industry. However the direct costs attributed to this variety are only $12,532. Western DawnA [ST 23/74] is not yet released so there are no sales of this variety to date. (f) It is not appropriate to sell fruit prior to intellectual property protection of a variety nor before the commercialisation licence is in place. The Department however does use fruit for evaluation which is common practice in breeding projects, prior to commercial release. All fruit not used for evaluation is discarded without sale. When the commercialisation licence is in place, fruit will be able to be sold. (g) See (f) above. 2. The Government makes funding appropriations to the Department on an annual basis. This allocation process is informed by the Department's budget proposals which in turn are informed by input from stakeholders. Funds are then allocated by the Department to deliver outcomes for the State. The Director General of Agriculture is accountable for the delivery of these outcomes. (a) Specific priorities for research funding are determined by the Department via well developed needs analysis and investment decision making processes. The Department determines program and project level allocations within several priorities established by the Government. (b) The majority of research outputs are delivered by the Department often in partnership with other research funders and providers. The Department may contract service delivery by other parties where it considers the output or outcome is better achieved via that means. (c) Much of the work of the Department is co-funded by national industry based research and development corporations, National Co-operative Research Centres and Australian Government programs that ensure delivery of shared priorities at lower cost to the Government. 3. (a) This is a matter for the Department to determine. The Department of Agriculture and Food and Horticulture Australia Limited have well established processes for this purpose. (b) (i) Program and project costs are reviewed internally and externally. For the apple breeding program internal process are in place and the involvement of Apples and Pear Australia Limited and Horticulture Australia Limited provides external review mechanisms. All Departmental projects are subject to normal audit functions conducted by the Department's Internal Audit Branch and the Office of the Auditor-General. (ii) See (i) above. (iii) See (i) above. (iv) Industry and community outcomes are assessed where appropriate data is available. Stakeholder support for programs and projects is also assessed via industry and community consultation processes and customer surveys. (v) The normal range of accountability and transparency mechanisms an in place including Parliamentary reporting and scrutiny, public annual reporting, industry and community consultation, reporting to funding partners, Office of the Auditor-General, Freedom of Information and other means. 4. No. The National Apple Breeding Program is supported by both State funds in the form of royalties from released varieties and funding from the National apple industry (Apples and Pears Australia Limited) via Horticulture Australia Limited. The program has been subject to significant external scrutiny and has received positive reviews. Investment in plant breeding programs is long term and delivers long term benefits to industry and the economy. This investment supports future variety releases and cannot sensibly be considered as a 'loss', rather an investment in future delivery of new varieties. [1] A This symbol indicates that the variety is protected by Plant Breeder's Rights in Australia
In relation to Big TimeA: "There was no specific funding allocation to this variety." "The Department's records of domestic promotion and intellectual property protection show a total cost of $11,932." Since then there have been costs of $600 for annual Plant Breeders Rights fees bringing the total recorded costs to $12,532. The income from royalties is commercial information. As indicated above there has been very limited uptake of the variety Big TimeA by industry. However the direct costs attributed to this variety are only $12,532. Western DawnA [ST 23/74] is not yet released so there are no sales of this variety to date. (f) It is not appropriate to sell fruit prior to intellectual property protection of a variety nor before the commercialisation licence is in place. The Department however does use fruit for evaluation which is common practice in breeding projects, prior to commercial release. All fruit not used for evaluation is discarded without sale. When the commercialisation licence is in place, fruit will be able to be sold. (g) See (f) above. 2. The Government makes funding appropriations to the Department on an annual basis. This allocation process is informed by the Department's budget proposals which in turn are informed by input from stakeholders. Funds are then allocated by the Department to deliver outcomes for the State. The Director General of Agriculture is accountable for the delivery of these outcomes. (a) Specific priorities for research funding are determined by the Department via well developed needs analysis and investment decision making processes. The Department determines program and project level allocations within several priorities established by the Government. (b) The majority of research outputs are delivered by the Department often in partnership with other research funders and providers. The Department may contract service delivery by other parties where it considers the output or outcome is better achieved via that means. (c) Much of the work of the Department is co-funded by national industry based research and development corporations, National Co-operative Research Centres and Australian Government programs that ensure delivery of shared priorities at lower cost to the Government. 3. (a) This is a matter for the Department to determine. The Department of Agriculture and Food and Horticulture Australia Limited have well established processes for this purpose. (b) (i) Program and project costs are reviewed internally and externally. For the apple breeding program internal process are in place and the involvement of Apples and Pear Australia Limited and Horticulture Australia Limited provides external review mechanisms. All Departmental projects are subject to normal audit functions conducted by the Department's Internal Audit Branch and the Office of the Auditor-General. (ii) See (i) above. (iii) See (i) above. (iv) Industry and community outcomes are assessed where appropriate data is available. Stakeholder support for programs and projects is also assessed via industry and community consultation processes and customer surveys. (v) The normal range of accountability and transparency mechanisms an in place including Parliamentary reporting and scrutiny, public annual reporting, industry and community consultation, reporting to funding partners, Office of the Auditor-General, Freedom of Information and other means. 4. No. The National Apple Breeding Program is supported by both State funds in the form of royalties from released varieties and funding from the National apple industry (Apples and Pears Australia Limited) via Horticulture Australia Limited. The program has been subject to significant external scrutiny and has received positive reviews. Investment in plant breeding programs is long term and delivers long term benefits to industry and the economy. This investment supports future variety releases and cannot sensibly be considered as a 'loss', rather an investment in future delivery of new varieties. [1] A This symbol indicates that the variety is protected by Plant Breeder's Rights in Australia
