❓ A parliamentary question regarding legal costs incurred by the WA Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator and the Minister's response, which deflects direct answers and uses the opportunity to discuss pipeline regulation and attack the opposition.
AnsweredQoN 946Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the Supreme Court decision that the Western Australian Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator is not allowed to recover, via the funding regulations, costs incurred in judicial review proceedings. (1) Can the minister please advise how he will pay the approximately $850 000 in legal costs incurred by the regulator in the Epic Energy case? (2) Can the minister please advise also the total dollar amount of the potential legal liability of the regulator, given that the Epic Energy case is not the only legal challenge in which the regulator is involved? (3) Will the minister finally accept responsibility for his portfolio and give some direction to the regulator before the legal liability, which will have to be paid by taxpayers, becomes outrageously high? Mr E.S. RIPPER
AnswerView source ↗
In my years in Parliament I have always been grateful for the Leader of the National Party’s questions and interjections. It is as though some hidden force causes him to cooperate with me. (1) Although the Supreme Court’s decision has been brought down, I am advised that the possibility of appeal in this matter is still under review. As a consequence, the determination of legal costs will depend on what action is taken and by whom. The legal cost incurred by the regulator in Epic Energy’s case to date is not $850 000. (2) The regulator’s expenditure on the various legal challenges to date is as follows: Dampier to Bunbury natural gas pipeline - draft decision, $691 753; goldfields gas pipeline - draft decision, $108 245; DBNGP - funding regulations, $10 358. The grand total is $810 356. (3) The Leader of the National Party would know that under the law of this State the regulator is independent of government direction in the fulfilment of his functions under the code. The Supreme Court has found that the regulator acted appropriately in each of the three matters mentioned, and in no circumstances have costs been awarded against the regulator in any of these cases. Now I come to the reason for my gratitude to the Leader of the National Party. For days I had been bringing a newspaper clipping into Parliament, waiting for someone to ask me a question about the pipeline. So far no-one had. However, at last the Leader of the National Party has come good, as he always does, and asked me the question I had been waiting for, which gives me the opportunity to quote Mr Michael Chaney from Wesfarmers Ltd on the question of the pipeline. He said - “I think the government’s absolutely right and I think the people who bid for that pipeline initially were fully aware of the regulatory conditions. They were all very clearly set out,” Mr Chaney. “If you departed from that (the regulator’s independence), I think you raise a real issue of sovereign risk. That is, you achieve certainty by proceeding the way all of us expected it to proceed, not by changing the rules. “We bid . . . fully understanding the future conditions.” That hits to the boundary the assertions of various members of this House that somehow I should break the law of this State and direct the regulator. Finally, I am further grateful to the Leader of the National Party for his question, because it gives me a chance to give the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to provide a bit of information to the House. I am advised that the former Managing Director of Western Power had his membership of the Weld Club paid for by Western Power. I would like to know whether the Leader of the Opposition knew of that arrangement and whether he approved of it.
(1) Can the minister please advise how he will pay the approximately $850 000 in legal costs incurred by the regulator in the Epic Energy case? (2) Can the minister please advise also the total dollar amount of the potential legal liability of the regulator, given that the Epic Energy case is not the only legal challenge in which the regulator is involved? (3) Will the minister finally accept responsibility for his portfolio and give some direction to the regulator before the legal liability, which will have to be paid by taxpayers, becomes outrageously high? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: In my years in Parliament I have always been grateful for the Leader of the National Party’s questions and interjections. It is as though some hidden force causes him to cooperate with me. (1) Although the Supreme Court’s decision has been brought down, I am advised that the possibility of appeal in this matter is still under review. As a consequence, the determination of legal costs will depend on what action is taken and by whom. The legal cost incurred by the regulator in Epic Energy’s case to date is not $850 000. (2) The regulator’s expenditure on the various legal challenges to date is as follows: Dampier to Bunbury natural gas pipeline - draft decision, $691 753; goldfields gas pipeline - draft decision, $108 245; DBNGP - funding regulations, $10 358. The grand total is $810 356. (3) The Leader of the National Party would know that under the law of this State the regulator is independent of government direction in the fulfilment of his functions under the code. The Supreme Court has found that the regulator acted appropriately in each of the three matters mentioned, and in no circumstances have costs been awarded against the regulator in any of these cases. Now I come to the reason for my gratitude to the Leader of the National Party. For days I had been bringing a newspaper clipping into Parliament, waiting for someone to ask me a question about the pipeline. So far no-one had. However, at last the Leader of the National Party has come good, as he always does, and asked me the question I had been waiting for, which gives me the opportunity to quote Mr Michael Chaney from Wesfarmers Ltd on the question of the pipeline. He said - “I think the government’s absolutely right and I think the people who bid for that pipeline initially were fully aware of the regulatory conditions. They were all very clearly set out,” Mr Chaney. “If you departed from that (the regulator’s independence), I think you raise a real issue of sovereign risk. That is, you achieve certainty by proceeding the way all of us expected it to proceed, not by changing the rules. “We bid . . . fully understanding the future conditions.” That hits to the boundary the assertions of various members of this House that somehow I should break the law of this State and direct the regulator. Finally, I am further grateful to the Leader of the National Party for his question, because it gives me a chance to give the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to provide a bit of information to the House. I am advised that the former Managing Director of Western Power had his membership of the Weld Club paid for by Western Power. I would like to know whether the Leader of the Opposition knew of that arrangement and whether he approved of it.
