❓ The question concerns the National Competition Policy's impact on the WA rock lobster industry, specifically regarding exemptions, quota systems, and the adequacy of public interest assessments. The Minister acknowledges the issue and potential inadequacies in past reviews due to timing of policy changes, promising further investigation.
AnsweredQoN 1303Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I did not provide the minister with formal notice of this question, but I gave the minister a copy of it prior to question time. With regard to the national competition policy legislative review process as it relates to the western rock lobster fishery in Western Australia - (1) Will the minister confirm that other Australian States and Territories have sought and been granted exemptions through the National Competition Council and federal Treasury for input restrictions in their rock lobster industries? (2) It is known that some corporate investors would prefer a quota system rather than input restrictions. However, given the unsustainability of most of the world’s rock lobster fisheries and the amendments to the national competition policy arrangements in relation to public interest assessments, specified in attachment B of the Council of Australian Governments November 2000 communiqué under the heading “Transparency”, which states - · . . . Governments should document the public interest reasons supporting a decision or assessment and make them available to interested parties and the public. · When examining those matters identified under clause 1(3) of the CPA, Governments should give consideration to explicitly identifying the likely impact of reform measures on specific industry sectors and communities, including expected costs in adjusting to change . . . I ask whether these public interest assessments and social or environmental impact studies were ever undertaken by the previous Government in relation to the proposal to remove input restrictions in the western rock lobster industry in Western Australia or to relace them with some other measures, including quotas? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
I thank Hon Dee Margetts for the informal notice she provided of this question. (1)-(2) Hon Dee Margetts has identified an area of national competition policy compliance that I think is well advised but causes me some difficulty. To give honourable members some background to the processes that have occurred, around November 2000, by agreement by COAG, the process of assessment of public interest was altered somewhat, as Hon Dee Margetts has outlined. Attachment B to the Council of Australian Governments’ communiqué of November 2000 states - In meeting the requirements of sub-clauses 1(3)(a)(b) and (c) of the CPA, which relate to the application of the public interest test, Governments should document the public interest reasons supporting a decision or assessment and make them available to interested parties and the public. This becomes somewhat difficult. It is apparent to me that this alteration in the way a public interest test was to be determined was applied to national competition policy reviews that occurred beyond 2000. From 2001, reviews such as that done for the potato marketing legislation followed the new prescription. What seems to be the case - I will need to check this more carefully - is that when an NCP review had begun before that date, the persons conducting that review may not have been advised of the new prescription. Therefore, a review such as that started in 2000 of the Fish Resources Management Act, might have continued to work through under the old prescription without knowledge of the new prescription. That would raise a question about whether the review was adequate. Some of that is speculation, which is not something I should do on my feet. However, that is the only way I can answer the question. I think that is the case but I will certainly go back and examine it. If that is the case, it might require the application of a test different from that already applied. It is made more complicated by the fact that the National Competition Council has provided some advice to the Western Australian Government on NCP compliance. However, that advice will remain confidential for a period - not a long period. I understand that its status at the moment is confidential and there are things contained in that advice that might shed some light on this question. However, I am not free to advise the House about that. As accurately as I can put it, that is the situation, although all the matters that I have mentioned will need to be thoroughly checked.
