❓ Hon Peter Foss questions the Minister for Forestry and Fisheries about potential reductions in take-out offers for mills, the economic pressure this places on them, and the long-term viability of the milling industry post-2004. The Minister acknowledges the concerns and commits to reviewing the decision-making process and providing millers with sufficient time to make informed decisions.
AnsweredQoN 295Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
(1) Are some mills being advised that if the take-out offer is not accepted by a particular date, the offer will reduce? (2) If so - (a) what is the date; (b) what is the amount of the reduction suggested; and (c) does the minister acknowledge that it places enormous economic pressure on millers whose economic position is tight - often because of investment in value-adding at the suggestion of government - but who wish to remain in the industry? (3) Will the minister review the thinking behind this move and, in particular, will he - (a) reconsider the morality of that action; and (b) undertake immediately that if the Government persists with it, the operative date will be sufficiently after the Government has made firm offers post 2004 for millers to make arrangements with their lenders to determine that they can carry on? (4) Is the minister aware that the quantities of post-2004 jarrah will not permit small mills and large mills to continue to operate and that one section or the other must go? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for providing me with a copy of this question some hours ago. (1)-(2) The Government is considering an option for the exit provisions on the basis that the quantum of money offered under the exit provisions will decline in time. The logic behind that is that the exit provision effectively will be worth nothing at the end of 2003 because it relates to the current forest management plan contract volumes. Those contract volumes would be nil at the end of 2003, therefore, there would be no value to the Government or the rest of the timber industry if an exit were to occur at that time. The step-down in value that is being considered at this stage is also predicated on the view that we would like to encourage people to make a decision at the earliest possible time. I acknowledge that the prospect of a step-down in the exit allowance will place enormous economic pressure on the remaining millers irrespective of whether their economic position is tight. I understand the point being made. (3) I advise as follows - (a) Of course I will review the thinking behind the move. The morality of the Government’s actions at all times should be considered on advice and I thank Hon Peter Foss for that advice. (b) Yes, that is a reasonable proposition. If such a step-down in the offer of exit allowance were to eventuate - the Government has not yet made a decision on it - it should not be implemented until a reasonable time after the most accurate possible indication of available volumes post 2004 is made available to those millers so that they can make the most informed decision. I am contemplating taking a more formal approach to the remaining milling sector within about a month, hopefully, by the end of July because a couple of matters will become clearer at that point. In relation to the timber volume that might become available from the assessment of the moratorium blocks, although we may not have the final report by then - the same applies to the amount of timber volume that might be available from the assessment of the boundaries for the proposed national parks - timber volumes, particularly jarrah volumes may be made available. On the basis of that, we should communicate that to millers so they can make a more accurate decision. From that date, we should allow at least two months, if not a little longer, before any question of step-down arises. It is certainly not our intention to put millers under pressure in terms of the step-downs; however, it is certainly our desire to make it more attractive for millers to accept a position earlier rather than later. It is something I will be happy to speak to Hon Peter Foss about formally or informally as we progress that chain. (4) That is a reasonable proposition based on 140 000 cubic metres. There is not sufficient room for both the small and large milling sectors. That is why I raised that issue about volumes that might be raised otherwise.
(2) If so - (a) what is the date; (b) what is the amount of the reduction suggested; and (c) does the minister acknowledge that it places enormous economic pressure on millers whose economic position is tight - often because of investment in value-adding at the suggestion of government - but who wish to remain in the industry? (3) Will the minister review the thinking behind this move and, in particular, will he - (a) reconsider the morality of that action; and (b) undertake immediately that if the Government persists with it, the operative date will be sufficiently after the Government has made firm offers post 2004 for millers to make arrangements with their lenders to determine that they can carry on? (4) Is the minister aware that the quantities of post-2004 jarrah will not permit small mills and large mills to continue to operate and that one section or the other must go? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for providing me with a copy of this question some hours ago. (1)-(2) The Government is considering an option for the exit provisions on the basis that the quantum of money offered under the exit provisions will decline in time. The logic behind that is that the exit provision effectively will be worth nothing at the end of 2003 because it relates to the current forest management plan contract volumes. Those contract volumes would be nil at the end of 2003, therefore, there would be no value to the Government or the rest of the timber industry if an exit were to occur at that time. The step-down in value that is being considered at this stage is also predicated on the view that we would like to encourage people to make a decision at the earliest possible time. I acknowledge that the prospect of a step-down in the exit allowance will place enormous economic pressure on the remaining millers irrespective of whether their economic position is tight. I understand the point being made. (3) I advise as follows - (a) Of course I will review the thinking behind the move. The morality of the Government’s actions at all times should be considered on advice and I thank Hon Peter Foss for that advice. (b) Yes, that is a reasonable proposition. If such a step-down in the offer of exit allowance were to eventuate - the Government has not yet made a decision on it - it should not be implemented until a reasonable time after the most accurate possible indication of available volumes post 2004 is made available to those millers so that they can make the most informed decision. I am contemplating taking a more formal approach to the remaining milling sector within about a month, hopefully, by the end of July because a couple of matters will become clearer at that point. In relation to the timber volume that might become available from the assessment of the moratorium blocks, although we may not have the final report by then - the same applies to the amount of timber volume that might be available from the assessment of the boundaries for the proposed national parks - timber volumes, particularly jarrah volumes may be made available. On the basis of that, we should communicate that to millers so they can make a more accurate decision. From that date, we should allow at least two months, if not a little longer, before any question of step-down arises. It is certainly not our intention to put millers under pressure in terms of the step-downs; however, it is certainly our desire to make it more attractive for millers to accept a position earlier rather than later. It is something I will be happy to speak to Hon Peter Foss about formally or informally as we progress that chain. (4) That is a reasonable proposition based on 140 000 cubic metres. There is not sufficient room for both the small and large milling sectors. That is why I raised that issue about volumes that might be raised otherwise.
(a) what is the date; (b) what is the amount of the reduction suggested; and (c) does the minister acknowledge that it places enormous economic pressure on millers whose economic position is tight - often because of investment in value-adding at the suggestion of government - but who wish to remain in the industry? (3) Will the minister review the thinking behind this move and, in particular, will he - (a) reconsider the morality of that action; and (b) undertake immediately that if the Government persists with it, the operative date will be sufficiently after the Government has made firm offers post 2004 for millers to make arrangements with their lenders to determine that they can carry on? (4) Is the minister aware that the quantities of post-2004 jarrah will not permit small mills and large mills to continue to operate and that one section or the other must go? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for providing me with a copy of this question some hours ago. (1)-(2) The Government is considering an option for the exit provisions on the basis that the quantum of money offered under the exit provisions will decline in time. The logic behind that is that the exit provision effectively will be worth nothing at the end of 2003 because it relates to the current forest management plan contract volumes. Those contract volumes would be nil at the end of 2003, therefore, there would be no value to the Government or the rest of the timber industry if an exit were to occur at that time. The step-down in value that is being considered at this stage is also predicated on the view that we would like to encourage people to make a decision at the earliest possible time. I acknowledge that the prospect of a step-down in the exit allowance will place enormous economic pressure on the remaining millers irrespective of whether their economic position is tight. I understand the point being made. (3) I advise as follows - (a) Of course I will review the thinking behind the move. The morality of the Government’s actions at all times should be considered on advice and I thank Hon Peter Foss for that advice. (b) Yes, that is a reasonable proposition. If such a step-down in the offer of exit allowance were to eventuate - the Government has not yet made a decision on it - it should not be implemented until a reasonable time after the most accurate possible indication of available volumes post 2004 is made available to those millers so that they can make the most informed decision. I am contemplating taking a more formal approach to the remaining milling sector within about a month, hopefully, by the end of July because a couple of matters will become clearer at that point. In relation to the timber volume that might become available from the assessment of the moratorium blocks, although we may not have the final report by then - the same applies to the amount of timber volume that might be available from the assessment of the boundaries for the proposed national parks - timber volumes, particularly jarrah volumes may be made available. On the basis of that, we should communicate that to millers so they can make a more accurate decision. From that date, we should allow at least two months, if not a little longer, before any question of step-down arises. It is certainly not our intention to put millers under pressure in terms of the step-downs; however, it is certainly our desire to make it more attractive for millers to accept a position earlier rather than later. It is something I will be happy to speak to Hon Peter Foss about formally or informally as we progress that chain. (4) That is a reasonable proposition based on 140 000 cubic metres. There is not sufficient room for both the small and large milling sectors. That is why I raised that issue about volumes that might be raised otherwise.
