❓ A parliamentary question seeks clarification on the Minister's decision to allow an appeal by Brooks Grain, specifically regarding consultation with the Grain Pool and departmental advice. The Minister confirms departmental advice was sought and followed, but declines to table the advice due to commercial confidentiality.
AnsweredQoN 58Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I ask this question on behalf of Hon Peter Foss who was called away on urgent parliamentary business. I refer to the minister’s decision to allow an appeal by Brooks Grain against a decision of the grain licensing authority, information about which can be found in The West Australian of 3 January 2004. (1) Is it correct that the minister did not consult the Grain Pool before allowing the appeal? (2) Did the minister seek any advice from his department? (3) If so - (a) when, and what was the advice he received; (b) did he follow it, and if not, why not; and (c) will he table it? (4) If not, why not? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
I thank Hon Bruce Donaldson for the question. (1) The appeal was handled according to a procedure that I endorsed in November 2003. Information previously supplied by the Grain Pool Pty Ltd to the Grain Licensing Authority was examined during the appeal process, along with other information supplied by independent market analysts. (2) Yes, I did. (3) In early December my office received the appeal from Brooks Grain Pty Ltd and by mid December officers of my department were engaged in the provision of advice to me on the appeal. (a) The advice from my department based on detailed analysis of a range of information, including that provided by the Grain Pool Pty Ltd to the Grain Licensing Authority, was to uphold the appeal; and there were several grounds for upholding this particular appeal. (b) Yes, I did it. On this occasion, due to the weight of information supporting the case, I upheld the appeal. (c) No. (4) The appeal process deals with commercial matters and release of this documentation would not be in the interests of either the Grain Pool Pty Ltd or Brooks Grain. It is necessary to protect the integrity of the appeal process. The release of information received in confidence would destroy that integrity.
I refer to the minister’s decision to allow an appeal by Brooks Grain against a decision of the grain licensing authority, information about which can be found in The West Australian of 3 January 2004. (1) Is it correct that the minister did not consult the Grain Pool before allowing the appeal? (2) Did the minister seek any advice from his department? (3) If so - (a) when, and what was the advice he received; (b) did he follow it, and if not, why not; and (c) will he table it? (4) If not, why not? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank Hon Bruce Donaldson for the question. (1) The appeal was handled according to a procedure that I endorsed in November 2003. Information previously supplied by the Grain Pool Pty Ltd to the Grain Licensing Authority was examined during the appeal process, along with other information supplied by independent market analysts. (2) Yes, I did. (3) In early December my office received the appeal from Brooks Grain Pty Ltd and by mid December officers of my department were engaged in the provision of advice to me on the appeal. (a) The advice from my department based on detailed analysis of a range of information, including that provided by the Grain Pool Pty Ltd to the Grain Licensing Authority, was to uphold the appeal; and there were several grounds for upholding this particular appeal. (b) Yes, I did it. On this occasion, due to the weight of information supporting the case, I upheld the appeal. (c) No. (4) The appeal process deals with commercial matters and release of this documentation would not be in the interests of either the Grain Pool Pty Ltd or Brooks Grain. It is necessary to protect the integrity of the appeal process. The release of information received in confidence would destroy that integrity.
(1) Is it correct that the minister did not consult the Grain Pool before allowing the appeal? (2) Did the minister seek any advice from his department? (3) If so - (a) when, and what was the advice he received; (b) did he follow it, and if not, why not; and (c) will he table it? (4) If not, why not? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank Hon Bruce Donaldson for the question. (1) The appeal was handled according to a procedure that I endorsed in November 2003. Information previously supplied by the Grain Pool Pty Ltd to the Grain Licensing Authority was examined during the appeal process, along with other information supplied by independent market analysts. (2) Yes, I did. (3) In early December my office received the appeal from Brooks Grain Pty Ltd and by mid December officers of my department were engaged in the provision of advice to me on the appeal. (a) The advice from my department based on detailed analysis of a range of information, including that provided by the Grain Pool Pty Ltd to the Grain Licensing Authority, was to uphold the appeal; and there were several grounds for upholding this particular appeal. (b) Yes, I did it. On this occasion, due to the weight of information supporting the case, I upheld the appeal. (c) No. (4) The appeal process deals with commercial matters and release of this documentation would not be in the interests of either the Grain Pool Pty Ltd or Brooks Grain. It is necessary to protect the integrity of the appeal process. The release of information received in confidence would destroy that integrity.