"There was no specific funding allocation to this variety." "The Department's records of domestic promotion and intellectual property protection show a total cost of $11,932." Since then there have been costs of $600 for annual Plant Breeders Rights fees bringing the total recorded costs to $12,532. The income from royalties is commercial information. As indicated above there has been very limited uptake of the variety Big TimeA by industry. However the direct costs attributed to this variety are only $12,532. Western DawnA [ST 23/74] is not yet released so there are no sales of this variety to date. (f) It is not appropriate to sell fruit prior to intellectual property protection of a variety nor before the commercialisation licence is in place. The Department however does use fruit for evaluation which is common practice in breeding projects, prior to commercial release. All fruit not used for evaluation is discarded without sale. When the commercialisation licence is in place, fruit will be able to be sold. (g) See (f) above. 2. The Government makes funding appropriations to the Department on an annual basis. This allocation process is informed by the Department's budget proposals which in turn are informed by input from stakeholders. Funds are then allocated by the Department to deliver outcomes for the State. The Director General of Agriculture is accountable for the delivery of these outcomes. (a) Specific priorities for research funding are determined by the Department via well developed needs analysis and investment decision making processes. The Department determines program and project level allocations within several priorities established by the Government. (b) The majority of research outputs are delivered by the Department often in partnership with other research funders and providers. The Department may contract service delivery by other parties where it considers the output or outcome is better achieved via that means. (c) Much of the work of the Department is co-funded by national industry based research and development corporations, National Co-operative Research Centres and Australian Government programs that ensure delivery of shared priorities at lower cost to the Government. 3. (a) This is a matter for the Department to determine. The Department of Agriculture and Food and Horticulture Australia Limited have well established processes for this purpose. (b) (i) Program and project costs are reviewed internally and externally. For the apple breeding program internal process are in place and the involvement of Apples and Pear Australia Limited and Horticulture Australia Limited provides external review mechanisms. All Departmental projects are subject to normal audit functions conducted by the Department's Internal Audit Branch and the Office of the Auditor-General. (ii) See (i) above. (iii) See (i) above. (iv) Industry and community outcomes are assessed where appropriate data is available. Stakeholder support for programs and projects is also assessed via industry and community consultation processes and customer surveys. (v) The normal range of accountability and transparency mechanisms an in place including Parliamentary reporting and scrutiny, public annual reporting, industry and community consultation, reporting to funding partners, Office of the Auditor-General, Freedom of Information and other means. 4. No. The National Apple Breeding Program is supported by both State funds in the form of royalties from released varieties and funding from the National apple industry (Apples and Pears Australia Limited) via Horticulture Australia Limited. The program has been subject to significant external scrutiny and has received positive reviews. Investment in plant breeding programs is long term and delivers long term benefits to industry and the economy. This investment supports future variety releases and cannot sensibly be considered as a 'loss', rather an investment in future delivery of new varieties. [1] A This symbol indicates that the variety is protected by Plant Breeder's Rights in Australia
"The Department's records of domestic promotion and intellectual property protection show a total cost of $11,932." Since then there have been costs of $600 for annual Plant Breeders Rights fees bringing the total recorded costs to $12,532. The income from royalties is commercial information. As indicated above there has been very limited uptake of the variety Big TimeA by industry. However the direct costs attributed to this variety are only $12,532. Western DawnA [ST 23/74] is not yet released so there are no sales of this variety to date. (f) It is not appropriate to sell fruit prior to intellectual property protection of a variety nor before the commercialisation licence is in place. The Department however does use fruit for evaluation which is common practice in breeding projects, prior to commercial release. All fruit not used for evaluation is discarded without sale. When the commercialisation licence is in place, fruit will be able to be sold. (g) See (f) above. 2. The Government makes funding appropriations to the Department on an annual basis. This allocation process is informed by the Department's budget proposals which in turn are informed by input from stakeholders. Funds are then allocated by the Department to deliver outcomes for the State. The Director General of Agriculture is accountable for the delivery of these outcomes. (a) Specific priorities for research funding are determined by the Department via well developed needs analysis and investment decision making processes. The Department determines program and project level allocations within several priorities established by the Government. (b) The majority of research outputs are delivered by the Department often in partnership with other research funders and providers. The Department may contract service delivery by other parties where it considers the output or outcome is better achieved via that means. (c) Much of the work of the Department is co-funded by national industry based research and development corporations, National Co-operative Research Centres and Australian Government programs that ensure delivery of shared priorities at lower cost to the Government. 