(b) what is the amount of the reduction suggested; and (c) does the minister acknowledge that it places enormous economic pressure on millers whose economic position is tight - often because of investment in value-adding at the suggestion of government - but who wish to remain in the industry? (3) Will the minister review the thinking behind this move and, in particular, will he - (a) reconsider the morality of that action; and (b) undertake immediately that if the Government persists with it, the operative date will be sufficiently after the Government has made firm offers post 2004 for millers to make arrangements with their lenders to determine that they can carry on? (4) Is the minister aware that the quantities of post-2004 jarrah will not permit small mills and large mills to continue to operate and that one section or the other must go? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for providing me with a copy of this question some hours ago. (1)-(2) The Government is considering an option for the exit provisions on the basis that the quantum of money offered under the exit provisions will decline in time. The logic behind that is that the exit provision effectively will be worth nothing at the end of 2003 because it relates to the current forest management plan contract volumes. Those contract volumes would be nil at the end of 2003, therefore, there would be no value to the Government or the rest of the timber industry if an exit were to occur at that time. The step-down in value that is being considered at this stage is also predicated on the view that we would like to encourage people to make a decision at the earliest possible time. I acknowledge that the prospect of a step-down in the exit allowance will place enormous economic pressure on the remaining millers irrespective of whether their economic position is tight. I understand the point being made. (3) I advise as follows - (a) Of course I will review the thinking behind the move. The morality of the Government’s actions at all times should be considered on advice and I thank Hon Peter Foss for that advice. (b) Yes, that is a reasonable proposition. If such a step-down in the offer of exit allowance were to eventuate - the Government has not yet made a decision on it - it should not be implemented until a reasonable time after the most accurate possible indication of available volumes post 2004 is made available to those millers so that they can make the most informed decision. I am contemplating taking a more formal approach to the remaining milling sector within about a month, hopefully, by the end of July because a couple of matters will become clearer at that point. In relation to the timber volume that might become available from the assessment of the moratorium blocks, although we may not have the final report by then - the same applies to the amount of timber volume that might be available from the assessment of the boundaries for the proposed national parks - timber volumes, particularly jarrah volumes may be made available. On the basis of that, we should communicate that to millers so they can make a more accurate decision. From that date, we should allow at least two months, if not a little longer, before any question of step-down arises. It is certainly not our intention to put millers under pressure in terms of the step-downs; however, it is certainly our desire to make it more attractive for millers to accept a position earlier rather than later. It is something I will be happy to speak to Hon Peter Foss about formally or informally as we progress that chain. (4) That is a reasonable proposition based on 140 000 cubic metres. There is not sufficient room for both the small and large milling sectors. That is why I raised that issue about volumes that might be raised otherwise.
(c) does the minister acknowledge that it places enormous economic pressure on millers whose economic position is tight - often because of investment in value-adding at the suggestion of government - but who wish to remain in the industry? (3) Will the minister review the thinking behind this move and, in particular, will he - (a) reconsider the morality of that action; and (b) undertake immediately that if the Government persists with it, the operative date will be sufficiently after the Government has made firm offers post 2004 for millers to make arrangements with their lenders to determine that they can carry on? (4) Is the minister aware that the quantities of post-2004 jarrah will not permit small mills and large mills to continue to operate and that one section or the other must go? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for providing me with a copy of this question some hours ago. (1)-(2) The Government is considering an option for the exit provisions on the basis that the quantum of money offered under the exit provisions will decline in time. The logic behind that is that the exit provision effectively will be worth nothing at the end of 2003 because it relates to the current forest management plan contract volumes. Those contract volumes would be nil at the end of 2003, therefore, there would be no value to the Government or the rest of the timber industry if an exit were to occur at that time. The step-down in value that is being considered at this stage is also predicated on the view that we would like to encourage people to make a decision at the earliest possible time. I acknowledge that the prospect of a step-down in the exit allowance will place enormous economic pressure on the remaining millers irrespective of whether their economic position is tight. I understand the point being made. (3) I advise as follows - (a) Of course I will review the thinking behind the move. The morality of the Government’s actions at all times should be considered on advice and I thank Hon Peter Foss for that advice. (b) Yes, that is a reasonable proposition. If such a step-down in the offer of exit allowance were to eventuate - the Government has not yet made a decision on it - it should not be implemented until a reasonable time after the most accurate possible indication of available volumes post 2004 is made available to those millers so that they can make the most informed decision. I am contemplating taking a more formal approach to the remaining milling sector within about a month, hopefully, by the end of July because a couple of matters will become clearer at that point. In relation to the timber volume that might become available from the assessment of the moratorium blocks, although we may not have the final report by then - the same applies to the amount of timber volume that might be available from the assessment of the boundaries for the proposed national parks - timber volumes, particularly jarrah volumes may be made available. On the basis of that, we should communicate that to millers so they can make a more accurate decision. From that date, we should allow at least two months, if not a little longer, before any question of step-down arises. It is certainly not our intention to put millers under pressure in terms of the step-downs; however, it is certainly our desire to make it more attractive for millers to accept a position earlier rather than later. It is something I will be happy to speak to Hon Peter Foss about formally or informally as we progress that chain. (4) That is a reasonable proposition based on 140 000 cubic metres. There is not sufficient room for both the small and large milling sectors. That is why I raised that issue about volumes that might be raised otherwise.
(3) Will the minister review the thinking behind this move and, in particular, will he - (a) reconsider the morality of that action; and (b) undertake immediately that if the Government persists with it, the operative date will be sufficiently after the Government has made firm offers post 2004 for millers to make arrangements with their lenders to determine that they can carry on? (4) Is the minister aware that the quantities of post-2004 jarrah will not permit small mills and large mills to continue to operate and that one section or the other must go? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for providing me with a copy of this question some hours ago. (1)-(2) The Government is considering an option for the exit provisions on the basis that the quantum of money offered under the exit provisions will decline in time. The logic behind that is that the exit provision effectively will be worth nothing at the end of 2003 because it relates to the current forest management plan contract volumes. Those contract volumes would be nil at the end of 2003, therefore, there would be no value to the Government or the rest of the timber industry if an exit were to occur at that time. The step-down in value that is being considered at this stage is also predicated on the view that we would like to encourage people to make a decision at the earliest possible time. I acknowledge that the prospect of a step-down in the exit allowance will place enormous economic pressure on the remaining millers irrespective of whether their economic position is tight. I understand the point being made. (3) I advise as follows - (a) Of course I will review the thinking behind the move. The morality of the Government’s actions at all times should be considered on advice and I thank Hon Peter Foss for that advice. (b) Yes, that is a reasonable proposition. If such a step-down in the offer of exit allowance were to eventuate - the Government has not yet made a decision on it - it should not be implemented until a reasonable time after the most accurate possible indication of available volumes post 2004 is made available to those millers so that they can make the most informed decision. I am contemplating taking a more formal approach to the remaining milling sector within about a month, hopefully, by the end of July because a couple of matters will become clearer at that point. In relation to the timber volume that might become available from the assessment of the moratorium blocks, although we may not have the final report by then - the same applies to the amount of timber volume that might be available from the assessment of the boundaries for the proposed national parks - timber volumes, particularly jarrah volumes may be made available. On the basis of that, we should communicate that to millers so they can make a more accurate decision. From that date, we should allow at least two months, if not a little longer, before any question of step-down arises. It is certainly not our intention to put millers under pressure in terms of the step-downs; however, it is certainly our desire to make it more attractive for millers to accept a position earlier rather than later. It is something I will be happy to speak to Hon Peter Foss about formally or informally as we progress that chain. (4) That is a reasonable proposition based on 140 000 cubic metres. There is not sufficient room for both the small and large milling sectors. That is why I raised that issue about volumes that might be raised otherwise.