(2) Did the minister seek any advice from his department? (3) If so - (a) when, and what was the advice he received; (b) did he follow it, and if not, why not; and (c) will he table it? (4) If not, why not? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank Hon Bruce Donaldson for the question. (1) The appeal was handled according to a procedure that I endorsed in November 2003. Information previously supplied by the Grain Pool Pty Ltd to the Grain Licensing Authority was examined during the appeal process, along with other information supplied by independent market analysts. (2) Yes, I did. (3) In early December my office received the appeal from Brooks Grain Pty Ltd and by mid December officers of my department were engaged in the provision of advice to me on the appeal. (a) The advice from my department based on detailed analysis of a range of information, including that provided by the Grain Pool Pty Ltd to the Grain Licensing Authority, was to uphold the appeal; and there were several grounds for upholding this particular appeal. (b) Yes, I did it. On this occasion, due to the weight of information supporting the case, I upheld the appeal. (c) No. (4) The appeal process deals with commercial matters and release of this documentation would not be in the interests of either the Grain Pool Pty Ltd or Brooks Grain. It is necessary to protect the integrity of the appeal process. The release of information received in confidence would destroy that integrity.
(3) If so - (a) when, and what was the advice he received; (b) did he follow it, and if not, why not; and (c) will he table it? (4) If not, why not? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank Hon Bruce Donaldson for the question. (1) The appeal was handled according to a procedure that I endorsed in November 2003. Information previously supplied by the Grain Pool Pty Ltd to the Grain Licensing Authority was examined during the appeal process, along with other information supplied by independent market analysts. (2) Yes, I did. (3) In early December my office received the appeal from Brooks Grain Pty Ltd and by mid December officers of my department were engaged in the provision of advice to me on the appeal. (a) The advice from my department based on detailed analysis of a range of information, including that provided by the Grain Pool Pty Ltd to the Grain Licensing Authority, was to uphold the appeal; and there were several grounds for upholding this particular appeal. (b) Yes, I did it. On this occasion, due to the weight of information supporting the case, I upheld the appeal. (c) No. (4) The appeal process deals with commercial matters and release of this documentation would not be in the interests of either the Grain Pool Pty Ltd or Brooks Grain. It is necessary to protect the integrity of the appeal process. The release of information received in confidence would destroy that integrity.
(b) did he follow it, and if not, why not; and (c) will he table it?
(c) will he table it?
Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank Hon Bruce Donaldson for the question. (1) The appeal was handled according to a procedure that I endorsed in November 2003. Information previously supplied by the Grain Pool Pty Ltd to the Grain Licensing Authority was examined during the appeal process, along with other information supplied by independent market analysts. (2) Yes, I did. (3) In early December my office received the appeal from Brooks Grain Pty Ltd and by mid December officers of my department were engaged in the provision of advice to me on the appeal. (a) The advice from my department based on detailed analysis of a range of information, including that provided by the Grain Pool Pty Ltd to the Grain Licensing Authority, was to uphold the appeal; and there were several grounds for upholding this particular appeal. (b) Yes, I did it. On this occasion, due to the weight of information supporting the case, I upheld the appeal. (c) No. (4) The appeal process deals with commercial matters and release of this documentation would not be in the interests of either the Grain Pool Pty Ltd or Brooks Grain. It is necessary to protect the integrity of the appeal process. The release of information received in confidence would destroy that integrity.
I thank Hon Bruce Donaldson for the question. (1) The appeal was handled according to a procedure that I endorsed in November 2003. Information previously supplied by the Grain Pool Pty Ltd to the Grain Licensing Authority was examined during the appeal process, along with other information supplied by independent market analysts. (2) Yes, I did. (3) In early December my office received the appeal from Brooks Grain Pty Ltd and by mid December officers of my department were engaged in the provision of advice to me on the appeal. (a) The advice from my department based on detailed analysis of a range of information, including that provided by the Grain Pool Pty Ltd to the Grain Licensing Authority, was to uphold the appeal; and there were several grounds for upholding this particular appeal. (b) Yes, I did it. On this occasion, due to the weight of information supporting the case, I upheld the appeal. (c) No. (4) The appeal process deals with commercial matters and release of this documentation would not be in the interests of either the Grain Pool Pty Ltd or Brooks Grain. It is necessary to protect the integrity of the appeal process. The release of information received in confidence would destroy that integrity.