(2) Can the minister please advise also the total dollar amount of the potential legal liability of the regulator, given that the Epic Energy case is not the only legal challenge in which the regulator is involved? (3) Will the minister finally accept responsibility for his portfolio and give some direction to the regulator before the legal liability, which will have to be paid by taxpayers, becomes outrageously high? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: In my years in Parliament I have always been grateful for the Leader of the National Party’s questions and interjections. It is as though some hidden force causes him to cooperate with me. (1) Although the Supreme Court’s decision has been brought down, I am advised that the possibility of appeal in this matter is still under review. As a consequence, the determination of legal costs will depend on what action is taken and by whom. The legal cost incurred by the regulator in Epic Energy’s case to date is not $850 000. (2) The regulator’s expenditure on the various legal challenges to date is as follows: Dampier to Bunbury natural gas pipeline - draft decision, $691 753; goldfields gas pipeline - draft decision, $108 245; DBNGP - funding regulations, $10 358. The grand total is $810 356. (3) The Leader of the National Party would know that under the law of this State the regulator is independent of government direction in the fulfilment of his functions under the code. The Supreme Court has found that the regulator acted appropriately in each of the three matters mentioned, and in no circumstances have costs been awarded against the regulator in any of these cases. Now I come to the reason for my gratitude to the Leader of the National Party. For days I had been bringing a newspaper clipping into Parliament, waiting for someone to ask me a question about the pipeline. So far no-one had. However, at last the Leader of the National Party has come good, as he always does, and asked me the question I had been waiting for, which gives me the opportunity to quote Mr Michael Chaney from Wesfarmers Ltd on the question of the pipeline. He said - “I think the government’s absolutely right and I think the people who bid for that pipeline initially were fully aware of the regulatory conditions. They were all very clearly set out,” Mr Chaney. “If you departed from that (the regulator’s independence), I think you raise a real issue of sovereign risk. That is, you achieve certainty by proceeding the way all of us expected it to proceed, not by changing the rules. “We bid . . . fully understanding the future conditions.” That hits to the boundary the assertions of various members of this House that somehow I should break the law of this State and direct the regulator. Finally, I am further grateful to the Leader of the National Party for his question, because it gives me a chance to give the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to provide a bit of information to the House. I am advised that the former Managing Director of Western Power had his membership of the Weld Club paid for by Western Power. I would like to know whether the Leader of the Opposition knew of that arrangement and whether he approved of it.
(3) Will the minister finally accept responsibility for his portfolio and give some direction to the regulator before the legal liability, which will have to be paid by taxpayers, becomes outrageously high? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: In my years in Parliament I have always been grateful for the Leader of the National Party’s questions and interjections. It is as though some hidden force causes him to cooperate with me. (1) Although the Supreme Court’s decision has been brought down, I am advised that the possibility of appeal in this matter is still under review. As a consequence, the determination of legal costs will depend on what action is taken and by whom. The legal cost incurred by the regulator in Epic Energy’s case to date is not $850 000. (2) The regulator’s expenditure on the various legal challenges to date is as follows: Dampier to Bunbury natural gas pipeline - draft decision, $691 753; goldfields gas pipeline - draft decision, $108 245; DBNGP - funding regulations, $10 358. The grand total is $810 356. (3) The Leader of the National Party would know that under the law of this State the regulator is independent of government direction in the fulfilment of his functions under the code. The Supreme Court has found that the regulator acted appropriately in each of the three matters mentioned, and in no circumstances have costs been awarded against the regulator in any of these cases. Now I come to the reason for my gratitude to the Leader of the National Party. For days I had been bringing a newspaper clipping into Parliament, waiting for someone to ask me a question about the pipeline. So far no-one had. However, at last the Leader of the National Party has come good, as he always does, and asked me the question I had been waiting for, which gives me the opportunity to quote Mr Michael Chaney from Wesfarmers Ltd on the question of the pipeline. He said - “I think the government’s absolutely right and I think the people who bid for that pipeline initially were fully aware of the regulatory conditions. They were all very clearly set out,” Mr Chaney. “If you departed from that (the regulator’s independence), I think you raise a real issue of sovereign risk. That is, you achieve certainty by proceeding the way all of us expected it to proceed, not by changing the rules. “We bid . . . fully understanding the future conditions.” That hits to the boundary the assertions of various members of this House that somehow I should break the law of this State and direct the regulator. Finally, I am further grateful to the Leader of the National Party for his question, because it gives me a chance to give the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to provide a bit of information to the House. I am advised that the former Managing Director of Western Power had his membership of the Weld Club paid for by Western Power. I would like to know whether the Leader of the Opposition knew of that arrangement and whether he approved of it.
Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: In my years in Parliament I have always been grateful for the Leader of the National Party’s questions and interjections. It is as though some hidden force causes him to cooperate with me. (1) Although the Supreme Court’s decision has been brought down, I am advised that the possibility of appeal in this matter is still under review. As a consequence, the determination of legal costs will depend on what action is taken and by whom. The legal cost incurred by the regulator in Epic Energy’s case to date is not $850 000. (2) The regulator’s expenditure on the various legal challenges to date is as follows: Dampier to Bunbury natural gas pipeline - draft decision, $691 753; goldfields gas pipeline - draft decision, $108 245; DBNGP - funding regulations, $10 358. The grand total is $810 356. (3) The Leader of the National Party would know that under the law of this State the regulator is independent of government direction in the fulfilment of his functions under the code. The Supreme Court has found that the regulator acted appropriately in each of the three matters mentioned, and in no circumstances have costs been awarded against the regulator in any of these cases. Now I come to the reason for my gratitude to the Leader of the National Party. For days I had been bringing a newspaper clipping into Parliament, waiting for someone to ask me a question about the pipeline. So far no-one had. However, at last the Leader of the National Party has come good, as he always does, and asked me the question I had been waiting for, which gives me the opportunity to quote Mr Michael Chaney from Wesfarmers Ltd on the question of the pipeline. He said - “I think the government’s absolutely right and I think the people who bid for that pipeline initially were fully aware of the regulatory conditions. They were all very clearly set out,” Mr Chaney. “If you departed from that (the regulator’s independence), I think you raise a real issue of sovereign risk. That is, you achieve certainty by proceeding the way all of us expected it to proceed, not by changing the rules. “We bid . . . fully understanding the future conditions.” That hits to the boundary the assertions of various members of this House that somehow I should break the law of this State and direct the regulator. Finally, I am further grateful to the Leader of the National Party for his question, because it gives me a chance to give the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to provide a bit of information to the House. I am advised that the former Managing Director of Western Power had his membership of the Weld Club paid for by Western Power. I would like to know whether the Leader of the Opposition knew of that arrangement and whether he approved of it.
In my years in Parliament I have always been grateful for the Leader of the National Party’s questions and interjections. It is as though some hidden force causes him to cooperate with me. (1) Although the Supreme Court’s decision has been brought down, I am advised that the possibility of appeal in this matter is still under review. As a consequence, the determination of legal costs will depend on what action is taken and by whom. The legal cost incurred by the regulator in Epic Energy’s case to date is not $850 000. (2) The regulator’s expenditure on the various legal challenges to date is as follows: Dampier to Bunbury natural gas pipeline - draft decision, $691 753; goldfields gas pipeline - draft decision, $108 245; DBNGP - funding regulations, $10 358. The grand total is $810 356. (3) The Leader of the National Party would know that under the law of this State the regulator is independent of government direction in the fulfilment of his functions under the code. The Supreme Court has found that the regulator acted appropriately in each of the three matters mentioned, and in no circumstances have costs been awarded against the regulator in any of these cases. Now I come to the reason for my gratitude to the Leader of the National Party. For days I had been bringing a newspaper clipping into Parliament, waiting for someone to ask me a question about the pipeline. So far no-one had. However, at last the Leader of the National Party has come good, as he always does, and asked me the question I had been waiting for, which gives me the opportunity to quote Mr Michael Chaney from Wesfarmers Ltd on the question of the pipeline. He said - “I think the government’s absolutely right and I think the people who bid for that pipeline initially were fully aware of the regulatory conditions. They were all very clearly set out,” Mr Chaney. “If you departed from that (the regulator’s independence), I think you raise a real issue of sovereign risk. That is, you achieve certainty by proceeding the way all of us expected it to proceed, not by changing the rules. “We bid . . . fully understanding the future conditions.” That hits to the boundary the assertions of various members of this House that somehow I should break the law of this State and direct the regulator. Finally, I am further grateful to the Leader of the National Party for his question, because it gives me a chance to give the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to provide a bit of information to the House. I am advised that the former Managing Director of Western Power had his membership of the Weld Club paid for by Western Power. I would like to know whether the Leader of the Opposition knew of that arrangement and whether he approved of it.
