❓ A WA parliamentary question probes the motivations behind establishing the Economic Regulation Authority (ERA) and the government's stance on competition and privatisation in water and wastewater services. The government denies that the ERA was set up to retain competition policy payments and states that the NCC has not pushed for privatisation.
AnsweredQoN 910Legislative Council
Asked
17 October 2007
Member
Portfolio
parliamentary secretary representing the Treasurer
QuestionView source ↗
ECONOMIC REGULATION AUTHORITY - INQUIRY INTO COMPETITION IN WATER AND WASTE WATER SERVICES
I refer to the current inquiry into competition in water and waste water services by the Economic Regulation Authority. (1) Was the decision to set up the ERA in the first place related in any way to the desire by the state government to avoid losing further competition policy tranche payments? (2) Has the National Competition Council indicated that it wishes Western Australia to go further in privatising WA’s water and waste water services? (3) What is the government’s policy on competition in water and waste water services in this state? (4) Are not the states supposed to be able to make their own decisions on national competition policy legislative reviews? Hon KATE DOUST
I refer to the current inquiry into competition in water and waste water services by the Economic Regulation Authority. (1) Was the decision to set up the ERA in the first place related in any way to the desire by the state government to avoid losing further competition policy tranche payments? (2) Has the National Competition Council indicated that it wishes Western Australia to go further in privatising WA’s water and waste water services? (3) What is the government’s policy on competition in water and waste water services in this state? (4) Are not the states supposed to be able to make their own decisions on national competition policy legislative reviews? Hon KATE DOUST
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) No. The decision to establish the Economic Regulation Authority related primarily to the efficiencies of bringing together two existing regulators, for gas and rail, and one regulatory function, for water, into the one organisation; the need for a new electricity regulator; and the benefits for the state in having an expert independent organisation able to examine a range of issues. Contrary to the original agreement, the commonwealth discontinued competition payments in 2005-06. (2) No. The National Competition Council has never indicated a preference for privatisation. (3) The government has asked the Economic Regulation Authority to conduct a review of any opportunities to introduce competition that would be in the public interest. (4) Yes, each jurisdiction is free to decide the outcome it considers to be in the public interest when reviewing legislation.
(1) Was the decision to set up the ERA in the first place related in any way to the desire by the state government to avoid losing further competition policy tranche payments? (2) Has the National Competition Council indicated that it wishes Western Australia to go further in privatising WA’s water and waste water services? (3) What is the government’s policy on competition in water and waste water services in this state? (4) Are not the states supposed to be able to make their own decisions on national competition policy legislative reviews? Hon KATE DOUST replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) No. The decision to establish the Economic Regulation Authority related primarily to the efficiencies of bringing together two existing regulators, for gas and rail, and one regulatory function, for water, into the one organisation; the need for a new electricity regulator; and the benefits for the state in having an expert independent organisation able to examine a range of issues. Contrary to the original agreement, the commonwealth discontinued competition payments in 2005-06. (2) No. The National Competition Council has never indicated a preference for privatisation. (3) The government has asked the Economic Regulation Authority to conduct a review of any opportunities to introduce competition that would be in the public interest. (4) Yes, each jurisdiction is free to decide the outcome it considers to be in the public interest when reviewing legislation.
(2) Has the National Competition Council indicated that it wishes Western Australia to go further in privatising WA’s water and waste water services? (3) What is the government’s policy on competition in water and waste water services in this state? (4) Are not the states supposed to be able to make their own decisions on national competition policy legislative reviews? Hon KATE DOUST replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) No. The decision to establish the Economic Regulation Authority related primarily to the efficiencies of bringing together two existing regulators, for gas and rail, and one regulatory function, for water, into the one organisation; the need for a new electricity regulator; and the benefits for the state in having an expert independent organisation able to examine a range of issues. Contrary to the original agreement, the commonwealth discontinued competition payments in 2005-06. (2) No. The National Competition Council has never indicated a preference for privatisation. (3) The government has asked the Economic Regulation Authority to conduct a review of any opportunities to introduce competition that would be in the public interest. (4) Yes, each jurisdiction is free to decide the outcome it considers to be in the public interest when reviewing legislation.
(3) What is the government’s policy on competition in water and waste water services in this state? (4) Are not the states supposed to be able to make their own decisions on national competition policy legislative reviews? Hon KATE DOUST replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) No. The decision to establish the Economic Regulation Authority related primarily to the efficiencies of bringing together two existing regulators, for gas and rail, and one regulatory function, for water, into the one organisation; the need for a new electricity regulator; and the benefits for the state in having an expert independent organisation able to examine a range of issues. Contrary to the original agreement, the commonwealth discontinued competition payments in 2005-06. (2) No. The National Competition Council has never indicated a preference for privatisation. (3) The government has asked the Economic Regulation Authority to conduct a review of any opportunities to introduce competition that would be in the public interest. (4) Yes, each jurisdiction is free to decide the outcome it considers to be in the public interest when reviewing legislation.