(1) The appeal was handled according to a procedure that I endorsed in November 2003. Information previously supplied by the Grain Pool Pty Ltd to the Grain Licensing Authority was examined during the appeal process, along with other information supplied by independent market analysts. (2) Yes, I did. (3) In early December my office received the appeal from Brooks Grain Pty Ltd and by mid December officers of my department were engaged in the provision of advice to me on the appeal. (a) The advice from my department based on detailed analysis of a range of information, including that provided by the Grain Pool Pty Ltd to the Grain Licensing Authority, was to uphold the appeal; and there were several grounds for upholding this particular appeal. (b) Yes, I did it. On this occasion, due to the weight of information supporting the case, I upheld the appeal. (c) No. (4) The appeal process deals with commercial matters and release of this documentation would not be in the interests of either the Grain Pool Pty Ltd or Brooks Grain. It is necessary to protect the integrity of the appeal process. The release of information received in confidence would destroy that integrity.
(2) Yes, I did. (3) In early December my office received the appeal from Brooks Grain Pty Ltd and by mid December officers of my department were engaged in the provision of advice to me on the appeal. (a) The advice from my department based on detailed analysis of a range of information, including that provided by the Grain Pool Pty Ltd to the Grain Licensing Authority, was to uphold the appeal; and there were several grounds for upholding this particular appeal. (b) Yes, I did it. On this occasion, due to the weight of information supporting the case, I upheld the appeal. (c) No. (4) The appeal process deals with commercial matters and release of this documentation would not be in the interests of either the Grain Pool Pty Ltd or Brooks Grain. It is necessary to protect the integrity of the appeal process. The release of information received in confidence would destroy that integrity.
(3) In early December my office received the appeal from Brooks Grain Pty Ltd and by mid December officers of my department were engaged in the provision of advice to me on the appeal. (a) The advice from my department based on detailed analysis of a range of information, including that provided by the Grain Pool Pty Ltd to the Grain Licensing Authority, was to uphold the appeal; and there were several grounds for upholding this particular appeal. (b) Yes, I did it. On this occasion, due to the weight of information supporting the case, I upheld the appeal. (c) No. (4) The appeal process deals with commercial matters and release of this documentation would not be in the interests of either the Grain Pool Pty Ltd or Brooks Grain. It is necessary to protect the integrity of the appeal process. The release of information received in confidence would destroy that integrity.
(b) Yes, I did it. On this occasion, due to the weight of information supporting the case, I upheld the appeal. (c) No.
(c) No.
I refer to the minister’s decision to allow an appeal by Brooks Grain against a decision of the grain licensing authority, information about which can be found in The West Australian of 3 January 2004. (1) Is it correct that the minister did not consult the Grain Pool before allowing the appeal? (2) Did the minister seek any advice from his department? (3) If so - (a) when, and what was the advice he received; (b) did he follow it, and if not, why not; and (c) will he table it? (4) If not, why not? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank Hon Bruce Donaldson for the question. (1) The appeal was handled according to a procedure that I endorsed in November 2003. Information previously supplied by the Grain Pool Pty Ltd to the Grain Licensing Authority was examined during the appeal process, along with other information supplied by independent market analysts. (2) Yes, I did. (3) In early December my office received the appeal from Brooks Grain Pty Ltd and by mid December officers of my department were engaged in the provision of advice to me on the appeal. (a) The advice from my department based on detailed analysis of a range of information, including that provided by the Grain Pool Pty Ltd to the Grain Licensing Authority, was to uphold the appeal; and there were several grounds for upholding this particular appeal. (b) Yes, I did it. On this occasion, due to the weight of information supporting the case, I upheld the appeal. (c) No. (4) The appeal process deals with commercial matters and release of this documentation would not be in the interests of either the Grain Pool Pty Ltd or Brooks Grain. It is necessary to protect the integrity of the appeal process. The release of information received in confidence would destroy that integrity.