(1) Although the Supreme Court’s decision has been brought down, I am advised that the possibility of appeal in this matter is still under review. As a consequence, the determination of legal costs will depend on what action is taken and by whom. The legal cost incurred by the regulator in Epic Energy’s case to date is not $850 000. (2) The regulator’s expenditure on the various legal challenges to date is as follows: Dampier to Bunbury natural gas pipeline - draft decision, $691 753; goldfields gas pipeline - draft decision, $108 245; DBNGP - funding regulations, $10 358. The grand total is $810 356. (3) The Leader of the National Party would know that under the law of this State the regulator is independent of government direction in the fulfilment of his functions under the code. The Supreme Court has found that the regulator acted appropriately in each of the three matters mentioned, and in no circumstances have costs been awarded against the regulator in any of these cases. Now I come to the reason for my gratitude to the Leader of the National Party. For days I had been bringing a newspaper clipping into Parliament, waiting for someone to ask me a question about the pipeline. So far no-one had. However, at last the Leader of the National Party has come good, as he always does, and asked me the question I had been waiting for, which gives me the opportunity to quote Mr Michael Chaney from Wesfarmers Ltd on the question of the pipeline. He said - “I think the government’s absolutely right and I think the people who bid for that pipeline initially were fully aware of the regulatory conditions. They were all very clearly set out,” Mr Chaney. “If you departed from that (the regulator’s independence), I think you raise a real issue of sovereign risk. That is, you achieve certainty by proceeding the way all of us expected it to proceed, not by changing the rules. “We bid . . . fully understanding the future conditions.” That hits to the boundary the assertions of various members of this House that somehow I should break the law of this State and direct the regulator. Finally, I am further grateful to the Leader of the National Party for his question, because it gives me a chance to give the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to provide a bit of information to the House. I am advised that the former Managing Director of Western Power had his membership of the Weld Club paid for by Western Power. I would like to know whether the Leader of the Opposition knew of that arrangement and whether he approved of it.
(2) The regulator’s expenditure on the various legal challenges to date is as follows: Dampier to Bunbury natural gas pipeline - draft decision, $691 753; goldfields gas pipeline - draft decision, $108 245; DBNGP - funding regulations, $10 358. The grand total is $810 356. (3) The Leader of the National Party would know that under the law of this State the regulator is independent of government direction in the fulfilment of his functions under the code. The Supreme Court has found that the regulator acted appropriately in each of the three matters mentioned, and in no circumstances have costs been awarded against the regulator in any of these cases. Now I come to the reason for my gratitude to the Leader of the National Party. For days I had been bringing a newspaper clipping into Parliament, waiting for someone to ask me a question about the pipeline. So far no-one had. However, at last the Leader of the National Party has come good, as he always does, and asked me the question I had been waiting for, which gives me the opportunity to quote Mr Michael Chaney from Wesfarmers Ltd on the question of the pipeline. He said - “I think the government’s absolutely right and I think the people who bid for that pipeline initially were fully aware of the regulatory conditions. They were all very clearly set out,” Mr Chaney. “If you departed from that (the regulator’s independence), I think you raise a real issue of sovereign risk. That is, you achieve certainty by proceeding the way all of us expected it to proceed, not by changing the rules. “We bid . . . fully understanding the future conditions.” That hits to the boundary the assertions of various members of this House that somehow I should break the law of this State and direct the regulator. Finally, I am further grateful to the Leader of the National Party for his question, because it gives me a chance to give the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to provide a bit of information to the House. I am advised that the former Managing Director of Western Power had his membership of the Weld Club paid for by Western Power. I would like to know whether the Leader of the Opposition knew of that arrangement and whether he approved of it.