With regard to the national competition policy legislative review process as it relates to the western rock lobster fishery in Western Australia - (1) Will the minister confirm that other Australian States and Territories have sought and been granted exemptions through the National Competition Council and federal Treasury for input restrictions in their rock lobster industries? (2) It is known that some corporate investors would prefer a quota system rather than input restrictions. However, given the unsustainability of most of the world’s rock lobster fisheries and the amendments to the national competition policy arrangements in relation to public interest assessments, specified in attachment B of the Council of Australian Governments November 2000 communiqué under the heading “Transparency”, which states - · . . . Governments should document the public interest reasons supporting a decision or assessment and make them available to interested parties and the public. · When examining those matters identified under clause 1(3) of the CPA, Governments should give consideration to explicitly identifying the likely impact of reform measures on specific industry sectors and communities, including expected costs in adjusting to change . . . I ask whether these public interest assessments and social or environmental impact studies were ever undertaken by the previous Government in relation to the proposal to remove input restrictions in the western rock lobster industry in Western Australia or to relace them with some other measures, including quotas? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank Hon Dee Margetts for the informal notice she provided of this question. (1)-(2) Hon Dee Margetts has identified an area of national competition policy compliance that I think is well advised but causes me some difficulty. To give honourable members some background to the processes that have occurred, around November 2000, by agreement by COAG, the process of assessment of public interest was altered somewhat, as Hon Dee Margetts has outlined. Attachment B to the Council of Australian Governments’ communiqué of November 2000 states - In meeting the requirements of sub-clauses 1(3)(a)(b) and (c) of the CPA, which relate to the application of the public interest test, Governments should document the public interest reasons supporting a decision or assessment and make them available to interested parties and the public. This becomes somewhat difficult. It is apparent to me that this alteration in the way a public interest test was to be determined was applied to national competition policy reviews that occurred beyond 2000. From 2001, reviews such as that done for the potato marketing legislation followed the new prescription. What seems to be the case - I will need to check this more carefully - is that when an NCP review had begun before that date, the persons conducting that review may not have been advised of the new prescription. Therefore, a review such as that started in 2000 of the Fish Resources Management Act, might have continued to work through under the old prescription without knowledge of the new prescription. That would raise a question about whether the review was adequate. Some of that is speculation, which is not something I should do on my feet. However, that is the only way I can answer the question. I think that is the case but I will certainly go back and examine it. If that is the case, it might require the application of a test different from that already applied. It is made more complicated by the fact that the National Competition Council has provided some advice to the Western Australian Government on NCP compliance. However, that advice will remain confidential for a period - not a long period. I understand that its status at the moment is confidential and there are things contained in that advice that might shed some light on this question. However, I am not free to advise the House about that. As accurately as I can put it, that is the situation, although all the matters that I have mentioned will need to be thoroughly checked.
(1) Will the minister confirm that other Australian States and Territories have sought and been granted exemptions through the National Competition Council and federal Treasury for input restrictions in their rock lobster industries? (2) It is known that some corporate investors would prefer a quota system rather than input restrictions. However, given the unsustainability of most of the world’s rock lobster fisheries and the amendments to the national competition policy arrangements in relation to public interest assessments, specified in attachment B of the Council of Australian Governments November 2000 communiqué under the heading “Transparency”, which states - · . . . Governments should document the public interest reasons supporting a decision or assessment and make them available to interested parties and the public. · When examining those matters identified under clause 1(3) of the CPA, Governments should give consideration to explicitly identifying the likely impact of reform measures on specific industry sectors and communities, including expected costs in adjusting to change . . . I ask whether these public interest assessments and social or environmental impact studies were ever undertaken by the previous Government in relation to the proposal to remove input restrictions in the western rock lobster industry in Western Australia or to relace them with some other measures, including quotas? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank Hon Dee Margetts for the informal notice she provided of this question. (1)-(2) Hon Dee Margetts has identified an area of national competition policy compliance that I think is well advised but causes me some difficulty. To give honourable members some background to the processes that have occurred, around November 2000, by agreement by COAG, the process of assessment of public interest was altered somewhat, as Hon Dee Margetts has outlined. Attachment B to the Council of Australian Governments’ communiqué of November 2000 states - In meeting the requirements of sub-clauses 1(3)(a)(b) and (c) of the CPA, which relate to the application of the public interest test, Governments should document the public interest reasons supporting a decision or assessment and make them available to interested parties and the public. This becomes somewhat difficult. It is apparent to me that this alteration in the way a public interest test was to be determined was applied to national competition policy reviews that occurred beyond 2000. From 2001, reviews such as that done for the potato marketing legislation followed the new prescription. What seems to be the case - I will need to check this more carefully - is that when an NCP review had begun before that date, the persons conducting that review may not have been advised of the new prescription. Therefore, a review such as that started in 2000 of the Fish Resources Management Act, might have continued to work through under the old prescription without knowledge of the new prescription. That would raise a question about whether the review was adequate. Some of that is speculation, which is not something I should do on my feet. However, that is the only way I can answer the question. I think that is the case but I will certainly go back and examine it. If that is the case, it might require the application of a test different from that already applied. It is made more complicated by the fact that the National Competition Council has provided some advice to the Western Australian Government on NCP compliance. However, that advice will remain confidential for a period - not a long period. I understand that its status at the moment is confidential and there are things contained in that advice that might shed some light on this question. However, I am not free to advise the House about that. As accurately as I can put it, that is the situation, although all the matters that I have mentioned will need to be thoroughly checked.