3. (a) This is a matter for the Department to determine. The Department of Agriculture and Food and Horticulture Australia Limited have well established processes for this purpose. (b) (i) Program and project costs are reviewed internally and externally. For the apple breeding program internal process are in place and the involvement of Apples and Pear Australia Limited and Horticulture Australia Limited provides external review mechanisms. All Departmental projects are subject to normal audit functions conducted by the Department's Internal Audit Branch and the Office of the Auditor-General. (ii) See (i) above. (iii) See (i) above. (iv) Industry and community outcomes are assessed where appropriate data is available. Stakeholder support for programs and projects is also assessed via industry and community consultation processes and customer surveys. (v) The normal range of accountability and transparency mechanisms an in place including Parliamentary reporting and scrutiny, public annual reporting, industry and community consultation, reporting to funding partners, Office of the Auditor-General, Freedom of Information and other means. 4. No. The National Apple Breeding Program is supported by both State funds in the form of royalties from released varieties and funding from the National apple industry (Apples and Pears Australia Limited) via Horticulture Australia Limited. The program has been subject to significant external scrutiny and has received positive reviews. Investment in plant breeding programs is long term and delivers long term benefits to industry and the economy. This investment supports future variety releases and cannot sensibly be considered as a 'loss', rather an investment in future delivery of new varieties. [1] A This symbol indicates that the variety is protected by Plant Breeder's Rights in Australia
Since then there have been costs of $600 for annual Plant Breeders Rights fees bringing the total recorded costs to $12,532. The income from royalties is commercial information. As indicated above there has been very limited uptake of the variety Big TimeA by industry. However the direct costs attributed to this variety are only $12,532. Western DawnA [ST 23/74] is not yet released so there are no sales of this variety to date. (f) It is not appropriate to sell fruit prior to intellectual property protection of a variety nor before the commercialisation licence is in place. The Department however does use fruit for evaluation which is common practice in breeding projects, prior to commercial release. All fruit not used for evaluation is discarded without sale. When the commercialisation licence is in place, fruit will be able to be sold. (g) See (f) above. 2. The Government makes funding appropriations to the Department on an annual basis. This allocation process is informed by the Department's budget proposals which in turn are informed by input from stakeholders. Funds are then allocated by the Department to deliver outcomes for the State. The Director General of Agriculture is accountable for the delivery of these outcomes. (a) Specific priorities for research funding are determined by the Department via well developed needs analysis and investment decision making processes. The Department determines program and project level allocations within several priorities established by the Government. (b) The majority of research outputs are delivered by the Department often in partnership with other research funders and providers. The Department may contract service delivery by other parties where it considers the output or outcome is better achieved via that means. (c) Much of the work of the Department is co-funded by national industry based research and development corporations, National Co-operative Research Centres and Australian Government programs that ensure delivery of shared priorities at lower cost to the Government. 3. (a) This is a matter for the Department to determine. The Department of Agriculture and Food and Horticulture Australia Limited have well established processes for this purpose. (b) (i) Program and project costs are reviewed internally and externally. For the apple breeding program internal process are in place and the involvement of Apples and Pear Australia Limited and Horticulture Australia Limited provides external review mechanisms. All Departmental projects are subject to normal audit functions conducted by the Department's Internal Audit Branch and the Office of the Auditor-General. (ii) See (i) above. (iii) See (i) above. (iv) Industry and community outcomes are assessed where appropriate data is available. Stakeholder support for programs and projects is also assessed via industry and community consultation processes and customer surveys. (v) The normal range of accountability and transparency mechanisms an in place including Parliamentary reporting and scrutiny, public annual reporting, industry and community consultation, reporting to funding partners, Office of the Auditor-General, Freedom of Information and other means. 4. No. The National Apple Breeding Program is supported by both State funds in the form of royalties from released varieties and funding from the National apple industry (Apples and Pears Australia Limited) via Horticulture Australia Limited. The program has been subject to significant external scrutiny and has received positive reviews. Investment in plant breeding programs is long term and delivers long term benefits to industry and the economy. This investment supports future variety releases and cannot sensibly be considered as a 'loss', rather an investment in future delivery of new varieties. [1] A This symbol indicates that the variety is protected by Plant Breeder's Rights in Australia