(a) reconsider the morality of that action; and (b) undertake immediately that if the Government persists with it, the operative date will be sufficiently after the Government has made firm offers post 2004 for millers to make arrangements with their lenders to determine that they can carry on? (4) Is the minister aware that the quantities of post-2004 jarrah will not permit small mills and large mills to continue to operate and that one section or the other must go? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for providing me with a copy of this question some hours ago. (1)-(2) The Government is considering an option for the exit provisions on the basis that the quantum of money offered under the exit provisions will decline in time. The logic behind that is that the exit provision effectively will be worth nothing at the end of 2003 because it relates to the current forest management plan contract volumes. Those contract volumes would be nil at the end of 2003, therefore, there would be no value to the Government or the rest of the timber industry if an exit were to occur at that time. The step-down in value that is being considered at this stage is also predicated on the view that we would like to encourage people to make a decision at the earliest possible time. I acknowledge that the prospect of a step-down in the exit allowance will place enormous economic pressure on the remaining millers irrespective of whether their economic position is tight. I understand the point being made. (3) I advise as follows - (a) Of course I will review the thinking behind the move. The morality of the Government’s actions at all times should be considered on advice and I thank Hon Peter Foss for that advice. (b) Yes, that is a reasonable proposition. If such a step-down in the offer of exit allowance were to eventuate - the Government has not yet made a decision on it - it should not be implemented until a reasonable time after the most accurate possible indication of available volumes post 2004 is made available to those millers so that they can make the most informed decision. I am contemplating taking a more formal approach to the remaining milling sector within about a month, hopefully, by the end of July because a couple of matters will become clearer at that point. In relation to the timber volume that might become available from the assessment of the moratorium blocks, although we may not have the final report by then - the same applies to the amount of timber volume that might be available from the assessment of the boundaries for the proposed national parks - timber volumes, particularly jarrah volumes may be made available. On the basis of that, we should communicate that to millers so they can make a more accurate decision. From that date, we should allow at least two months, if not a little longer, before any question of step-down arises. It is certainly not our intention to put millers under pressure in terms of the step-downs; however, it is certainly our desire to make it more attractive for millers to accept a position earlier rather than later. It is something I will be happy to speak to Hon Peter Foss about formally or informally as we progress that chain. (4) That is a reasonable proposition based on 140 000 cubic metres. There is not sufficient room for both the small and large milling sectors. That is why I raised that issue about volumes that might be raised otherwise.
(b) undertake immediately that if the Government persists with it, the operative date will be sufficiently after the Government has made firm offers post 2004 for millers to make arrangements with their lenders to determine that they can carry on? (4) Is the minister aware that the quantities of post-2004 jarrah will not permit small mills and large mills to continue to operate and that one section or the other must go? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for providing me with a copy of this question some hours ago. (1)-(2) The Government is considering an option for the exit provisions on the basis that the quantum of money offered under the exit provisions will decline in time. The logic behind that is that the exit provision effectively will be worth nothing at the end of 2003 because it relates to the current forest management plan contract volumes. Those contract volumes would be nil at the end of 2003, therefore, there would be no value to the Government or the rest of the timber industry if an exit were to occur at that time. The step-down in value that is being considered at this stage is also predicated on the view that we would like to encourage people to make a decision at the earliest possible time. I acknowledge that the prospect of a step-down in the exit allowance will place enormous economic pressure on the remaining millers irrespective of whether their economic position is tight. I understand the point being made. (3) I advise as follows - (a) Of course I will review the thinking behind the move. The morality of the Government’s actions at all times should be considered on advice and I thank Hon Peter Foss for that advice. (b) Yes, that is a reasonable proposition. If such a step-down in the offer of exit allowance were to eventuate - the Government has not yet made a decision on it - it should not be implemented until a reasonable time after the most accurate possible indication of available volumes post 2004 is made available to those millers so that they can make the most informed decision. I am contemplating taking a more formal approach to the remaining milling sector within about a month, hopefully, by the end of July because a couple of matters will become clearer at that point. In relation to the timber volume that might become available from the assessment of the moratorium blocks, although we may not have the final report by then - the same applies to the amount of timber volume that might be available from the assessment of the boundaries for the proposed national parks - timber volumes, particularly jarrah volumes may be made available. On the basis of that, we should communicate that to millers so they can make a more accurate decision. From that date, we should allow at least two months, if not a little longer, before any question of step-down arises. It is certainly not our intention to put millers under pressure in terms of the step-downs; however, it is certainly our desire to make it more attractive for millers to accept a position earlier rather than later. It is something I will be happy to speak to Hon Peter Foss about formally or informally as we progress that chain. (4) That is a reasonable proposition based on 140 000 cubic metres. There is not sufficient room for both the small and large milling sectors. That is why I raised that issue about volumes that might be raised otherwise.