(3) The Leader of the National Party would know that under the law of this State the regulator is independent of government direction in the fulfilment of his functions under the code. The Supreme Court has found that the regulator acted appropriately in each of the three matters mentioned, and in no circumstances have costs been awarded against the regulator in any of these cases. Now I come to the reason for my gratitude to the Leader of the National Party. For days I had been bringing a newspaper clipping into Parliament, waiting for someone to ask me a question about the pipeline. So far no-one had. However, at last the Leader of the National Party has come good, as he always does, and asked me the question I had been waiting for, which gives me the opportunity to quote Mr Michael Chaney from Wesfarmers Ltd on the question of the pipeline. He said - “I think the government’s absolutely right and I think the people who bid for that pipeline initially were fully aware of the regulatory conditions. They were all very clearly set out,” Mr Chaney. “If you departed from that (the regulator’s independence), I think you raise a real issue of sovereign risk. That is, you achieve certainty by proceeding the way all of us expected it to proceed, not by changing the rules. “We bid . . . fully understanding the future conditions.” That hits to the boundary the assertions of various members of this House that somehow I should break the law of this State and direct the regulator. Finally, I am further grateful to the Leader of the National Party for his question, because it gives me a chance to give the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to provide a bit of information to the House. I am advised that the former Managing Director of Western Power had his membership of the Weld Club paid for by Western Power. I would like to know whether the Leader of the Opposition knew of that arrangement and whether he approved of it.
“If you departed from that (the regulator’s independence), I think you raise a real issue of sovereign risk. That is, you achieve certainty by proceeding the way all of us expected it to proceed, not by changing the rules. “We bid . . . fully understanding the future conditions.”
“We bid . . . fully understanding the future conditions.”
Finally, I am further grateful to the Leader of the National Party for his question, because it gives me a chance to give the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to provide a bit of information to the House. I am advised that the former Managing Director of Western Power had his membership of the Weld Club paid for by Western Power. I would like to know whether the Leader of the Opposition knew of that arrangement and whether he approved of it.
(1) Can the minister please advise how he will pay the approximately $850 000 in legal costs incurred by the regulator in the Epic Energy case? (2) Can the minister please advise also the total dollar amount of the potential legal liability of the regulator, given that the Epic Energy case is not the only legal challenge in which the regulator is involved? (3) Will the minister finally accept responsibility for his portfolio and give some direction to the regulator before the legal liability, which will have to be paid by taxpayers, becomes outrageously high? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: In my years in Parliament I have always been grateful for the Leader of the National Party’s questions and interjections. It is as though some hidden force causes him to cooperate with me. (1) Although the Supreme Court’s decision has been brought down, I am advised that the possibility of appeal in this matter is still under review. As a consequence, the determination of legal costs will depend on what action is taken and by whom. The legal cost incurred by the regulator in Epic Energy’s case to date is not $850 000. (2) The regulator’s expenditure on the various legal challenges to date is as follows: Dampier to Bunbury natural gas pipeline - draft decision, $691 753; goldfields gas pipeline - draft decision, $108 245; DBNGP - funding regulations, $10 358. The grand total is $810 356. (3) The Leader of the National Party would know that under the law of this State the regulator is independent of government direction in the fulfilment of his functions under the code. The Supreme Court has found that the regulator acted appropriately in each of the three matters mentioned, and in no circumstances have costs been awarded against the regulator in any of these cases. Now I come to the reason for my gratitude to the Leader of the National Party. For days I had been bringing a newspaper clipping into Parliament, waiting for someone to ask me a question about the pipeline. So far no-one had. However, at last the Leader of the National Party has come good, as he always does, and asked me the question I had been waiting for, which gives me the opportunity to quote Mr Michael Chaney from Wesfarmers Ltd on the question of the pipeline. He said - “I think the government’s absolutely right and I think the people who bid for that pipeline initially were fully aware of the regulatory conditions. They were all very clearly set out,” Mr Chaney. “If you departed from that (the regulator’s independence), I think you raise a real issue of sovereign risk. That is, you achieve certainty by proceeding the way all of us expected it to proceed, not by changing the rules. “We bid . . . fully understanding the future conditions.” That hits to the boundary the assertions of various members of this House that somehow I should break the law of this State and direct the regulator. Finally, I am further grateful to the Leader of the National Party for his question, because it gives me a chance to give the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to provide a bit of information to the House. I am advised that the former Managing Director of Western Power had his membership of the Weld Club paid for by Western Power. I would like to know whether the Leader of the Opposition knew of that arrangement and whether he approved of it.