(4) Are not the states supposed to be able to make their own decisions on national competition policy legislative reviews? Hon KATE DOUST replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) No. The decision to establish the Economic Regulation Authority related primarily to the efficiencies of bringing together two existing regulators, for gas and rail, and one regulatory function, for water, into the one organisation; the need for a new electricity regulator; and the benefits for the state in having an expert independent organisation able to examine a range of issues. Contrary to the original agreement, the commonwealth discontinued competition payments in 2005-06. (2) No. The National Competition Council has never indicated a preference for privatisation. (3) The government has asked the Economic Regulation Authority to conduct a review of any opportunities to introduce competition that would be in the public interest. (4) Yes, each jurisdiction is free to decide the outcome it considers to be in the public interest when reviewing legislation.
Hon KATE DOUST replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) No. The decision to establish the Economic Regulation Authority related primarily to the efficiencies of bringing together two existing regulators, for gas and rail, and one regulatory function, for water, into the one organisation; the need for a new electricity regulator; and the benefits for the state in having an expert independent organisation able to examine a range of issues. Contrary to the original agreement, the commonwealth discontinued competition payments in 2005-06. (2) No. The National Competition Council has never indicated a preference for privatisation. (3) The government has asked the Economic Regulation Authority to conduct a review of any opportunities to introduce competition that would be in the public interest. (4) Yes, each jurisdiction is free to decide the outcome it considers to be in the public interest when reviewing legislation.
I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) No. The decision to establish the Economic Regulation Authority related primarily to the efficiencies of bringing together two existing regulators, for gas and rail, and one regulatory function, for water, into the one organisation; the need for a new electricity regulator; and the benefits for the state in having an expert independent organisation able to examine a range of issues. Contrary to the original agreement, the commonwealth discontinued competition payments in 2005-06. (2) No. The National Competition Council has never indicated a preference for privatisation. (3) The government has asked the Economic Regulation Authority to conduct a review of any opportunities to introduce competition that would be in the public interest. (4) Yes, each jurisdiction is free to decide the outcome it considers to be in the public interest when reviewing legislation.
(1) No. The decision to establish the Economic Regulation Authority related primarily to the efficiencies of bringing together two existing regulators, for gas and rail, and one regulatory function, for water, into the one organisation; the need for a new electricity regulator; and the benefits for the state in having an expert independent organisation able to examine a range of issues. Contrary to the original agreement, the commonwealth discontinued competition payments in 2005-06. (2) No. The National Competition Council has never indicated a preference for privatisation. (3) The government has asked the Economic Regulation Authority to conduct a review of any opportunities to introduce competition that would be in the public interest. (4) Yes, each jurisdiction is free to decide the outcome it considers to be in the public interest when reviewing legislation.
(2) No. The National Competition Council has never indicated a preference for privatisation. (3) The government has asked the Economic Regulation Authority to conduct a review of any opportunities to introduce competition that would be in the public interest. (4) Yes, each jurisdiction is free to decide the outcome it considers to be in the public interest when reviewing legislation.
(3) The government has asked the Economic Regulation Authority to conduct a review of any opportunities to introduce competition that would be in the public interest. (4) Yes, each jurisdiction is free to decide the outcome it considers to be in the public interest when reviewing legislation.
(4) Yes, each jurisdiction is free to decide the outcome it considers to be in the public interest when reviewing legislation.
(1) Was the decision to set up the ERA in the first place related in any way to the desire by the state government to avoid losing further competition policy tranche payments? (2) Has the National Competition Council indicated that it wishes Western Australia to go further in privatising WA’s water and waste water services? (3) What is the government’s policy on competition in water and waste water services in this state? (4) Are not the states supposed to be able to make their own decisions on national competition policy legislative reviews? Hon KATE DOUST replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) No. The decision to establish the Economic Regulation Authority related primarily to the efficiencies of bringing together two existing regulators, for gas and rail, and one regulatory function, for water, into the one organisation; the need for a new electricity regulator; and the benefits for the state in having an expert independent organisation able to examine a range of issues. Contrary to the original agreement, the commonwealth discontinued competition payments in 2005-06. (2) No. The National Competition Council has never indicated a preference for privatisation. (3) The government has asked the Economic Regulation Authority to conduct a review of any opportunities to introduce competition that would be in the public interest. (4) Yes, each jurisdiction is free to decide the outcome it considers to be in the public interest when reviewing legislation.