(4) Is the minister aware that the quantities of post-2004 jarrah will not permit small mills and large mills to continue to operate and that one section or the other must go? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for providing me with a copy of this question some hours ago. (1)-(2) The Government is considering an option for the exit provisions on the basis that the quantum of money offered under the exit provisions will decline in time. The logic behind that is that the exit provision effectively will be worth nothing at the end of 2003 because it relates to the current forest management plan contract volumes. Those contract volumes would be nil at the end of 2003, therefore, there would be no value to the Government or the rest of the timber industry if an exit were to occur at that time. The step-down in value that is being considered at this stage is also predicated on the view that we would like to encourage people to make a decision at the earliest possible time. I acknowledge that the prospect of a step-down in the exit allowance will place enormous economic pressure on the remaining millers irrespective of whether their economic position is tight. I understand the point being made. (3) I advise as follows - (a) Of course I will review the thinking behind the move. The morality of the Government’s actions at all times should be considered on advice and I thank Hon Peter Foss for that advice. (b) Yes, that is a reasonable proposition. If such a step-down in the offer of exit allowance were to eventuate - the Government has not yet made a decision on it - it should not be implemented until a reasonable time after the most accurate possible indication of available volumes post 2004 is made available to those millers so that they can make the most informed decision. I am contemplating taking a more formal approach to the remaining milling sector within about a month, hopefully, by the end of July because a couple of matters will become clearer at that point. In relation to the timber volume that might become available from the assessment of the moratorium blocks, although we may not have the final report by then - the same applies to the amount of timber volume that might be available from the assessment of the boundaries for the proposed national parks - timber volumes, particularly jarrah volumes may be made available. On the basis of that, we should communicate that to millers so they can make a more accurate decision. From that date, we should allow at least two months, if not a little longer, before any question of step-down arises. It is certainly not our intention to put millers under pressure in terms of the step-downs; however, it is certainly our desire to make it more attractive for millers to accept a position earlier rather than later. It is something I will be happy to speak to Hon Peter Foss about formally or informally as we progress that chain. (4) That is a reasonable proposition based on 140 000 cubic metres. There is not sufficient room for both the small and large milling sectors. That is why I raised that issue about volumes that might be raised otherwise.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for providing me with a copy of this question some hours ago. (1)-(2) The Government is considering an option for the exit provisions on the basis that the quantum of money offered under the exit provisions will decline in time. The logic behind that is that the exit provision effectively will be worth nothing at the end of 2003 because it relates to the current forest management plan contract volumes. Those contract volumes would be nil at the end of 2003, therefore, there would be no value to the Government or the rest of the timber industry if an exit were to occur at that time. The step-down in value that is being considered at this stage is also predicated on the view that we would like to encourage people to make a decision at the earliest possible time. I acknowledge that the prospect of a step-down in the exit allowance will place enormous economic pressure on the remaining millers irrespective of whether their economic position is tight. I understand the point being made. (3) I advise as follows - (a) Of course I will review the thinking behind the move. The morality of the Government’s actions at all times should be considered on advice and I thank Hon Peter Foss for that advice. (b) Yes, that is a reasonable proposition. If such a step-down in the offer of exit allowance were to eventuate - the Government has not yet made a decision on it - it should not be implemented until a reasonable time after the most accurate possible indication of available volumes post 2004 is made available to those millers so that they can make the most informed decision. I am contemplating taking a more formal approach to the remaining milling sector within about a month, hopefully, by the end of July because a couple of matters will become clearer at that point. In relation to the timber volume that might become available from the assessment of the moratorium blocks, although we may not have the final report by then - the same applies to the amount of timber volume that might be available from the assessment of the boundaries for the proposed national parks - timber volumes, particularly jarrah volumes may be made available. On the basis of that, we should communicate that to millers so they can make a more accurate decision. From that date, we should allow at least two months, if not a little longer, before any question of step-down arises. It is certainly not our intention to put millers under pressure in terms of the step-downs; however, it is certainly our desire to make it more attractive for millers to accept a position earlier rather than later. It is something I will be happy to speak to Hon Peter Foss about formally or informally as we progress that chain. (4) That is a reasonable proposition based on 140 000 cubic metres. There is not sufficient room for both the small and large milling sectors. That is why I raised that issue about volumes that might be raised otherwise.
I thank the member for providing me with a copy of this question some hours ago. (1)-(2) The Government is considering an option for the exit provisions on the basis that the quantum of money offered under the exit provisions will decline in time. The logic behind that is that the exit provision effectively will be worth nothing at the end of 2003 because it relates to the current forest management plan contract volumes. Those contract volumes would be nil at the end of 2003, therefore, there would be no value to the Government or the rest of the timber industry if an exit were to occur at that time. The step-down in value that is being considered at this stage is also predicated on the view that we would like to encourage people to make a decision at the earliest possible time. I acknowledge that the prospect of a step-down in the exit allowance will place enormous economic pressure on the remaining millers irrespective of whether their economic position is tight. I understand the point being made. (3) I advise as follows - (a) Of course I will review the thinking behind the move. The morality of the Government’s actions at all times should be considered on advice and I thank Hon Peter Foss for that advice. (b) Yes, that is a reasonable proposition. If such a step-down in the offer of exit allowance were to eventuate - the Government has not yet made a decision on it - it should not be implemented until a reasonable time after the most accurate possible indication of available volumes post 2004 is made available to those millers so that they can make the most informed decision. I am contemplating taking a more formal approach to the remaining milling sector within about a month, hopefully, by the end of July because a couple of matters will become clearer at that point. In relation to the timber volume that might become available from the assessment of the moratorium blocks, although we may not have the final report by then - the same applies to the amount of timber volume that might be available from the assessment of the boundaries for the proposed national parks - timber volumes, particularly jarrah volumes may be made available. On the basis of that, we should communicate that to millers so they can make a more accurate decision. From that date, we should allow at least two months, if not a little longer, before any question of step-down arises. It is certainly not our intention to put millers under pressure in terms of the step-downs; however, it is certainly our desire to make it more attractive for millers to accept a position earlier rather than later. It is something I will be happy to speak to Hon Peter Foss about formally or informally as we progress that chain. (4) That is a reasonable proposition based on 140 000 cubic metres. There is not sufficient room for both the small and large milling sectors. That is why I raised that issue about volumes that might be raised otherwise.
(1)-(2) The Government is considering an option for the exit provisions on the basis that the quantum of money offered under the exit provisions will decline in time. The logic behind that is that the exit provision effectively will be worth nothing at the end of 2003 because it relates to the current forest management plan contract volumes. Those contract volumes would be nil at the end of 2003, therefore, there would be no value to the Government or the rest of the timber industry if an exit were to occur at that time. The step-down in value that is being considered at this stage is also predicated on the view that we would like to encourage people to make a decision at the earliest possible time. I acknowledge that the prospect of a step-down in the exit allowance will place enormous economic pressure on the remaining millers irrespective of whether their economic position is tight. I understand the point being made. (3) I advise as follows - (a) Of course I will review the thinking behind the move. The morality of the Government’s actions at all times should be considered on advice and I thank Hon Peter Foss for that advice. (b) Yes, that is a reasonable proposition. If such a step-down in the offer of exit allowance were to eventuate - the Government has not yet made a decision on it - it should not be implemented until a reasonable time after the most accurate possible indication of available volumes post 2004 is made available to those millers so that they can make the most informed decision. I am contemplating taking a more formal approach to the remaining milling sector within about a month, hopefully, by the end of July because a couple of matters will become clearer at that point. In relation to the timber volume that might become available from the assessment of the moratorium blocks, although we may not have the final report by then - the same applies to the amount of timber volume that might be available from the assessment of the boundaries for the proposed national parks - timber volumes, particularly jarrah volumes may be made available. On the basis of that, we should communicate that to millers so they can make a more accurate decision. From that date, we should allow at least two months, if not a little longer, before any question of step-down arises. It is certainly not our intention to put millers under pressure in terms of the step-downs; however, it is certainly our desire to make it more attractive for millers to accept a position earlier rather than later. It is something I will be happy to speak to Hon Peter Foss about formally or informally as we progress that chain. (4) That is a reasonable proposition based on 140 000 cubic metres. There is not sufficient room for both the small and large milling sectors. That is why I raised that issue about volumes that might be raised otherwise.
(a) Of course I will review the thinking behind the move. The morality of the Government’s actions at all times should be considered on advice and I thank Hon Peter Foss for that advice. (b) Yes, that is a reasonable proposition. If such a step-down in the offer of exit allowance were to eventuate - the Government has not yet made a decision on it - it should not be implemented until a reasonable time after the most accurate possible indication of available volumes post 2004 is made available to those millers so that they can make the most informed decision. I am contemplating taking a more formal approach to the remaining milling sector within about a month, hopefully, by the end of July because a couple of matters will become clearer at that point. In relation to the timber volume that might become available from the assessment of the moratorium blocks, although we may not have the final report by then - the same applies to the amount of timber volume that might be available from the assessment of the boundaries for the proposed national parks - timber volumes, particularly jarrah volumes may be made available. On the basis of that, we should communicate that to millers so they can make a more accurate decision. From that date, we should allow at least two months, if not a little longer, before any question of step-down arises. It is certainly not our intention to put millers under pressure in terms of the step-downs; however, it is certainly our desire to make it more attractive for millers to accept a position earlier rather than later. It is something I will be happy to speak to Hon Peter Foss about formally or informally as we progress that chain. (4) That is a reasonable proposition based on 140 000 cubic metres. There is not sufficient room for both the small and large milling sectors. That is why I raised that issue about volumes that might be raised otherwise.