The income from royalties is commercial information. As indicated above there has been very limited uptake of the variety Big TimeA by industry. However the direct costs attributed to this variety are only $12,532. Western DawnA [ST 23/74] is not yet released so there are no sales of this variety to date. (f) It is not appropriate to sell fruit prior to intellectual property protection of a variety nor before the commercialisation licence is in place. The Department however does use fruit for evaluation which is common practice in breeding projects, prior to commercial release. All fruit not used for evaluation is discarded without sale. When the commercialisation licence is in place, fruit will be able to be sold. (g) See (f) above. 2. The Government makes funding appropriations to the Department on an annual basis. This allocation process is informed by the Department's budget proposals which in turn are informed by input from stakeholders. Funds are then allocated by the Department to deliver outcomes for the State. The Director General of Agriculture is accountable for the delivery of these outcomes. (a) Specific priorities for research funding are determined by the Department via well developed needs analysis and investment decision making processes. The Department determines program and project level allocations within several priorities established by the Government. (b) The majority of research outputs are delivered by the Department often in partnership with other research funders and providers. The Department may contract service delivery by other parties where it considers the output or outcome is better achieved via that means. (c) Much of the work of the Department is co-funded by national industry based research and development corporations, National Co-operative Research Centres and Australian Government programs that ensure delivery of shared priorities at lower cost to the Government. 3. (a) This is a matter for the Department to determine. The Department of Agriculture and Food and Horticulture Australia Limited have well established processes for this purpose. (b) (i) Program and project costs are reviewed internally and externally. For the apple breeding program internal process are in place and the involvement of Apples and Pear Australia Limited and Horticulture Australia Limited provides external review mechanisms. All Departmental projects are subject to normal audit functions conducted by the Department's Internal Audit Branch and the Office of the Auditor-General. (ii) See (i) above. (iii) See (i) above. (iv) Industry and community outcomes are assessed where appropriate data is available. Stakeholder support for programs and projects is also assessed via industry and community consultation processes and customer surveys. (v) The normal range of accountability and transparency mechanisms an in place including Parliamentary reporting and scrutiny, public annual reporting, industry and community consultation, reporting to funding partners, Office of the Auditor-General, Freedom of Information and other means. 4. No. The National Apple Breeding Program is supported by both State funds in the form of royalties from released varieties and funding from the National apple industry (Apples and Pears Australia Limited) via Horticulture Australia Limited. The program has been subject to significant external scrutiny and has received positive reviews. Investment in plant breeding programs is long term and delivers long term benefits to industry and the economy. This investment supports future variety releases and cannot sensibly be considered as a 'loss', rather an investment in future delivery of new varieties. [1] A This symbol indicates that the variety is protected by Plant Breeder's Rights in Australia
Western DawnA [ST 23/74] is not yet released so there are no sales of this variety to date. (f) It is not appropriate to sell fruit prior to intellectual property protection of a variety nor before the commercialisation licence is in place. The Department however does use fruit for evaluation which is common practice in breeding projects, prior to commercial release. All fruit not used for evaluation is discarded without sale. When the commercialisation licence is in place, fruit will be able to be sold. (g) See (f) above. 2. The Government makes funding appropriations to the Department on an annual basis. This allocation process is informed by the Department's budget proposals which in turn are informed by input from stakeholders. Funds are then allocated by the Department to deliver outcomes for the State. The Director General of Agriculture is accountable for the delivery of these outcomes. (a) Specific priorities for research funding are determined by the Department via well developed needs analysis and investment decision making processes. The Department determines program and project level allocations within several priorities established by the Government. (b) The majority of research outputs are delivered by the Department often in partnership with other research funders and providers. The Department may contract service delivery by other parties where it considers the output or outcome is better achieved via that means. (c) Much of the work of the Department is co-funded by national industry based research and development corporations, National Co-operative Research Centres and Australian Government programs that ensure delivery of shared priorities at lower cost to the Government. 3. (a) This is a matter for the Department to determine. The Department of Agriculture and Food and Horticulture Australia Limited have well established processes for this purpose. (b) (i) Program and project costs are reviewed internally and externally. For the apple breeding program internal process are in place and the involvement of Apples and Pear Australia Limited and Horticulture Australia Limited provides external review mechanisms. All Departmental projects are subject to normal audit functions conducted by the Department's Internal Audit Branch and the Office of the Auditor-General. (ii) See (i) above. (iii) See (i) above. (iv) Industry and community outcomes are assessed where appropriate data is available. Stakeholder support for programs and projects is also assessed via industry and community consultation processes and customer surveys. (v) The normal range of accountability and transparency mechanisms an in place including Parliamentary reporting and scrutiny, public annual reporting, industry and community consultation, reporting to funding partners, Office of the Auditor-General, Freedom of Information and other means. 4. No. The National Apple Breeding Program is supported by both State funds in the form of royalties from released varieties and funding from the National apple industry (Apples and Pears Australia Limited) via Horticulture Australia Limited. The program has been subject to significant external scrutiny and has received positive reviews. Investment in plant breeding programs is long term and delivers long term benefits to industry and the economy. This investment supports future variety releases and cannot sensibly be considered as a 'loss', rather an investment in future delivery of new varieties. [1] A This symbol indicates that the variety is protected by Plant Breeder's Rights in Australia