(2) Has the National Competition Council indicated that it wishes Western Australia to go further in privatising WA’s water and waste water services? (3) What is the government’s policy on competition in water and waste water services in this state? (4) Are not the states supposed to be able to make their own decisions on national competition policy legislative reviews? Hon KATE DOUST replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) No. The decision to establish the Economic Regulation Authority related primarily to the efficiencies of bringing together two existing regulators, for gas and rail, and one regulatory function, for water, into the one organisation; the need for a new electricity regulator; and the benefits for the state in having an expert independent organisation able to examine a range of issues. Contrary to the original agreement, the commonwealth discontinued competition payments in 2005-06. (2) No. The National Competition Council has never indicated a preference for privatisation. (3) The government has asked the Economic Regulation Authority to conduct a review of any opportunities to introduce competition that would be in the public interest. (4) Yes, each jurisdiction is free to decide the outcome it considers to be in the public interest when reviewing legislation.
(3) What is the government’s policy on competition in water and waste water services in this state? (4) Are not the states supposed to be able to make their own decisions on national competition policy legislative reviews? Hon KATE DOUST replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) No. The decision to establish the Economic Regulation Authority related primarily to the efficiencies of bringing together two existing regulators, for gas and rail, and one regulatory function, for water, into the one organisation; the need for a new electricity regulator; and the benefits for the state in having an expert independent organisation able to examine a range of issues. Contrary to the original agreement, the commonwealth discontinued competition payments in 2005-06. (2) No. The National Competition Council has never indicated a preference for privatisation. (3) The government has asked the Economic Regulation Authority to conduct a review of any opportunities to introduce competition that would be in the public interest. (4) Yes, each jurisdiction is free to decide the outcome it considers to be in the public interest when reviewing legislation.
(4) Are not the states supposed to be able to make their own decisions on national competition policy legislative reviews? Hon KATE DOUST replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) No. The decision to establish the Economic Regulation Authority related primarily to the efficiencies of bringing together two existing regulators, for gas and rail, and one regulatory function, for water, into the one organisation; the need for a new electricity regulator; and the benefits for the state in having an expert independent organisation able to examine a range of issues. Contrary to the original agreement, the commonwealth discontinued competition payments in 2005-06. (2) No. The National Competition Council has never indicated a preference for privatisation. (3) The government has asked the Economic Regulation Authority to conduct a review of any opportunities to introduce competition that would be in the public interest. (4) Yes, each jurisdiction is free to decide the outcome it considers to be in the public interest when reviewing legislation.
Hon KATE DOUST replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) No. The decision to establish the Economic Regulation Authority related primarily to the efficiencies of bringing together two existing regulators, for gas and rail, and one regulatory function, for water, into the one organisation; the need for a new electricity regulator; and the benefits for the state in having an expert independent organisation able to examine a range of issues. Contrary to the original agreement, the commonwealth discontinued competition payments in 2005-06. (2) No. The National Competition Council has never indicated a preference for privatisation. (3) The government has asked the Economic Regulation Authority to conduct a review of any opportunities to introduce competition that would be in the public interest. (4) Yes, each jurisdiction is free to decide the outcome it considers to be in the public interest when reviewing legislation.
I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) No. The decision to establish the Economic Regulation Authority related primarily to the efficiencies of bringing together two existing regulators, for gas and rail, and one regulatory function, for water, into the one organisation; the need for a new electricity regulator; and the benefits for the state in having an expert independent organisation able to examine a range of issues. Contrary to the original agreement, the commonwealth discontinued competition payments in 2005-06. (2) No. The National Competition Council has never indicated a preference for privatisation. (3) The government has asked the Economic Regulation Authority to conduct a review of any opportunities to introduce competition that would be in the public interest. (4) Yes, each jurisdiction is free to decide the outcome it considers to be in the public interest when reviewing legislation.
(1) No. The decision to establish the Economic Regulation Authority related primarily to the efficiencies of bringing together two existing regulators, for gas and rail, and one regulatory function, for water, into the one organisation; the need for a new electricity regulator; and the benefits for the state in having an expert independent organisation able to examine a range of issues. Contrary to the original agreement, the commonwealth discontinued competition payments in 2005-06. (2) No. The National Competition Council has never indicated a preference for privatisation. (3) The government has asked the Economic Regulation Authority to conduct a review of any opportunities to introduce competition that would be in the public interest. (4) Yes, each jurisdiction is free to decide the outcome it considers to be in the public interest when reviewing legislation.
(2) No. The National Competition Council has never indicated a preference for privatisation. (3) The government has asked the Economic Regulation Authority to conduct a review of any opportunities to introduce competition that would be in the public interest. (4) Yes, each jurisdiction is free to decide the outcome it considers to be in the public interest when reviewing legislation.
(3) The government has asked the Economic Regulation Authority to conduct a review of any opportunities to introduce competition that would be in the public interest. (4) Yes, each jurisdiction is free to decide the outcome it considers to be in the public interest when reviewing legislation.
(4) Yes, each jurisdiction is free to decide the outcome it considers to be in the public interest when reviewing legislation.
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.