(2) It is known that some corporate investors would prefer a quota system rather than input restrictions. However, given the unsustainability of most of the world’s rock lobster fisheries and the amendments to the national competition policy arrangements in relation to public interest assessments, specified in attachment B of the Council of Australian Governments November 2000 communiqué under the heading “Transparency”, which states - · . . . Governments should document the public interest reasons supporting a decision or assessment and make them available to interested parties and the public. · When examining those matters identified under clause 1(3) of the CPA, Governments should give consideration to explicitly identifying the likely impact of reform measures on specific industry sectors and communities, including expected costs in adjusting to change . . . I ask whether these public interest assessments and social or environmental impact studies were ever undertaken by the previous Government in relation to the proposal to remove input restrictions in the western rock lobster industry in Western Australia or to relace them with some other measures, including quotas? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank Hon Dee Margetts for the informal notice she provided of this question. (1)-(2) Hon Dee Margetts has identified an area of national competition policy compliance that I think is well advised but causes me some difficulty. To give honourable members some background to the processes that have occurred, around November 2000, by agreement by COAG, the process of assessment of public interest was altered somewhat, as Hon Dee Margetts has outlined. Attachment B to the Council of Australian Governments’ communiqué of November 2000 states - In meeting the requirements of sub-clauses 1(3)(a)(b) and (c) of the CPA, which relate to the application of the public interest test, Governments should document the public interest reasons supporting a decision or assessment and make them available to interested parties and the public. This becomes somewhat difficult. It is apparent to me that this alteration in the way a public interest test was to be determined was applied to national competition policy reviews that occurred beyond 2000. From 2001, reviews such as that done for the potato marketing legislation followed the new prescription. What seems to be the case - I will need to check this more carefully - is that when an NCP review had begun before that date, the persons conducting that review may not have been advised of the new prescription. Therefore, a review such as that started in 2000 of the Fish Resources Management Act, might have continued to work through under the old prescription without knowledge of the new prescription. That would raise a question about whether the review was adequate. Some of that is speculation, which is not something I should do on my feet. However, that is the only way I can answer the question. I think that is the case but I will certainly go back and examine it. If that is the case, it might require the application of a test different from that already applied. It is made more complicated by the fact that the National Competition Council has provided some advice to the Western Australian Government on NCP compliance. However, that advice will remain confidential for a period - not a long period. I understand that its status at the moment is confidential and there are things contained in that advice that might shed some light on this question. However, I am not free to advise the House about that. As accurately as I can put it, that is the situation, although all the matters that I have mentioned will need to be thoroughly checked.
· When examining those matters identified under clause 1(3) of the CPA, Governments should give consideration to explicitly identifying the likely impact of reform measures on specific industry sectors and communities, including expected costs in adjusting to change . . .
I thank Hon Dee Margetts for the informal notice she provided of this question. (1)-(2) Hon Dee Margetts has identified an area of national competition policy compliance that I think is well advised but causes me some difficulty. To give honourable members some background to the processes that have occurred, around November 2000, by agreement by COAG, the process of assessment of public interest was altered somewhat, as Hon Dee Margetts has outlined. Attachment B to the Council of Australian Governments’ communiqué of November 2000 states - In meeting the requirements of sub-clauses 1(3)(a)(b) and (c) of the CPA, which relate to the application of the public interest test, Governments should document the public interest reasons supporting a decision or assessment and make them available to interested parties and the public. This becomes somewhat difficult. It is apparent to me that this alteration in the way a public interest test was to be determined was applied to national competition policy reviews that occurred beyond 2000. From 2001, reviews such as that done for the potato marketing legislation followed the new prescription. What seems to be the case - I will need to check this more carefully - is that when an NCP review had begun before that date, the persons conducting that review may not have been advised of the new prescription. Therefore, a review such as that started in 2000 of the Fish Resources Management Act, might have continued to work through under the old prescription without knowledge of the new prescription. That would raise a question about whether the review was adequate. Some of that is speculation, which is not something I should do on my feet. However, that is the only way I can answer the question. I think that is the case but I will certainly go back and examine it. If that is the case, it might require the application of a test different from that already applied. It is made more complicated by the fact that the National Competition Council has provided some advice to the Western Australian Government on NCP compliance. However, that advice will remain confidential for a period - not a long period. I understand that its status at the moment is confidential and there are things contained in that advice that might shed some light on this question. However, I am not free to advise the House about that. As accurately as I can put it, that is the situation, although all the matters that I have mentioned will need to be thoroughly checked.