(2) Can the minister please advise also the total dollar amount of the potential legal liability of the regulator, given that the Epic Energy case is not the only legal challenge in which the regulator is involved? (3) Will the minister finally accept responsibility for his portfolio and give some direction to the regulator before the legal liability, which will have to be paid by taxpayers, becomes outrageously high? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: In my years in Parliament I have always been grateful for the Leader of the National Party’s questions and interjections. It is as though some hidden force causes him to cooperate with me. (1) Although the Supreme Court’s decision has been brought down, I am advised that the possibility of appeal in this matter is still under review. As a consequence, the determination of legal costs will depend on what action is taken and by whom. The legal cost incurred by the regulator in Epic Energy’s case to date is not $850 000. (2) The regulator’s expenditure on the various legal challenges to date is as follows: Dampier to Bunbury natural gas pipeline - draft decision, $691 753; goldfields gas pipeline - draft decision, $108 245; DBNGP - funding regulations, $10 358. The grand total is $810 356. (3) The Leader of the National Party would know that under the law of this State the regulator is independent of government direction in the fulfilment of his functions under the code. The Supreme Court has found that the regulator acted appropriately in each of the three matters mentioned, and in no circumstances have costs been awarded against the regulator in any of these cases. Now I come to the reason for my gratitude to the Leader of the National Party. For days I had been bringing a newspaper clipping into Parliament, waiting for someone to ask me a question about the pipeline. So far no-one had. However, at last the Leader of the National Party has come good, as he always does, and asked me the question I had been waiting for, which gives me the opportunity to quote Mr Michael Chaney from Wesfarmers Ltd on the question of the pipeline. He said - “I think the government’s absolutely right and I think the people who bid for that pipeline initially were fully aware of the regulatory conditions. They were all very clearly set out,” Mr Chaney. “If you departed from that (the regulator’s independence), I think you raise a real issue of sovereign risk. That is, you achieve certainty by proceeding the way all of us expected it to proceed, not by changing the rules. “We bid . . . fully understanding the future conditions.” That hits to the boundary the assertions of various members of this House that somehow I should break the law of this State and direct the regulator. Finally, I am further grateful to the Leader of the National Party for his question, because it gives me a chance to give the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to provide a bit of information to the House. I am advised that the former Managing Director of Western Power had his membership of the Weld Club paid for by Western Power. I would like to know whether the Leader of the Opposition knew of that arrangement and whether he approved of it.
(3) Will the minister finally accept responsibility for his portfolio and give some direction to the regulator before the legal liability, which will have to be paid by taxpayers, becomes outrageously high? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: In my years in Parliament I have always been grateful for the Leader of the National Party’s questions and interjections. It is as though some hidden force causes him to cooperate with me. (1) Although the Supreme Court’s decision has been brought down, I am advised that the possibility of appeal in this matter is still under review. As a consequence, the determination of legal costs will depend on what action is taken and by whom. The legal cost incurred by the regulator in Epic Energy’s case to date is not $850 000. (2) The regulator’s expenditure on the various legal challenges to date is as follows: Dampier to Bunbury natural gas pipeline - draft decision, $691 753; goldfields gas pipeline - draft decision, $108 245; DBNGP - funding regulations, $10 358. The grand total is $810 356. (3) The Leader of the National Party would know that under the law of this State the regulator is independent of government direction in the fulfilment of his functions under the code. The Supreme Court has found that the regulator acted appropriately in each of the three matters mentioned, and in no circumstances have costs been awarded against the regulator in any of these cases. Now I come to the reason for my gratitude to the Leader of the National Party. For days I had been bringing a newspaper clipping into Parliament, waiting for someone to ask me a question about the pipeline. So far no-one had. However, at last the Leader of the National Party has come good, as he always does, and asked me the question I had been waiting for, which gives me the opportunity to quote Mr Michael Chaney from Wesfarmers Ltd on the question of the pipeline. He said - “I think the government’s absolutely right and I think the people who bid for that pipeline initially were fully aware of the regulatory conditions. They were all very clearly set out,” Mr Chaney. “If you departed from that (the regulator’s independence), I think you raise a real issue of sovereign risk. That is, you achieve certainty by proceeding the way all of us expected it to proceed, not by changing the rules. “We bid . . . fully understanding the future conditions.” That hits to the boundary the assertions of various members of this House that somehow I should break the law of this State and direct the regulator. Finally, I am further grateful to the Leader of the National Party for his question, because it gives me a chance to give the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to provide a bit of information to the House. I am advised that the former Managing Director of Western Power had his membership of the Weld Club paid for by Western Power. I would like to know whether the Leader of the Opposition knew of that arrangement and whether he approved of it.
Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: In my years in Parliament I have always been grateful for the Leader of the National Party’s questions and interjections. It is as though some hidden force causes him to cooperate with me. (1) Although the Supreme Court’s decision has been brought down, I am advised that the possibility of appeal in this matter is still under review. As a consequence, the determination of legal costs will depend on what action is taken and by whom. The legal cost incurred by the regulator in Epic Energy’s case to date is not $850 000. (2) The regulator’s expenditure on the various legal challenges to date is as follows: Dampier to Bunbury natural gas pipeline - draft decision, $691 753; goldfields gas pipeline - draft decision, $108 245; DBNGP - funding regulations, $10 358. The grand total is $810 356. (3) The Leader of the National Party would know that under the law of this State the regulator is independent of government direction in the fulfilment of his functions under the code. The Supreme Court has found that the regulator acted appropriately in each of the three matters mentioned, and in no circumstances have costs been awarded against the regulator in any of these cases. Now I come to the reason for my gratitude to the Leader of the National Party. For days I had been bringing a newspaper clipping into Parliament, waiting for someone to ask me a question about the pipeline. So far no-one had. However, at last the Leader of the National Party has come good, as he always does, and asked me the question I had been waiting for, which gives me the opportunity to quote Mr Michael Chaney from Wesfarmers Ltd on the question of the pipeline. He said - “I think the government’s absolutely right and I think the people who bid for that pipeline initially were fully aware of the regulatory conditions. They were all very clearly set out,” Mr Chaney. “If you departed from that (the regulator’s independence), I think you raise a real issue of sovereign risk. That is, you achieve certainty by proceeding the way all of us expected it to proceed, not by changing the rules. “We bid . . . fully understanding the future conditions.” That hits to the boundary the assertions of various members of this House that somehow I should break the law of this State and direct the regulator. Finally, I am further grateful to the Leader of the National Party for his question, because it gives me a chance to give the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to provide a bit of information to the House. I am advised that the former Managing Director of Western Power had his membership of the Weld Club paid for by Western Power. I would like to know whether the Leader of the Opposition knew of that arrangement and whether he approved of it.
In my years in Parliament I have always been grateful for the Leader of the National Party’s questions and interjections. It is as though some hidden force causes him to cooperate with me. (1) Although the Supreme Court’s decision has been brought down, I am advised that the possibility of appeal in this matter is still under review. As a consequence, the determination of legal costs will depend on what action is taken and by whom. The legal cost incurred by the regulator in Epic Energy’s case to date is not $850 000. (2) The regulator’s expenditure on the various legal challenges to date is as follows: Dampier to Bunbury natural gas pipeline - draft decision, $691 753; goldfields gas pipeline - draft decision, $108 245; DBNGP - funding regulations, $10 358. The grand total is $810 356. (3) The Leader of the National Party would know that under the law of this State the regulator is independent of government direction in the fulfilment of his functions under the code. The Supreme Court has found that the regulator acted appropriately in each of the three matters mentioned, and in no circumstances have costs been awarded against the regulator in any of these cases. Now I come to the reason for my gratitude to the Leader of the National Party. For days I had been bringing a newspaper clipping into Parliament, waiting for someone to ask me a question about the pipeline. So far no-one had. However, at last the Leader of the National Party has come good, as he always does, and asked me the question I had been waiting for, which gives me the opportunity to quote Mr Michael Chaney from Wesfarmers Ltd on the question of the pipeline. He said - “I think the government’s absolutely right and I think the people who bid for that pipeline initially were fully aware of the regulatory conditions. They were all very clearly set out,” Mr Chaney. “If you departed from that (the regulator’s independence), I think you raise a real issue of sovereign risk. That is, you achieve certainty by proceeding the way all of us expected it to proceed, not by changing the rules. “We bid . . . fully understanding the future conditions.” That hits to the boundary the assertions of various members of this House that somehow I should break the law of this State and direct the regulator. Finally, I am further grateful to the Leader of the National Party for his question, because it gives me a chance to give the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to provide a bit of information to the House. I am advised that the former Managing Director of Western Power had his membership of the Weld Club paid for by Western Power. I would like to know whether the Leader of the Opposition knew of that arrangement and whether he approved of it.
(1) Although the Supreme Court’s decision has been brought down, I am advised that the possibility of appeal in this matter is still under review. As a consequence, the determination of legal costs will depend on what action is taken and by whom. The legal cost incurred by the regulator in Epic Energy’s case to date is not $850 000. (2) The regulator’s expenditure on the various legal challenges to date is as follows: Dampier to Bunbury natural gas pipeline - draft decision, $691 753; goldfields gas pipeline - draft decision, $108 245; DBNGP - funding regulations, $10 358. The grand total is $810 356. (3) The Leader of the National Party would know that under the law of this State the regulator is independent of government direction in the fulfilment of his functions under the code. The Supreme Court has found that the regulator acted appropriately in each of the three matters mentioned, and in no circumstances have costs been awarded against the regulator in any of these cases. Now I come to the reason for my gratitude to the Leader of the National Party. For days I had been bringing a newspaper clipping into Parliament, waiting for someone to ask me a question about the pipeline. So far no-one had. However, at last the Leader of the National Party has come good, as he always does, and asked me the question I had been waiting for, which gives me the opportunity to quote Mr Michael Chaney from Wesfarmers Ltd on the question of the pipeline. He said - “I think the government’s absolutely right and I think the people who bid for that pipeline initially were fully aware of the regulatory conditions. They were all very clearly set out,” Mr Chaney. “If you departed from that (the regulator’s independence), I think you raise a real issue of sovereign risk. That is, you achieve certainty by proceeding the way all of us expected it to proceed, not by changing the rules. “We bid . . . fully understanding the future conditions.” That hits to the boundary the assertions of various members of this House that somehow I should break the law of this State and direct the regulator. Finally, I am further grateful to the Leader of the National Party for his question, because it gives me a chance to give the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to provide a bit of information to the House. I am advised that the former Managing Director of Western Power had his membership of the Weld Club paid for by Western Power. I would like to know whether the Leader of the Opposition knew of that arrangement and whether he approved of it.
