❓ Hon Anthony Fels asks about the total National Competition Policy (NCP) funding the WA government will receive from the deregulation of the egg and dairy industries. Hon Kim Chance responds, citing uncertainty around the future of NCP and providing a figure for the egg industry but not the dairy industry.
AnsweredQoN 453Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
NATIONAL COMPETITION POLICY FUNDING
What is the total amount of national competition policy funding that the government will receive from the deregulation of the egg industry and from the recent deregulation of the dairy industry in Western Australian? Hon KIM CHANCE
What is the total amount of national competition policy funding that the government will receive from the deregulation of the egg industry and from the recent deregulation of the dairy industry in Western Australian? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
I will respond as much as is possible in the uncertainty about the continuation of national competition policy. Its future is so uncertain that it was discussed only two weeks ago at the Council of Australian Governments. It bounced onto the COAG table and off again because COAG is awaiting a report that is not due until September 2005 to indicate whether national competition policy will continue at all. Answering the question would involve trying to forecast the end date of NCP and making predictions about payments to the end of that time frame. No-one worried much about the matter until it became clear in discussions on the National Water Initiative that the commonwealth intended to fund the NWI payments out of the NCP payments; in other words, NCP payments were to terminate in 2005-06 or 2006-07. No-one was sure when. It was those elements that caused the states that had at that stage signed on to the NWI to withdraw their support. One by one, the signatory states have re-entered the NWI sphere, presumably on the basis of discussions with the commonwealth. I am not party to discussions that take place, for example, between the New South Wales government and the commonwealth government; they are certainly not public. To the extent that I can speculate, I imagine that those states have been guaranteed a continuation of some form of national competition policy. With that rider, the known funds I can be reasonably certain about in respect of NCP payments for the deregulation of egg industry, as I indicated in the committee stage of the Appropriations (Consolidated Fund) Bill (No. 1) debate last night, is $8.7 million. There is a possibility of one more payment in the out years, but I cannot be certain what that payment may be. I cannot answer the question regarding the dairy industry equivalent payment because specific payments to each industry are not always indicated in national competition policy payments. The total payments to the state are given on an annual basis; namely, $70 million per annum across the board. The federal Treasurer may decide to fine a state for not meeting an obligation or, more particularly in Western Australia’s case, to hold funds back in a suspension pool. When funds are held in a suspension pool, the commonwealth indicates the groups of industry involved in the suspension pool and the amount of the reduction. In Western Australia’s case, a list of issues is involved, the foremost of which is trading hours. The suspension pool is $40 million, with no split up of that amount. It is not like a financial assistance grant agreement with line items. It is all lumped together; it is a scrambled egg. I would be speculating if I attempted to tell the member what the dairy payments might be. The deregulation of the dairy industry came ahead of the start date of national competition policy. If the member wanted a rough guide, I speculate that it would be in the order of $4 million or $5 million a year.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I will respond as much as is possible in the uncertainty about the continuation of national competition policy. Its future is so uncertain that it was discussed only two weeks ago at the Council of Australian Governments. It bounced onto the COAG table and off again because COAG is awaiting a report that is not due until September 2005 to indicate whether national competition policy will continue at all. Answering the question would involve trying to forecast the end date of NCP and making predictions about payments to the end of that time frame. No-one worried much about the matter until it became clear in discussions on the National Water Initiative that the commonwealth intended to fund the NWI payments out of the NCP payments; in other words, NCP payments were to terminate in 2005-06 or 2006-07. No-one was sure when. It was those elements that caused the states that had at that stage signed on to the NWI to withdraw their support. One by one, the signatory states have re-entered the NWI sphere, presumably on the basis of discussions with the commonwealth. I am not party to discussions that take place, for example, between the New South Wales government and the commonwealth government; they are certainly not public. To the extent that I can speculate, I imagine that those states have been guaranteed a continuation of some form of national competition policy. With that rider, the known funds I can be reasonably certain about in respect of NCP payments for the deregulation of egg industry, as I indicated in the committee stage of the Appropriations (Consolidated Fund) Bill (No. 1) debate last night, is $8.7 million. There is a possibility of one more payment in the out years, but I cannot be certain what that payment may be. I cannot answer the question regarding the dairy industry equivalent payment because specific payments to each industry are not always indicated in national competition policy payments. The total payments to the state are given on an annual basis; namely, $70 million per annum across the board. The federal Treasurer may decide to fine a state for not meeting an obligation or, more particularly in Western Australia’s case, to hold funds back in a suspension pool. When funds are held in a suspension pool, the commonwealth indicates the groups of industry involved in the suspension pool and the amount of the reduction. In Western Australia’s case, a list of issues is involved, the foremost of which is trading hours. The suspension pool is $40 million, with no split up of that amount. It is not like a financial assistance grant agreement with line items. It is all lumped together; it is a scrambled egg. I would be speculating if I attempted to tell the member what the dairy payments might be. The deregulation of the dairy industry came ahead of the start date of national competition policy. If the member wanted a rough guide, I speculate that it would be in the order of $4 million or $5 million a year.