(b) Yes, that is a reasonable proposition. If such a step-down in the offer of exit allowance were to eventuate - the Government has not yet made a decision on it - it should not be implemented until a reasonable time after the most accurate possible indication of available volumes post 2004 is made available to those millers so that they can make the most informed decision. I am contemplating taking a more formal approach to the remaining milling sector within about a month, hopefully, by the end of July because a couple of matters will become clearer at that point. In relation to the timber volume that might become available from the assessment of the moratorium blocks, although we may not have the final report by then - the same applies to the amount of timber volume that might be available from the assessment of the boundaries for the proposed national parks - timber volumes, particularly jarrah volumes may be made available. On the basis of that, we should communicate that to millers so they can make a more accurate decision. From that date, we should allow at least two months, if not a little longer, before any question of step-down arises. It is certainly not our intention to put millers under pressure in terms of the step-downs; however, it is certainly our desire to make it more attractive for millers to accept a position earlier rather than later. It is something I will be happy to speak to Hon Peter Foss about formally or informally as we progress that chain. (4) That is a reasonable proposition based on 140 000 cubic metres. There is not sufficient room for both the small and large milling sectors. That is why I raised that issue about volumes that might be raised otherwise.
(4) That is a reasonable proposition based on 140 000 cubic metres. There is not sufficient room for both the small and large milling sectors. That is why I raised that issue about volumes that might be raised otherwise.
(2) If so - (a) what is the date; (b) what is the amount of the reduction suggested; and (c) does the minister acknowledge that it places enormous economic pressure on millers whose economic position is tight - often because of investment in value-adding at the suggestion of government - but who wish to remain in the industry? (3) Will the minister review the thinking behind this move and, in particular, will he - (a) reconsider the morality of that action; and (b) undertake immediately that if the Government persists with it, the operative date will be sufficiently after the Government has made firm offers post 2004 for millers to make arrangements with their lenders to determine that they can carry on? (4) Is the minister aware that the quantities of post-2004 jarrah will not permit small mills and large mills to continue to operate and that one section or the other must go? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for providing me with a copy of this question some hours ago. (1)-(2) The Government is considering an option for the exit provisions on the basis that the quantum of money offered under the exit provisions will decline in time. The logic behind that is that the exit provision effectively will be worth nothing at the end of 2003 because it relates to the current forest management plan contract volumes. Those contract volumes would be nil at the end of 2003, therefore, there would be no value to the Government or the rest of the timber industry if an exit were to occur at that time. The step-down in value that is being considered at this stage is also predicated on the view that we would like to encourage people to make a decision at the earliest possible time. I acknowledge that the prospect of a step-down in the exit allowance will place enormous economic pressure on the remaining millers irrespective of whether their economic position is tight. I understand the point being made. (3) I advise as follows - (a) Of course I will review the thinking behind the move. The morality of the Government’s actions at all times should be considered on advice and I thank Hon Peter Foss for that advice. (b) Yes, that is a reasonable proposition. If such a step-down in the offer of exit allowance were to eventuate - the Government has not yet made a decision on it - it should not be implemented until a reasonable time after the most accurate possible indication of available volumes post 2004 is made available to those millers so that they can make the most informed decision. I am contemplating taking a more formal approach to the remaining milling sector within about a month, hopefully, by the end of July because a couple of matters will become clearer at that point. In relation to the timber volume that might become available from the assessment of the moratorium blocks, although we may not have the final report by then - the same applies to the amount of timber volume that might be available from the assessment of the boundaries for the proposed national parks - timber volumes, particularly jarrah volumes may be made available. On the basis of that, we should communicate that to millers so they can make a more accurate decision. From that date, we should allow at least two months, if not a little longer, before any question of step-down arises. It is certainly not our intention to put millers under pressure in terms of the step-downs; however, it is certainly our desire to make it more attractive for millers to accept a position earlier rather than later. It is something I will be happy to speak to Hon Peter Foss about formally or informally as we progress that chain. (4) That is a reasonable proposition based on 140 000 cubic metres. There is not sufficient room for both the small and large milling sectors. That is why I raised that issue about volumes that might be raised otherwise.
(a) what is the date; (b) what is the amount of the reduction suggested; and (c) does the minister acknowledge that it places enormous economic pressure on millers whose economic position is tight - often because of investment in value-adding at the suggestion of government - but who wish to remain in the industry? (3) Will the minister review the thinking behind this move and, in particular, will he - (a) reconsider the morality of that action; and (b) undertake immediately that if the Government persists with it, the operative date will be sufficiently after the Government has made firm offers post 2004 for millers to make arrangements with their lenders to determine that they can carry on? (4) Is the minister aware that the quantities of post-2004 jarrah will not permit small mills and large mills to continue to operate and that one section or the other must go? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for providing me with a copy of this question some hours ago. (1)-(2) The Government is considering an option for the exit provisions on the basis that the quantum of money offered under the exit provisions will decline in time. The logic behind that is that the exit provision effectively will be worth nothing at the end of 2003 because it relates to the current forest management plan contract volumes. Those contract volumes would be nil at the end of 2003, therefore, there would be no value to the Government or the rest of the timber industry if an exit were to occur at that time. The step-down in value that is being considered at this stage is also predicated on the view that we would like to encourage people to make a decision at the earliest possible time. I acknowledge that the prospect of a step-down in the exit allowance will place enormous economic pressure on the remaining millers irrespective of whether their economic position is tight. I understand the point being made. (3) I advise as follows - (a) Of course I will review the thinking behind the move. The morality of the Government’s actions at all times should be considered on advice and I thank Hon Peter Foss for that advice. (b) Yes, that is a reasonable proposition. If such a step-down in the offer of exit allowance were to eventuate - the Government has not yet made a decision on it - it should not be implemented until a reasonable time after the most accurate possible indication of available volumes post 2004 is made available to those millers so that they can make the most informed decision. I am contemplating taking a more formal approach to the remaining milling sector within about a month, hopefully, by the end of July because a couple of matters will become clearer at that point. In relation to the timber volume that might become available from the assessment of the moratorium blocks, although we may not have the final report by then - the same applies to the amount of timber volume that might be available from the assessment of the boundaries for the proposed national parks - timber volumes, particularly jarrah volumes may be made available. On the basis of that, we should communicate that to millers so they can make a more accurate decision. From that date, we should allow at least two months, if not a little longer, before any question of step-down arises. It is certainly not our intention to put millers under pressure in terms of the step-downs; however, it is certainly our desire to make it more attractive for millers to accept a position earlier rather than later. It is something I will be happy to speak to Hon Peter Foss about formally or informally as we progress that chain. (4) That is a reasonable proposition based on 140 000 cubic metres. There is not sufficient room for both the small and large milling sectors. That is why I raised that issue about volumes that might be raised otherwise.