(f) It is not appropriate to sell fruit prior to intellectual property protection of a variety nor before the commercialisation licence is in place. The Department however does use fruit for evaluation which is common practice in breeding projects, prior to commercial release. All fruit not used for evaluation is discarded without sale. When the commercialisation licence is in place, fruit will be able to be sold. (g) See (f) above. 2. The Government makes funding appropriations to the Department on an annual basis. This allocation process is informed by the Department's budget proposals which in turn are informed by input from stakeholders. Funds are then allocated by the Department to deliver outcomes for the State. The Director General of Agriculture is accountable for the delivery of these outcomes. (a) Specific priorities for research funding are determined by the Department via well developed needs analysis and investment decision making processes. The Department determines program and project level allocations within several priorities established by the Government. (b) The majority of research outputs are delivered by the Department often in partnership with other research funders and providers. The Department may contract service delivery by other parties where it considers the output or outcome is better achieved via that means. (c) Much of the work of the Department is co-funded by national industry based research and development corporations, National Co-operative Research Centres and Australian Government programs that ensure delivery of shared priorities at lower cost to the Government. 3. (a) This is a matter for the Department to determine. The Department of Agriculture and Food and Horticulture Australia Limited have well established processes for this purpose. (b) (i) Program and project costs are reviewed internally and externally. For the apple breeding program internal process are in place and the involvement of Apples and Pear Australia Limited and Horticulture Australia Limited provides external review mechanisms. All Departmental projects are subject to normal audit functions conducted by the Department's Internal Audit Branch and the Office of the Auditor-General. (ii) See (i) above. (iii) See (i) above. (iv) Industry and community outcomes are assessed where appropriate data is available. Stakeholder support for programs and projects is also assessed via industry and community consultation processes and customer surveys. (v) The normal range of accountability and transparency mechanisms an in place including Parliamentary reporting and scrutiny, public annual reporting, industry and community consultation, reporting to funding partners, Office of the Auditor-General, Freedom of Information and other means. 4. No. The National Apple Breeding Program is supported by both State funds in the form of royalties from released varieties and funding from the National apple industry (Apples and Pears Australia Limited) via Horticulture Australia Limited. The program has been subject to significant external scrutiny and has received positive reviews. Investment in plant breeding programs is long term and delivers long term benefits to industry and the economy. This investment supports future variety releases and cannot sensibly be considered as a 'loss', rather an investment in future delivery of new varieties. [1] A This symbol indicates that the variety is protected by Plant Breeder's Rights in Australia
(g) See (f) above. 2. The Government makes funding appropriations to the Department on an annual basis. This allocation process is informed by the Department's budget proposals which in turn are informed by input from stakeholders. Funds are then allocated by the Department to deliver outcomes for the State. The Director General of Agriculture is accountable for the delivery of these outcomes. (a) Specific priorities for research funding are determined by the Department via well developed needs analysis and investment decision making processes. The Department determines program and project level allocations within several priorities established by the Government. (b) The majority of research outputs are delivered by the Department often in partnership with other research funders and providers. The Department may contract service delivery by other parties where it considers the output or outcome is better achieved via that means. (c) Much of the work of the Department is co-funded by national industry based research and development corporations, National Co-operative Research Centres and Australian Government programs that ensure delivery of shared priorities at lower cost to the Government. 3. (a) This is a matter for the Department to determine. The Department of Agriculture and Food and Horticulture Australia Limited have well established processes for this purpose. (b) (i) Program and project costs are reviewed internally and externally. For the apple breeding program internal process are in place and the involvement of Apples and Pear Australia Limited and Horticulture Australia Limited provides external review mechanisms. All Departmental projects are subject to normal audit functions conducted by the Department's Internal Audit Branch and the Office of the Auditor-General. (ii) See (i) above. (iii) See (i) above. (iv) Industry and community outcomes are assessed where appropriate data is available. Stakeholder support for programs and projects is also assessed via industry and community consultation processes and customer surveys. (v) The normal range of accountability and transparency mechanisms an in place including Parliamentary reporting and scrutiny, public annual reporting, industry and community consultation, reporting to funding partners, Office of the Auditor-General, Freedom of Information and other means. 4. No. The National Apple Breeding Program is supported by both State funds in the form of royalties from released varieties and funding from the National apple industry (Apples and Pears Australia Limited) via Horticulture Australia Limited. The program has been subject to significant external scrutiny and has received positive reviews. Investment in plant breeding programs is long term and delivers long term benefits to industry and the economy. This investment supports future variety releases and cannot sensibly be considered as a 'loss', rather an investment in future delivery of new varieties. [1] A This symbol indicates that the variety is protected by Plant Breeder's Rights in Australia