(1) Is it correct that the minister did not consult the Grain Pool before allowing the appeal? (2) Did the minister seek any advice from his department? (3) If so - (a) when, and what was the advice he received; (b) did he follow it, and if not, why not; and (c) will he table it? (4) If not, why not? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank Hon Bruce Donaldson for the question. (1) The appeal was handled according to a procedure that I endorsed in November 2003. Information previously supplied by the Grain Pool Pty Ltd to the Grain Licensing Authority was examined during the appeal process, along with other information supplied by independent market analysts. (2) Yes, I did. (3) In early December my office received the appeal from Brooks Grain Pty Ltd and by mid December officers of my department were engaged in the provision of advice to me on the appeal. (a) The advice from my department based on detailed analysis of a range of information, including that provided by the Grain Pool Pty Ltd to the Grain Licensing Authority, was to uphold the appeal; and there were several grounds for upholding this particular appeal. (b) Yes, I did it. On this occasion, due to the weight of information supporting the case, I upheld the appeal. (c) No. (4) The appeal process deals with commercial matters and release of this documentation would not be in the interests of either the Grain Pool Pty Ltd or Brooks Grain. It is necessary to protect the integrity of the appeal process. The release of information received in confidence would destroy that integrity.
(2) Did the minister seek any advice from his department? (3) If so - (a) when, and what was the advice he received; (b) did he follow it, and if not, why not; and (c) will he table it? (4) If not, why not? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank Hon Bruce Donaldson for the question. (1) The appeal was handled according to a procedure that I endorsed in November 2003. Information previously supplied by the Grain Pool Pty Ltd to the Grain Licensing Authority was examined during the appeal process, along with other information supplied by independent market analysts. (2) Yes, I did. (3) In early December my office received the appeal from Brooks Grain Pty Ltd and by mid December officers of my department were engaged in the provision of advice to me on the appeal. (a) The advice from my department based on detailed analysis of a range of information, including that provided by the Grain Pool Pty Ltd to the Grain Licensing Authority, was to uphold the appeal; and there were several grounds for upholding this particular appeal. (b) Yes, I did it. On this occasion, due to the weight of information supporting the case, I upheld the appeal. (c) No. (4) The appeal process deals with commercial matters and release of this documentation would not be in the interests of either the Grain Pool Pty Ltd or Brooks Grain. It is necessary to protect the integrity of the appeal process. The release of information received in confidence would destroy that integrity.
(3) If so - (a) when, and what was the advice he received; (b) did he follow it, and if not, why not; and (c) will he table it? (4) If not, why not? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank Hon Bruce Donaldson for the question. (1) The appeal was handled according to a procedure that I endorsed in November 2003. Information previously supplied by the Grain Pool Pty Ltd to the Grain Licensing Authority was examined during the appeal process, along with other information supplied by independent market analysts. (2) Yes, I did. (3) In early December my office received the appeal from Brooks Grain Pty Ltd and by mid December officers of my department were engaged in the provision of advice to me on the appeal. (a) The advice from my department based on detailed analysis of a range of information, including that provided by the Grain Pool Pty Ltd to the Grain Licensing Authority, was to uphold the appeal; and there were several grounds for upholding this particular appeal. (b) Yes, I did it. On this occasion, due to the weight of information supporting the case, I upheld the appeal. (c) No. (4) The appeal process deals with commercial matters and release of this documentation would not be in the interests of either the Grain Pool Pty Ltd or Brooks Grain. It is necessary to protect the integrity of the appeal process. The release of information received in confidence would destroy that integrity.
(b) did he follow it, and if not, why not; and (c) will he table it?
(c) will he table it?
Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank Hon Bruce Donaldson for the question. (1) The appeal was handled according to a procedure that I endorsed in November 2003. Information previously supplied by the Grain Pool Pty Ltd to the Grain Licensing Authority was examined during the appeal process, along with other information supplied by independent market analysts. (2) Yes, I did. (3) In early December my office received the appeal from Brooks Grain Pty Ltd and by mid December officers of my department were engaged in the provision of advice to me on the appeal. (a) The advice from my department based on detailed analysis of a range of information, including that provided by the Grain Pool Pty Ltd to the Grain Licensing Authority, was to uphold the appeal; and there were several grounds for upholding this particular appeal. (b) Yes, I did it. On this occasion, due to the weight of information supporting the case, I upheld the appeal. (c) No. (4) The appeal process deals with commercial matters and release of this documentation would not be in the interests of either the Grain Pool Pty Ltd or Brooks Grain. It is necessary to protect the integrity of the appeal process. The release of information received in confidence would destroy that integrity.
I thank Hon Bruce Donaldson for the question. (1) The appeal was handled according to a procedure that I endorsed in November 2003. Information previously supplied by the Grain Pool Pty Ltd to the Grain Licensing Authority was examined during the appeal process, along with other information supplied by independent market analysts. (2) Yes, I did. (3) In early December my office received the appeal from Brooks Grain Pty Ltd and by mid December officers of my department were engaged in the provision of advice to me on the appeal. (a) The advice from my department based on detailed analysis of a range of information, including that provided by the Grain Pool Pty Ltd to the Grain Licensing Authority, was to uphold the appeal; and there were several grounds for upholding this particular appeal. (b) Yes, I did it. On this occasion, due to the weight of information supporting the case, I upheld the appeal. (c) No. (4) The appeal process deals with commercial matters and release of this documentation would not be in the interests of either the Grain Pool Pty Ltd or Brooks Grain. It is necessary to protect the integrity of the appeal process. The release of information received in confidence would destroy that integrity.
(1) The appeal was handled according to a procedure that I endorsed in November 2003. Information previously supplied by the Grain Pool Pty Ltd to the Grain Licensing Authority was examined during the appeal process, along with other information supplied by independent market analysts. (2) Yes, I did. (3) In early December my office received the appeal from Brooks Grain Pty Ltd and by mid December officers of my department were engaged in the provision of advice to me on the appeal. (a) The advice from my department based on detailed analysis of a range of information, including that provided by the Grain Pool Pty Ltd to the Grain Licensing Authority, was to uphold the appeal; and there were several grounds for upholding this particular appeal. (b) Yes, I did it. On this occasion, due to the weight of information supporting the case, I upheld the appeal. (c) No. (4) The appeal process deals with commercial matters and release of this documentation would not be in the interests of either the Grain Pool Pty Ltd or Brooks Grain. It is necessary to protect the integrity of the appeal process. The release of information received in confidence would destroy that integrity.
(2) Yes, I did. (3) In early December my office received the appeal from Brooks Grain Pty Ltd and by mid December officers of my department were engaged in the provision of advice to me on the appeal. (a) The advice from my department based on detailed analysis of a range of information, including that provided by the Grain Pool Pty Ltd to the Grain Licensing Authority, was to uphold the appeal; and there were several grounds for upholding this particular appeal. (b) Yes, I did it. On this occasion, due to the weight of information supporting the case, I upheld the appeal. (c) No. (4) The appeal process deals with commercial matters and release of this documentation would not be in the interests of either the Grain Pool Pty Ltd or Brooks Grain. It is necessary to protect the integrity of the appeal process. The release of information received in confidence would destroy that integrity.
(3) In early December my office received the appeal from Brooks Grain Pty Ltd and by mid December officers of my department were engaged in the provision of advice to me on the appeal. (a) The advice from my department based on detailed analysis of a range of information, including that provided by the Grain Pool Pty Ltd to the Grain Licensing Authority, was to uphold the appeal; and there were several grounds for upholding this particular appeal. (b) Yes, I did it. On this occasion, due to the weight of information supporting the case, I upheld the appeal. (c) No. (4) The appeal process deals with commercial matters and release of this documentation would not be in the interests of either the Grain Pool Pty Ltd or Brooks Grain. It is necessary to protect the integrity of the appeal process. The release of information received in confidence would destroy that integrity.
(b) Yes, I did it. On this occasion, due to the weight of information supporting the case, I upheld the appeal. (c) No.
(c) No.
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.