I will respond as much as is possible in the uncertainty about the continuation of national competition policy. Its future is so uncertain that it was discussed only two weeks ago at the Council of Australian Governments. It bounced onto the COAG table and off again because COAG is awaiting a report that is not due until September 2005 to indicate whether national competition policy will continue at all. Answering the question would involve trying to forecast the end date of NCP and making predictions about payments to the end of that time frame. No-one worried much about the matter until it became clear in discussions on the National Water Initiative that the commonwealth intended to fund the NWI payments out of the NCP payments; in other words, NCP payments were to terminate in 2005-06 or 2006-07. No-one was sure when. It was those elements that caused the states that had at that stage signed on to the NWI to withdraw their support. One by one, the signatory states have re-entered the NWI sphere, presumably on the basis of discussions with the commonwealth. I am not party to discussions that take place, for example, between the New South Wales government and the commonwealth government; they are certainly not public. To the extent that I can speculate, I imagine that those states have been guaranteed a continuation of some form of national competition policy. With that rider, the known funds I can be reasonably certain about in respect of NCP payments for the deregulation of egg industry, as I indicated in the committee stage of the Appropriations (Consolidated Fund) Bill (No. 1) debate last night, is $8.7 million. There is a possibility of one more payment in the out years, but I cannot be certain what that payment may be. I cannot answer the question regarding the dairy industry equivalent payment because specific payments to each industry are not always indicated in national competition policy payments. The total payments to the state are given on an annual basis; namely, $70 million per annum across the board. The federal Treasurer may decide to fine a state for not meeting an obligation or, more particularly in Western Australia’s case, to hold funds back in a suspension pool. When funds are held in a suspension pool, the commonwealth indicates the groups of industry involved in the suspension pool and the amount of the reduction. In Western Australia’s case, a list of issues is involved, the foremost of which is trading hours. The suspension pool is $40 million, with no split up of that amount. It is not like a financial assistance grant agreement with line items. It is all lumped together; it is a scrambled egg. I would be speculating if I attempted to tell the member what the dairy payments might be. The deregulation of the dairy industry came ahead of the start date of national competition policy. If the member wanted a rough guide, I speculate that it would be in the order of $4 million or $5 million a year.
I cannot answer the question regarding the dairy industry equivalent payment because specific payments to each industry are not always indicated in national competition policy payments. The total payments to the state are given on an annual basis; namely, $70 million per annum across the board. The federal Treasurer may decide to fine a state for not meeting an obligation or, more particularly in Western Australia’s case, to hold funds back in a suspension pool. When funds are held in a suspension pool, the commonwealth indicates the groups of industry involved in the suspension pool and the amount of the reduction. In Western Australia’s case, a list of issues is involved, the foremost of which is trading hours. The suspension pool is $40 million, with no split up of that amount. It is not like a financial assistance grant agreement with line items. It is all lumped together; it is a scrambled egg. I would be speculating if I attempted to tell the member what the dairy payments might be. The deregulation of the dairy industry came ahead of the start date of national competition policy. If the member wanted a rough guide, I speculate that it would be in the order of $4 million or $5 million a year.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I will respond as much as is possible in the uncertainty about the continuation of national competition policy. Its future is so uncertain that it was discussed only two weeks ago at the Council of Australian Governments. It bounced onto the COAG table and off again because COAG is awaiting a report that is not due until September 2005 to indicate whether national competition policy will continue at all. Answering the question would involve trying to forecast the end date of NCP and making predictions about payments to the end of that time frame. No-one worried much about the matter until it became clear in discussions on the National Water Initiative that the commonwealth intended to fund the NWI payments out of the NCP payments; in other words, NCP payments were to terminate in 2005-06 or 2006-07. No-one was sure when. It was those elements that caused the states that had at that stage signed on to the NWI to withdraw their support. One by one, the signatory states have re-entered the NWI sphere, presumably on the basis of discussions with the commonwealth. I am not party to discussions that take place, for example, between the New South Wales government and the commonwealth government; they are certainly not public. To the extent that I can speculate, I imagine that those states have been guaranteed a continuation of some form of national competition policy. With that rider, the known funds I can be reasonably certain about in respect of NCP payments for the