2. The Government makes funding appropriations to the Department on an annual basis. This allocation process is informed by the Department's budget proposals which in turn are informed by input from stakeholders. Funds are then allocated by the Department to deliver outcomes for the State. The Director General of Agriculture is accountable for the delivery of these outcomes. (a) Specific priorities for research funding are determined by the Department via well developed needs analysis and investment decision making processes. The Department determines program and project level allocations within several priorities established by the Government. (b) The majority of research outputs are delivered by the Department often in partnership with other research funders and providers. The Department may contract service delivery by other parties where it considers the output or outcome is better achieved via that means. (c) Much of the work of the Department is co-funded by national industry based research and development corporations, National Co-operative Research Centres and Australian Government programs that ensure delivery of shared priorities at lower cost to the Government. 3. (a) This is a matter for the Department to determine. The Department of Agriculture and Food and Horticulture Australia Limited have well established processes for this purpose. (b) (i) Program and project costs are reviewed internally and externally. For the apple breeding program internal process are in place and the involvement of Apples and Pear Australia Limited and Horticulture Australia Limited provides external review mechanisms. All Departmental projects are subject to normal audit functions conducted by the Department's Internal Audit Branch and the Office of the Auditor-General. (ii) See (i) above. (iii) See (i) above. (iv) Industry and community outcomes are assessed where appropriate data is available. Stakeholder support for programs and projects is also assessed via industry and community consultation processes and customer surveys. (v) The normal range of accountability and transparency mechanisms an in place including Parliamentary reporting and scrutiny, public annual reporting, industry and community consultation, reporting to funding partners, Office of the Auditor-General, Freedom of Information and other means. 4. No. The National Apple Breeding Program is supported by both State funds in the form of royalties from released varieties and funding from the National apple industry (Apples and Pears Australia Limited) via Horticulture Australia Limited. The program has been subject to significant external scrutiny and has received positive reviews. Investment in plant breeding programs is long term and delivers long term benefits to industry and the economy. This investment supports future variety releases and cannot sensibly be considered as a 'loss', rather an investment in future delivery of new varieties. [1] A This symbol indicates that the variety is protected by Plant Breeder's Rights in Australia
(a) Specific priorities for research funding are determined by the Department via well developed needs analysis and investment decision making processes. The Department determines program and project level allocations within several priorities established by the Government. (b) The majority of research outputs are delivered by the Department often in partnership with other research funders and providers. The Department may contract service delivery by other parties where it considers the output or outcome is better achieved via that means. (c) Much of the work of the Department is co-funded by national industry based research and development corporations, National Co-operative Research Centres and Australian Government programs that ensure delivery of shared priorities at lower cost to the Government. 3. (a) This is a matter for the Department to determine. The Department of Agriculture and Food and Horticulture Australia Limited have well established processes for this purpose. (b) (i) Program and project costs are reviewed internally and externally. For the apple breeding program internal process are in place and the involvement of Apples and Pear Australia Limited and Horticulture Australia Limited provides external review mechanisms. All Departmental projects are subject to normal audit functions conducted by the Department's Internal Audit Branch and the Office of the Auditor-General. (ii) See (i) above. (iii) See (i) above. (iv) Industry and community outcomes are assessed where appropriate data is available. Stakeholder support for programs and projects is also assessed via industry and community consultation processes and customer surveys. (v) The normal range of accountability and transparency mechanisms an in place including Parliamentary reporting and scrutiny, public annual reporting, industry and community consultation, reporting to funding partners, Office of the Auditor-General, Freedom of Information and other means. 4. No. The National Apple Breeding Program is supported by both State funds in the form of royalties from released varieties and funding from the National apple industry (Apples and Pears Australia Limited) via Horticulture Australia Limited. The program has been subject to significant external scrutiny and has received positive reviews. Investment in plant breeding programs is long term and delivers long term benefits to industry and the economy. This investment supports future variety releases and cannot sensibly be considered as a 'loss', rather an investment in future delivery of new varieties. [1] A This symbol indicates that the variety is protected by Plant Breeder's Rights in Australia
(b) The majority of research outputs are delivered by the Department often in partnership with other research funders and providers. The Department may contract service delivery by other parties where it considers the output or outcome is better achieved via that means. (c) Much of the work of the Department is co-funded by national industry based research and development corporations, National Co-operative Research Centres and Australian Government programs that ensure delivery of shared priorities at lower cost to the Government. 3. (a) This is a matter for the Department to determine. The Department of Agriculture and Food and Horticulture Australia Limited have well established processes for this purpose. (b) (i) Program and project costs are reviewed internally and externally. For the apple breeding program internal process are in place and the involvement of Apples and Pear Australia Limited and Horticulture Australia Limited provides external review mechanisms. All Departmental projects are subject to normal audit functions conducted by the Department's Internal Audit Branch and the Office of the Auditor-General. (ii) See (i) above. (iii) See (i) above. (iv) Industry and community outcomes are assessed where appropriate data is available. Stakeholder support for programs and projects is also assessed via industry and community consultation processes and customer surveys. (v) The normal range of accountability and transparency mechanisms an in place including Parliamentary reporting and scrutiny, public annual reporting, industry and community consultation, reporting to funding partners, Office of the Auditor-General, Freedom of Information and other means. 