(b) what is the amount of the reduction suggested; and (c) does the minister acknowledge that it places enormous economic pressure on millers whose economic position is tight - often because of investment in value-adding at the suggestion of government - but who wish to remain in the industry? (3) Will the minister review the thinking behind this move and, in particular, will he - (a) reconsider the morality of that action; and (b) undertake immediately that if the Government persists with it, the operative date will be sufficiently after the Government has made firm offers post 2004 for millers to make arrangements with their lenders to determine that they can carry on? (4) Is the minister aware that the quantities of post-2004 jarrah will not permit small mills and large mills to continue to operate and that one section or the other must go? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for providing me with a copy of this question some hours ago. (1)-(2) The Government is considering an option for the exit provisions on the basis that the quantum of money offered under the exit provisions will decline in time. The logic behind that is that the exit provision effectively will be worth nothing at the end of 2003 because it relates to the current forest management plan contract volumes. Those contract volumes would be nil at the end of 2003, therefore, there would be no value to the Government or the rest of the timber industry if an exit were to occur at that time. The step-down in value that is being considered at this stage is also predicated on the view that we would like to encourage people to make a decision at the earliest possible time. I acknowledge that the prospect of a step-down in the exit allowance will place enormous economic pressure on the remaining millers irrespective of whether their economic position is tight. I understand the point being made. (3) I advise as follows - (a) Of course I will review the thinking behind the move. The morality of the Government’s actions at all times should be considered on advice and I thank Hon Peter Foss for that advice. (b) Yes, that is a reasonable proposition. If such a step-down in the offer of exit allowance were to eventuate - the Government has not yet made a decision on it - it should not be implemented until a reasonable time after the most accurate possible indication of available volumes post 2004 is made available to those millers so that they can make the most informed decision. I am contemplating taking a more formal approach to the remaining milling sector within about a month, hopefully, by the end of July because a couple of matters will become clearer at that point. In relation to the timber volume that might become available from the assessment of the moratorium blocks, although we may not have the final report by then - the same applies to the amount of timber volume that might be available from the assessment of the boundaries for the proposed national parks - timber volumes, particularly jarrah volumes may be made available. On the basis of that, we should communicate that to millers so they can make a more accurate decision. From that date, we should allow at least two months, if not a little longer, before any question of step-down arises. It is certainly not our intention to put millers under pressure in terms of the step-downs; however, it is certainly our desire to make it more attractive for millers to accept a position earlier rather than later. It is something I will be happy to speak to Hon Peter Foss about formally or informally as we progress that chain. (4) That is a reasonable proposition based on 140 000 cubic metres. There is not sufficient room for both the small and large milling sectors. That is why I raised that issue about volumes that might be raised otherwise.
(c) does the minister acknowledge that it places enormous economic pressure on millers whose economic position is tight - often because of investment in value-adding at the suggestion of government - but who wish to remain in the industry? (3) Will the minister review the thinking behind this move and, in particular, will he - (a) reconsider the morality of that action; and (b) undertake immediately that if the Government persists with it, the operative date will be sufficiently after the Government has made firm offers post 2004 for millers to make arrangements with their lenders to determine that they can carry on? (4) Is the minister aware that the quantities of post-2004 jarrah will not permit small mills and large mills to continue to operate and that one section or the other must go? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for providing me with a copy of this question some hours ago. (1)-(2) The Government is considering an option for the exit provisions on the basis that the quantum of money offered under the exit provisions will decline in time. The logic behind that is that the exit provision effectively will be worth nothing at the end of 2003 because it relates to the current forest management plan contract volumes. Those contract volumes would be nil at the end of 2003, therefore, there would be no value to the Government or the rest of the timber industry if an exit were to occur at that time. The step-down in value that is being considered at this stage is also predicated on the view that we would like to encourage people to make a decision at the earliest possible time. I acknowledge that the prospect of a step-down in the exit allowance will place enormous economic pressure on the remaining millers irrespective of whether their economic position is tight. I understand the point being made. (3) I advise as follows - (a) Of course I will review the thinking behind the move. The morality of the Government’s actions at all times should be considered on advice and I thank Hon Peter Foss for that advice. (b) Yes, that is a reasonable proposition. If such a step-down in the offer of exit allowance were to eventuate - the Government has not yet made a decision on it - it should not be implemented until a reasonable time after the most accurate possible indication of available volumes post 2004 is made available to those millers so that they can make the most informed decision. I am contemplating taking a more formal approach to the remaining milling sector within about a month, hopefully, by the end of July because a couple of matters will become clearer at that point. In relation to the timber volume that might become available from the assessment of the moratorium blocks, although we may not have the final report by then - the same applies to the amount of timber volume that might be available from the assessment of the boundaries for the proposed national parks - timber volumes, particularly jarrah volumes may be made available. On the basis of that, we should communicate that to millers so they can make a more accurate decision. From that date, we should allow at least two months, if not a little longer, before any question of step-down arises. It is certainly not our intention to put millers under pressure in terms of the step-downs; however, it is certainly our desire to make it more attractive for millers to accept a position earlier rather than later. It is something I will be happy to speak to Hon Peter Foss about formally or informally as we progress that chain. (4) That is a reasonable proposition based on 140 000 cubic metres. There is not sufficient room for both the small and large milling sectors. That is why I raised that issue about volumes that might be raised otherwise.
(3) Will the minister review the thinking behind this move and, in particular, will he - (a) reconsider the morality of that action; and (b) undertake immediately that if the Government persists with it, the operative date will be sufficiently after the Government has made firm offers post 2004 for millers to make arrangements with their lenders to determine that they can carry on? (4) Is the minister aware that the quantities of post-2004 jarrah will not permit small mills and large mills to continue to operate and that one section or the other must go? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for providing me with a copy of this question some hours ago. (1)-(2) The Government is considering an option for the exit provisions on the basis that the quantum of money offered under the exit provisions will decline in time. The logic behind that is that the exit provision effectively will be worth nothing at the end of 2003 because it relates to the current forest management plan contract volumes. Those contract volumes would be nil at the end of 2003, therefore, there would be no value to the Government or the rest of the timber industry if an exit were to occur at that time. The step-down in value that is being considered at this stage is also predicated on the view that we would like to encourage people to make a decision at the earliest possible time. I acknowledge that the prospect of a step-down in the exit allowance will place enormous economic pressure on the remaining millers irrespective of whether their economic position is tight. I understand the point being made. (3) I advise as follows - (a) Of course I will review the thinking behind the move. The morality of the Government’s actions at all times should be considered on advice and I thank Hon Peter Foss for that advice. (b) Yes, that is a reasonable proposition. If such a step-down in the offer of exit allowance were to eventuate - the Government has not yet made a decision on it - it should not be implemented until a reasonable time after the most accurate possible indication of available volumes post 2004 is made available to those millers so that they can make the most informed decision. I am contemplating taking a more formal approach to the remaining milling sector within about a month, hopefully, by the end of July because a couple of matters will become clearer at that point. In relation to the timber volume that might become available from the assessment of the moratorium blocks, although we may not have the final report by then - the same applies to the amount of timber volume that might be available from the assessment of the boundaries for the proposed national parks - timber volumes, particularly jarrah volumes may be made available. On the basis of that, we should communicate that to millers so they can make a more accurate decision. From that date, we should allow at least two months, if not a little longer, before any question of step-down arises. It is certainly not our intention to put millers under pressure in terms of the step-downs; however, it is certainly our desire to make it more attractive for millers to accept a position earlier rather than later. It is something I will be happy to speak to Hon Peter Foss about formally or informally as we progress that chain. (4) That is a reasonable proposition based on 140 000 cubic metres. There is not sufficient room for both the small and large milling sectors. That is why I raised that issue about volumes that might be raised otherwise.