(2) The regulator’s expenditure on the various legal challenges to date is as follows: Dampier to Bunbury natural gas pipeline - draft decision, $691 753; goldfields gas pipeline - draft decision, $108 245; DBNGP - funding regulations, $10 358. The grand total is $810 356. (3) The Leader of the National Party would know that under the law of this State the regulator is independent of government direction in the fulfilment of his functions under the code. The Supreme Court has found that the regulator acted appropriately in each of the three matters mentioned, and in no circumstances have costs been awarded against the regulator in any of these cases. Now I come to the reason for my gratitude to the Leader of the National Party. For days I had been bringing a newspaper clipping into Parliament, waiting for someone to ask me a question about the pipeline. So far no-one had. However, at last the Leader of the National Party has come good, as he always does, and asked me the question I had been waiting for, which gives me the opportunity to quote Mr Michael Chaney from Wesfarmers Ltd on the question of the pipeline. He said - “I think the government’s absolutely right and I think the people who bid for that pipeline initially were fully aware of the regulatory conditions. They were all very clearly set out,” Mr Chaney. “If you departed from that (the regulator’s independence), I think you raise a real issue of sovereign risk. That is, you achieve certainty by proceeding the way all of us expected it to proceed, not by changing the rules. “We bid . . . fully understanding the future conditions.” That hits to the boundary the assertions of various members of this House that somehow I should break the law of this State and direct the regulator. Finally, I am further grateful to the Leader of the National Party for his question, because it gives me a chance to give the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to provide a bit of information to the House. I am advised that the former Managing Director of Western Power had his membership of the Weld Club paid for by Western Power. I would like to know whether the Leader of the Opposition knew of that arrangement and whether he approved of it.
(3) The Leader of the National Party would know that under the law of this State the regulator is independent of government direction in the fulfilment of his functions under the code. The Supreme Court has found that the regulator acted appropriately in each of the three matters mentioned, and in no circumstances have costs been awarded against the regulator in any of these cases. Now I come to the reason for my gratitude to the Leader of the National Party. For days I had been bringing a newspaper clipping into Parliament, waiting for someone to ask me a question about the pipeline. So far no-one had. However, at last the Leader of the National Party has come good, as he always does, and asked me the question I had been waiting for, which gives me the opportunity to quote Mr Michael Chaney from Wesfarmers Ltd on the question of the pipeline. He said - “I think the government’s absolutely right and I think the people who bid for that pipeline initially were fully aware of the regulatory conditions. They were all very clearly set out,” Mr Chaney. “If you departed from that (the regulator’s independence), I think you raise a real issue of sovereign risk. That is, you achieve certainty by proceeding the way all of us expected it to proceed, not by changing the rules. “We bid . . . fully understanding the future conditions.” That hits to the boundary the assertions of various members of this House that somehow I should break the law of this State and direct the regulator. Finally, I am further grateful to the Leader of the National Party for his question, because it gives me a chance to give the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to provide a bit of information to the House. I am advised that the former Managing Director of Western Power had his membership of the Weld Club paid for by Western Power. I would like to know whether the Leader of the Opposition knew of that arrangement and whether he approved of it.
“If you departed from that (the regulator’s independence), I think you raise a real issue of sovereign risk. That is, you achieve certainty by proceeding the way all of us expected it to proceed, not by changing the rules. “We bid . . . fully understanding the future conditions.”
“We bid . . . fully understanding the future conditions.”
Finally, I am further grateful to the Leader of the National Party for his question, because it gives me a chance to give the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to provide a bit of information to the House. I am advised that the former Managing Director of Western Power had his membership of the Weld Club paid for by Western Power. I would like to know whether the Leader of the Opposition knew of that arrangement and whether he approved of it.
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.