4. No. The National Apple Breeding Program is supported by both State funds in the form of royalties from released varieties and funding from the National apple industry (Apples and Pears Australia Limited) via Horticulture Australia Limited. The program has been subject to significant external scrutiny and has received positive reviews. Investment in plant breeding programs is long term and delivers long term benefits to industry and the economy. This investment supports future variety releases and cannot sensibly be considered as a 'loss', rather an investment in future delivery of new varieties. [1] A This symbol indicates that the variety is protected by Plant Breeder's Rights in Australia
(c) Much of the work of the Department is co-funded by national industry based research and development corporations, National Co-operative Research Centres and Australian Government programs that ensure delivery of shared priorities at lower cost to the Government. 3. (a) This is a matter for the Department to determine. The Department of Agriculture and Food and Horticulture Australia Limited have well established processes for this purpose. (b) (i) Program and project costs are reviewed internally and externally. For the apple breeding program internal process are in place and the involvement of Apples and Pear Australia Limited and Horticulture Australia Limited provides external review mechanisms. All Departmental projects are subject to normal audit functions conducted by the Department's Internal Audit Branch and the Office of the Auditor-General. (ii) See (i) above. (iii) See (i) above. (iv) Industry and community outcomes are assessed where appropriate data is available. Stakeholder support for programs and projects is also assessed via industry and community consultation processes and customer surveys. (v) The normal range of accountability and transparency mechanisms an in place including Parliamentary reporting and scrutiny, public annual reporting, industry and community consultation, reporting to funding partners, Office of the Auditor-General, Freedom of Information and other means. 4. No. The National Apple Breeding Program is supported by both State funds in the form of royalties from released varieties and funding from the National apple industry (Apples and Pears Australia Limited) via Horticulture Australia Limited. The program has been subject to significant external scrutiny and has received positive reviews. Investment in plant breeding programs is long term and delivers long term benefits to industry and the economy. This investment supports future variety releases and cannot sensibly be considered as a 'loss', rather an investment in future delivery of new varieties. [1] A This symbol indicates that the variety is protected by Plant Breeder's Rights in Australia
3. (a) This is a matter for the Department to determine. The Department of Agriculture and Food and Horticulture Australia Limited have well established processes for this purpose. (b) (i) Program and project costs are reviewed internally and externally. For the apple breeding program internal process are in place and the involvement of Apples and Pear Australia Limited and Horticulture Australia Limited provides external review mechanisms. All Departmental projects are subject to normal audit functions conducted by the Department's Internal Audit Branch and the Office of the Auditor-General. (ii) See (i) above. (iii) See (i) above. (iv) Industry and community outcomes are assessed where appropriate data is available. Stakeholder support for programs and projects is also assessed via industry and community consultation processes and customer surveys. (v) The normal range of accountability and transparency mechanisms an in place including Parliamentary reporting and scrutiny, public annual reporting, industry and community consultation, reporting to funding partners, Office of the Auditor-General, Freedom of Information and other means. 4. No. The National Apple Breeding Program is supported by both State funds in the form of royalties from released varieties and funding from the National apple industry (Apples and Pears Australia Limited) via Horticulture Australia Limited. The program has been subject to significant external scrutiny and has received positive reviews. Investment in plant breeding programs is long term and delivers long term benefits to industry and the economy. This investment supports future variety releases and cannot sensibly be considered as a 'loss', rather an investment in future delivery of new varieties. [1] A This symbol indicates that the variety is protected by Plant Breeder's Rights in Australia
(b) (i) Program and project costs are reviewed internally and externally. For the apple breeding program internal process are in place and the involvement of Apples and Pear Australia Limited and Horticulture Australia Limited provides external review mechanisms. All Departmental projects are subject to normal audit functions conducted by the Department's Internal Audit Branch and the Office of the Auditor-General. (ii) See (i) above. (iii) See (i) above. (iv) Industry and community outcomes are assessed where appropriate data is available. Stakeholder support for programs and projects is also assessed via industry and community consultation processes and customer surveys. (v) The normal range of accountability and transparency mechanisms an in place including Parliamentary reporting and scrutiny, public annual reporting, industry and community consultation, reporting to funding partners, Office of the Auditor-General, Freedom of Information and other means. 4. No. The National Apple Breeding Program is supported by both State funds in the form of royalties from released varieties and funding from the National apple industry (Apples and Pears Australia Limited) via Horticulture Australia Limited. The program has been subject to significant external scrutiny and has received positive reviews. Investment in plant breeding programs is long term and delivers long term benefits to industry and the economy. This investment supports future variety releases and cannot sensibly be considered as a 'loss', rather an investment in future delivery of new varieties. [1] A This symbol indicates that the variety is protected by Plant Breeder's Rights in Australia