deregulation of egg industry, as I indicated in the committee stage of the Appropriations (Consolidated Fund) Bill (No. 1) debate last night, is $8.7 million. There is a possibility of one more payment in the out years, but I cannot be certain what that payment may be. I cannot answer the question regarding the dairy industry equivalent payment because specific payments to each industry are not always indicated in national competition policy payments. The total payments to the state are given on an annual basis; namely, $70 million per annum across the board. The federal Treasurer may decide to fine a state for not meeting an obligation or, more particularly in Western Australia’s case, to hold funds back in a suspension pool. When funds are held in a suspension pool, the commonwealth indicates the groups of industry involved in the suspension pool and the amount of the reduction. In Western Australia’s case, a list of issues is involved, the foremost of which is trading hours. The suspension pool is $40 million, with no split up of that amount. It is not like a financial assistance grant agreement with line items. It is all lumped together; it is a scrambled egg. I would be speculating if I attempted to tell the member what the dairy payments might be. The deregulation of the dairy industry came ahead of the start date of national competition policy. If the member wanted a rough guide, I speculate that it would be in the order of $4 million or $5 million a year.
I will respond as much as is possible in the uncertainty about the continuation of national competition policy. Its future is so uncertain that it was discussed only two weeks ago at the Council of Australian Governments. It bounced onto the COAG table and off again because COAG is awaiting a report that is not due until September 2005 to indicate whether national competition policy will continue at all. Answering the question would involve trying to forecast the end date of NCP and making predictions about payments to the end of that time frame. No-one worried much about the matter until it became clear in discussions on the National Water Initiative that the commonwealth intended to fund the NWI payments out of the NCP payments; in other words, NCP payments were to terminate in 2005-06 or 2006-07. No-one was sure when. It was those elements that caused the states that had at that stage signed on to the NWI to withdraw their support. One by one, the signatory states have re-entered the NWI sphere, presumably on the basis of discussions with the commonwealth. I am not party to discussions that take place, for example, between the New South Wales government and the commonwealth government; they are certainly not public. To the extent that I can speculate, I imagine that those states have been guaranteed a continuation of some form of national competition policy. With that rider, the known funds I can be reasonably certain about in respect of NCP payments for the deregulation of egg industry, as I indicated in the committee stage of the Appropriations (Consolidated Fund) Bill (No. 1) debate last night, is $8.7 million. There is a possibility of one more payment in the out years, but I cannot be certain what that payment may be. I cannot answer the question regarding the dairy industry equivalent payment because specific payments to each industry are not always indicated in national competition policy payments. The total payments to the state are given on an annual basis; namely, $70 million per annum across the board. The federal Treasurer may decide to fine a state for not meeting an obligation or, more particularly in Western Australia’s case, to hold funds back in a suspension pool. When funds are held in a suspension pool, the commonwealth indicates the groups of industry involved in the suspension pool and the amount of the reduction. In Western Australia’s case, a list of issues is involved, the foremost of which is trading hours. The suspension pool is $40 million, with no split up of that amount. It is not like a financial assistance grant agreement with line items. It is all lumped together; it is a scrambled egg. I would be speculating if I attempted to tell the member what the dairy payments might be. The deregulation of the dairy industry came ahead of the start date of national competition policy. If the member wanted a rough guide, I speculate that it would be in the order of $4 million or $5 million a year.
I cannot answer the question regarding the dairy industry equivalent payment because specific payments to each industry are not always indicated in national competition policy payments. The total payments to the state are given on an annual basis; namely, $70 million per annum across the board. The federal Treasurer may decide to fine a state for not meeting an obligation or, more particularly in Western Australia’s case, to hold funds back in a suspension pool. When funds are held in a suspension pool, the commonwealth indicates the groups of industry involved in the suspension pool and the amount of the reduction. In Western Australia’s case, a list of issues is involved, the foremost of which is trading hours. The suspension pool is $40 million, with no split up of that amount. It is not like a financial assistance grant agreement with line items. It is all lumped together; it is a scrambled egg. I would be speculating if I attempted to tell the member what the dairy payments might be. The deregulation of the dairy industry came ahead of the start date of national competition policy. If the member wanted a rough guide, I speculate that it would be in the order of $4 million or $5 million a year.
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.