(a) reconsider the morality of that action; and (b) undertake immediately that if the Government persists with it, the operative date will be sufficiently after the Government has made firm offers post 2004 for millers to make arrangements with their lenders to determine that they can carry on? (4) Is the minister aware that the quantities of post-2004 jarrah will not permit small mills and large mills to continue to operate and that one section or the other must go? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for providing me with a copy of this question some hours ago. (1)-(2) The Government is considering an option for the exit provisions on the basis that the quantum of money offered under the exit provisions will decline in time. The logic behind that is that the exit provision effectively will be worth nothing at the end of 2003 because it relates to the current forest management plan contract volumes. Those contract volumes would be nil at the end of 2003, therefore, there would be no value to the Government or the rest of the timber industry if an exit were to occur at that time. The step-down in value that is being considered at this stage is also predicated on the view that we would like to encourage people to make a decision at the earliest possible time. I acknowledge that the prospect of a step-down in the exit allowance will place enormous economic pressure on the remaining millers irrespective of whether their economic position is tight. I understand the point being made. (3) I advise as follows - (a) Of course I will review the thinking behind the move. The morality of the Government’s actions at all times should be considered on advice and I thank Hon Peter Foss for that advice. (b) Yes, that is a reasonable proposition. If such a step-down in the offer of exit allowance were to eventuate - the Government has not yet made a decision on it - it should not be implemented until a reasonable time after the most accurate possible indication of available volumes post 2004 is made available to those millers so that they can make the most informed decision. I am contemplating taking a more formal approach to the remaining milling sector within about a month, hopefully, by the end of July because a couple of matters will become clearer at that point. In relation to the timber volume that might become available from the assessment of the moratorium blocks, although we may not have the final report by then - the same applies to the amount of timber volume that might be available from the assessment of the boundaries for the proposed national parks - timber volumes, particularly jarrah volumes may be made available. On the basis of that, we should communicate that to millers so they can make a more accurate decision. From that date, we should allow at least two months, if not a little longer, before any question of step-down arises. It is certainly not our intention to put millers under pressure in terms of the step-downs; however, it is certainly our desire to make it more attractive for millers to accept a position earlier rather than later. It is something I will be happy to speak to Hon Peter Foss about formally or informally as we progress that chain. (4) That is a reasonable proposition based on 140 000 cubic metres. There is not sufficient room for both the small and large milling sectors. That is why I raised that issue about volumes that might be raised otherwise.
(b) undertake immediately that if the Government persists with it, the operative date will be sufficiently after the Government has made firm offers post 2004 for millers to make arrangements with their lenders to determine that they can carry on? (4) Is the minister aware that the quantities of post-2004 jarrah will not permit small mills and large mills to continue to operate and that one section or the other must go? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for providing me with a copy of this question some hours ago. (1)-(2) The Government is considering an option for the exit provisions on the basis that the quantum of money offered under the exit provisions will decline in time. The logic behind that is that the exit provision effectively will be worth nothing at the end of 2003 because it relates to the current forest management plan contract volumes. Those contract volumes would be nil at the end of 2003, therefore, there would be no value to the Government or the rest of the timber industry if an exit were to occur at that time. The step-down in value that is being considered at this stage is also predicated on the view that we would like to encourage people to make a decision at the earliest possible time. I acknowledge that the prospect of a step-down in the exit allowance will place enormous economic pressure on the remaining millers irrespective of whether their economic position is tight. I understand the point being made. (3) I advise as follows - (a) Of course I will review the thinking behind the move. The morality of the Government’s actions at all times should be considered on advice and I thank Hon Peter Foss for that advice. (b) Yes, that is a reasonable proposition. If such a step-down in the offer of exit allowance were to eventuate - the Government has not yet made a decision on it - it should not be implemented until a reasonable time after the most accurate possible indication of available volumes post 2004 is made available to those millers so that they can make the most informed decision. I am contemplating taking a more formal approach to the remaining milling sector within about a month, hopefully, by the end of July because a couple of matters will become clearer at that point. In relation to the timber volume that might become available from the assessment of the moratorium blocks, although we may not have the final report by then - the same applies to the amount of timber volume that might be available from the assessment of the boundaries for the proposed national parks - timber volumes, particularly jarrah volumes may be made available. On the basis of that, we should communicate that to millers so they can make a more accurate decision. From that date, we should allow at least two months, if not a little longer, before any question of step-down arises. It is certainly not our intention to put millers under pressure in terms of the step-downs; however, it is certainly our desire to make it more attractive for millers to accept a position earlier rather than later. It is something I will be happy to speak to Hon Peter Foss about formally or informally as we progress that chain. (4) That is a reasonable proposition based on 140 000 cubic metres. There is not sufficient room for both the small and large milling sectors. That is why I raised that issue about volumes that might be raised otherwise.
(4) Is the minister aware that the quantities of post-2004 jarrah will not permit small mills and large mills to continue to operate and that one section or the other must go? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for providing me with a copy of this question some hours ago. (1)-(2) The Government is considering an option for the exit provisions on the basis that the quantum of money offered under the exit provisions will decline in time. The logic behind that is that the exit provision effectively will be worth nothing at the end of 2003 because it relates to the current forest management plan contract volumes. Those contract volumes would be nil at the end of 2003, therefore, there would be no value to the Government or the rest of the timber industry if an exit were to occur at that time. The step-down in value that is being considered at this stage is also predicated on the view that we would like to encourage people to make a decision at the earliest possible time. I acknowledge that the prospect of a step-down in the exit allowance will place enormous economic pressure on the remaining millers irrespective of whether their economic position is tight. I understand the point being made. (3) I advise as follows - (a) Of course I will review the thinking behind the move. The morality of the Government’s actions at all times should be considered on advice and I thank Hon Peter Foss for that advice. (b) Yes, that is a reasonable proposition. If such a step-down in the offer of exit allowance were to eventuate - the Government has not yet made a decision on it - it should not be implemented until a reasonable time after the most accurate possible indication of available volumes post 2004 is made available to those millers so that they can make the most informed decision. I am contemplating taking a more formal approach to the remaining milling sector within about a month, hopefully, by the end of July because a couple of matters will become clearer at that point. In relation to the timber volume that might become available from the assessment of the moratorium blocks, although we may not have the final report by then - the same applies to the amount of timber volume that might be available from the assessment of the boundaries for the proposed national parks - timber volumes, particularly jarrah volumes may be made available. On the basis of that, we should communicate that to millers so they can make a more accurate decision. From that date, we should allow at least two months, if not a little longer, before any question of step-down arises. It is certainly not our intention to put millers under pressure in terms of the step-downs; however, it is certainly our desire to make it more attractive for millers to accept a position earlier rather than later. It is something I will be happy to speak to Hon Peter Foss about formally or informally as we progress that chain. (4) That is a reasonable proposition based on 140 000 cubic metres. There is not sufficient room for both the small and large milling sectors. That is why I raised that issue about volumes that might be raised otherwise.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for providing me with a copy of this question some hours ago. (1)-(2) The Government is considering an option for the exit provisions on the basis that the quantum of money offered under the exit provisions will decline in time. The logic behind that is that the exit provision effectively will be worth nothing at the end of 2003 because it relates to the current forest management plan contract volumes. Those contract volumes would be nil at the end of 2003, therefore, there would be no value to the Government or the rest of the timber industry if an exit were to occur at that time. The step-down in value that is being considered at this stage is also predicated on the view that we would like to encourage people to make a decision at the earliest possible time. I acknowledge that the prospect of a step-down in the exit allowance will place enormous economic pressure on the remaining millers irrespective of whether their economic position is tight. I understand the point being made. (3) I advise as follows - (a) Of course I will review the thinking behind the move. The morality of the Government’s actions at all times should be considered on advice and I thank Hon Peter Foss for that advice. (b) Yes, that is a reasonable proposition. If such a step-down in the offer of exit allowance were to eventuate - the Government has not yet made a decision on it - it should not be implemented until a reasonable time after the most accurate possible indication of available volumes post 2004 is made available to those millers so that they can make the most informed decision. I am contemplating taking a more formal approach to the remaining milling sector within about a month, hopefully, by the end of July because a couple of matters will become clearer at that point. In relation to the timber volume that might become available from the assessment of the moratorium blocks, although we may not have the final report by then - the same applies to the amount of timber volume that might be available from the assessment of the boundaries for the proposed national parks - timber volumes, particularly jarrah volumes may be made available. On the basis of that, we should communicate that to millers so they can make a more accurate decision. From that date, we should allow at least two months, if not a little longer, before any question of step-down arises. It is certainly not our intention to put millers under pressure in terms of the step-downs; however, it is certainly our desire to make it more attractive for millers to accept a position earlier rather than later. It is something I will be happy to speak to Hon Peter Foss about formally or informally as we progress that chain. (4) That is a reasonable proposition based on 140 000 cubic metres. There is not sufficient room for both the small and large milling sectors. That is why I raised that issue about volumes that might be raised otherwise.