(ii) See (i) above. (iii) See (i) above. (iv) Industry and community outcomes are assessed where appropriate data is available. Stakeholder support for programs and projects is also assessed via industry and community consultation processes and customer surveys. (v) The normal range of accountability and transparency mechanisms an in place including Parliamentary reporting and scrutiny, public annual reporting, industry and community consultation, reporting to funding partners, Office of the Auditor-General, Freedom of Information and other means. 4. No. The National Apple Breeding Program is supported by both State funds in the form of royalties from released varieties and funding from the National apple industry (Apples and Pears Australia Limited) via Horticulture Australia Limited. The program has been subject to significant external scrutiny and has received positive reviews. Investment in plant breeding programs is long term and delivers long term benefits to industry and the economy. This investment supports future variety releases and cannot sensibly be considered as a 'loss', rather an investment in future delivery of new varieties. [1] A This symbol indicates that the variety is protected by Plant Breeder's Rights in Australia
(iii) See (i) above. (iv) Industry and community outcomes are assessed where appropriate data is available. Stakeholder support for programs and projects is also assessed via industry and community consultation processes and customer surveys. (v) The normal range of accountability and transparency mechanisms an in place including Parliamentary reporting and scrutiny, public annual reporting, industry and community consultation, reporting to funding partners, Office of the Auditor-General, Freedom of Information and other means. 4. No. The National Apple Breeding Program is supported by both State funds in the form of royalties from released varieties and funding from the National apple industry (Apples and Pears Australia Limited) via Horticulture Australia Limited. The program has been subject to significant external scrutiny and has received positive reviews. Investment in plant breeding programs is long term and delivers long term benefits to industry and the economy. This investment supports future variety releases and cannot sensibly be considered as a 'loss', rather an investment in future delivery of new varieties. [1] A This symbol indicates that the variety is protected by Plant Breeder's Rights in Australia
(iv) Industry and community outcomes are assessed where appropriate data is available. Stakeholder support for programs and projects is also assessed via industry and community consultation processes and customer surveys. (v) The normal range of accountability and transparency mechanisms an in place including Parliamentary reporting and scrutiny, public annual reporting, industry and community consultation, reporting to funding partners, Office of the Auditor-General, Freedom of Information and other means. 4. No. The National Apple Breeding Program is supported by both State funds in the form of royalties from released varieties and funding from the National apple industry (Apples and Pears Australia Limited) via Horticulture Australia Limited. The program has been subject to significant external scrutiny and has received positive reviews. Investment in plant breeding programs is long term and delivers long term benefits to industry and the economy. This investment supports future variety releases and cannot sensibly be considered as a 'loss', rather an investment in future delivery of new varieties. [1] A This symbol indicates that the variety is protected by Plant Breeder's Rights in Australia
(v) The normal range of accountability and transparency mechanisms an in place including Parliamentary reporting and scrutiny, public annual reporting, industry and community consultation, reporting to funding partners, Office of the Auditor-General, Freedom of Information and other means. 4. No. The National Apple Breeding Program is supported by both State funds in the form of royalties from released varieties and funding from the National apple industry (Apples and Pears Australia Limited) via Horticulture Australia Limited. The program has been subject to significant external scrutiny and has received positive reviews. Investment in plant breeding programs is long term and delivers long term benefits to industry and the economy. This investment supports future variety releases and cannot sensibly be considered as a 'loss', rather an investment in future delivery of new varieties. [1] A This symbol indicates that the variety is protected by Plant Breeder's Rights in Australia
4. No. The National Apple Breeding Program is supported by both State funds in the form of royalties from released varieties and funding from the National apple industry (Apples and Pears Australia Limited) via Horticulture Australia Limited. The program has been subject to significant external scrutiny and has received positive reviews. Investment in plant breeding programs is long term and delivers long term benefits to industry and the economy. This investment supports future variety releases and cannot sensibly be considered as a 'loss', rather an investment in future delivery of new varieties. [1] A This symbol indicates that the variety is protected by Plant Breeder's Rights in Australia
The National Apple Breeding Program is supported by both State funds in the form of royalties from released varieties and funding from the National apple industry (Apples and Pears Australia Limited) via Horticulture Australia Limited. The program has been subject to significant external scrutiny and has received positive reviews. Investment in plant breeding programs is long term and delivers long term benefits to industry and the economy. This investment supports future variety releases and cannot sensibly be considered as a 'loss', rather an investment in future delivery of new varieties. [1] A This symbol indicates that the variety is protected by Plant Breeder's Rights in Australia
Investment in plant breeding programs is long term and delivers long term benefits to industry and the economy. This investment supports future variety releases and cannot sensibly be considered as a 'loss', rather an investment in future delivery of new varieties. [1] A This symbol indicates that the variety is protected by Plant Breeder's Rights in Australia
[1] A This symbol indicates that the variety is protected by Plant Breeder's Rights in Australia
[1] A This symbol indicates that the variety is protected by Plant Breeder's Rights in Australia
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.