I thank the member for providing me with a copy of this question some hours ago. (1)-(2) The Government is considering an option for the exit provisions on the basis that the quantum of money offered under the exit provisions will decline in time. The logic behind that is that the exit provision effectively will be worth nothing at the end of 2003 because it relates to the current forest management plan contract volumes. Those contract volumes would be nil at the end of 2003, therefore, there would be no value to the Government or the rest of the timber industry if an exit were to occur at that time. The step-down in value that is being considered at this stage is also predicated on the view that we would like to encourage people to make a decision at the earliest possible time. I acknowledge that the prospect of a step-down in the exit allowance will place enormous economic pressure on the remaining millers irrespective of whether their economic position is tight. I understand the point being made. (3) I advise as follows - (a) Of course I will review the thinking behind the move. The morality of the Government’s actions at all times should be considered on advice and I thank Hon Peter Foss for that advice. (b) Yes, that is a reasonable proposition. If such a step-down in the offer of exit allowance were to eventuate - the Government has not yet made a decision on it - it should not be implemented until a reasonable time after the most accurate possible indication of available volumes post 2004 is made available to those millers so that they can make the most informed decision. I am contemplating taking a more formal approach to the remaining milling sector within about a month, hopefully, by the end of July because a couple of matters will become clearer at that point. In relation to the timber volume that might become available from the assessment of the moratorium blocks, although we may not have the final report by then - the same applies to the amount of timber volume that might be available from the assessment of the boundaries for the proposed national parks - timber volumes, particularly jarrah volumes may be made available. On the basis of that, we should communicate that to millers so they can make a more accurate decision. From that date, we should allow at least two months, if not a little longer, before any question of step-down arises. It is certainly not our intention to put millers under pressure in terms of the step-downs; however, it is certainly our desire to make it more attractive for millers to accept a position earlier rather than later. It is something I will be happy to speak to Hon Peter Foss about formally or informally as we progress that chain. (4) That is a reasonable proposition based on 140 000 cubic metres. There is not sufficient room for both the small and large milling sectors. That is why I raised that issue about volumes that might be raised otherwise.
(1)-(2) The Government is considering an option for the exit provisions on the basis that the quantum of money offered under the exit provisions will decline in time. The logic behind that is that the exit provision effectively will be worth nothing at the end of 2003 because it relates to the current forest management plan contract volumes. Those contract volumes would be nil at the end of 2003, therefore, there would be no value to the Government or the rest of the timber industry if an exit were to occur at that time. The step-down in value that is being considered at this stage is also predicated on the view that we would like to encourage people to make a decision at the earliest possible time. I acknowledge that the prospect of a step-down in the exit allowance will place enormous economic pressure on the remaining millers irrespective of whether their economic position is tight. I understand the point being made. (3) I advise as follows - (a) Of course I will review the thinking behind the move. The morality of the Government’s actions at all times should be considered on advice and I thank Hon Peter Foss for that advice. (b) Yes, that is a reasonable proposition. If such a step-down in the offer of exit allowance were to eventuate - the Government has not yet made a decision on it - it should not be implemented until a reasonable time after the most accurate possible indication of available volumes post 2004 is made available to those millers so that they can make the most informed decision. I am contemplating taking a more formal approach to the remaining milling sector within about a month, hopefully, by the end of July because a couple of matters will become clearer at that point. In relation to the timber volume that might become available from the assessment of the moratorium blocks, although we may not have the final report by then - the same applies to the amount of timber volume that might be available from the assessment of the boundaries for the proposed national parks - timber volumes, particularly jarrah volumes may be made available. On the basis of that, we should communicate that to millers so they can make a more accurate decision. From that date, we should allow at least two months, if not a little longer, before any question of step-down arises. It is certainly not our intention to put millers under pressure in terms of the step-downs; however, it is certainly our desire to make it more attractive for millers to accept a position earlier rather than later. It is something I will be happy to speak to Hon Peter Foss about formally or informally as we progress that chain. (4) That is a reasonable proposition based on 140 000 cubic metres. There is not sufficient room for both the small and large milling sectors. That is why I raised that issue about volumes that might be raised otherwise.
(a) Of course I will review the thinking behind the move. The morality of the Government’s actions at all times should be considered on advice and I thank Hon Peter Foss for that advice. (b) Yes, that is a reasonable proposition. If such a step-down in the offer of exit allowance were to eventuate - the Government has not yet made a decision on it - it should not be implemented until a reasonable time after the most accurate possible indication of available volumes post 2004 is made available to those millers so that they can make the most informed decision. I am contemplating taking a more formal approach to the remaining milling sector within about a month, hopefully, by the end of July because a couple of matters will become clearer at that point. In relation to the timber volume that might become available from the assessment of the moratorium blocks, although we may not have the final report by then - the same applies to the amount of timber volume that might be available from the assessment of the boundaries for the proposed national parks - timber volumes, particularly jarrah volumes may be made available. On the basis of that, we should communicate that to millers so they can make a more accurate decision. From that date, we should allow at least two months, if not a little longer, before any question of step-down arises. It is certainly not our intention to put millers under pressure in terms of the step-downs; however, it is certainly our desire to make it more attractive for millers to accept a position earlier rather than later. It is something I will be happy to speak to Hon Peter Foss about formally or informally as we progress that chain. (4) That is a reasonable proposition based on 140 000 cubic metres. There is not sufficient room for both the small and large milling sectors. That is why I raised that issue about volumes that might be raised otherwise.
(b) Yes, that is a reasonable proposition. If such a step-down in the offer of exit allowance were to eventuate - the Government has not yet made a decision on it - it should not be implemented until a reasonable time after the most accurate possible indication of available volumes post 2004 is made available to those millers so that they can make the most informed decision. I am contemplating taking a more formal approach to the remaining milling sector within about a month, hopefully, by the end of July because a couple of matters will become clearer at that point. In relation to the timber volume that might become available from the assessment of the moratorium blocks, although we may not have the final report by then - the same applies to the amount of timber volume that might be available from the assessment of the boundaries for the proposed national parks - timber volumes, particularly jarrah volumes may be made available. On the basis of that, we should communicate that to millers so they can make a more accurate decision. From that date, we should allow at least two months, if not a little longer, before any question of step-down arises. It is certainly not our intention to put millers under pressure in terms of the step-downs; however, it is certainly our desire to make it more attractive for millers to accept a position earlier rather than later. It is something I will be happy to speak to Hon Peter Foss about formally or informally as we progress that chain. (4) That is a reasonable proposition based on 140 000 cubic metres. There is not sufficient room for both the small and large milling sectors. That is why I raised that issue about volumes that might be raised otherwise.
(4) That is a reasonable proposition based on 140 000 cubic metres. There is not sufficient room for both the small and large milling sectors. That is why I raised that issue about volumes that might be raised otherwise.
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.