(1)-(2) Hon Dee Margetts has identified an area of national competition policy compliance that I think is well advised but causes me some difficulty. To give honourable members some background to the processes that have occurred, around November 2000, by agreement by COAG, the process of assessment of public interest was altered somewhat, as Hon Dee Margetts has outlined. Attachment B to the Council of Australian Governments’ communiqué of November 2000 states - In meeting the requirements of sub-clauses 1(3)(a)(b) and (c) of the CPA, which relate to the application of the public interest test, Governments should document the public interest reasons supporting a decision or assessment and make them available to interested parties and the public. This becomes somewhat difficult. It is apparent to me that this alteration in the way a public interest test was to be determined was applied to national competition policy reviews that occurred beyond 2000. From 2001, reviews such as that done for the potato marketing legislation followed the new prescription. What seems to be the case - I will need to check this more carefully - is that when an NCP review had begun before that date, the persons conducting that review may not have been advised of the new prescription. Therefore, a review such as that started in 2000 of the Fish Resources Management Act, might have continued to work through under the old prescription without knowledge of the new prescription. That would raise a question about whether the review was adequate. Some of that is speculation, which is not something I should do on my feet. However, that is the only way I can answer the question. I think that is the case but I will certainly go back and examine it. If that is the case, it might require the application of a test different from that already applied. It is made more complicated by the fact that the National Competition Council has provided some advice to the Western Australian Government on NCP compliance. However, that advice will remain confidential for a period - not a long period. I understand that its status at the moment is confidential and there are things contained in that advice that might shed some light on this question. However, I am not free to advise the House about that. As accurately as I can put it, that is the situation, although all the matters that I have mentioned will need to be thoroughly checked.
With regard to the national competition policy legislative review process as it relates to the western rock lobster fishery in Western Australia - (1) Will the minister confirm that other Australian States and Territories have sought and been granted exemptions through the National Competition Council and federal Treasury for input restrictions in their rock lobster industries? (2) It is known that some corporate investors would prefer a quota system rather than input restrictions. However, given the unsustainability of most of the world’s rock lobster fisheries and the amendments to the national competition policy arrangements in relation to public interest assessments, specified in attachment B of the Council of Australian Governments November 2000 communiqué under the heading “Transparency”, which states - · . . . Governments should document the public interest reasons supporting a decision or assessment and make them available to interested parties and the public. · When examining those matters identified under clause 1(3) of the CPA, Governments should give consideration to explicitly identifying the likely impact of reform measures on specific industry sectors and communities, including expected costs in adjusting to change . . . I ask whether these public interest assessments and social or environmental impact studies were ever undertaken by the previous Government in relation to the proposal to remove input restrictions in the western rock lobster industry in Western Australia or to relace them with some other measures, including quotas? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank Hon Dee Margetts for the informal notice she provided of this question. (1)-(2) Hon Dee Margetts has identified an area of national competition policy compliance that I think is well advised but causes me some difficulty. To give honourable members some background to the processes that have occurred, around November 2000, by agreement by COAG, the process of assessment of public interest was altered somewhat, as Hon Dee Margetts has outlined. Attachment B to the Council of Australian Governments’ communiqué of November 2000 states - In meeting the requirements of sub-clauses 1(3)(a)(b) and (c) of the CPA, which relate to the application of the public interest test, Governments should document the public interest reasons supporting a decision or assessment and make them available to interested parties and the public. This becomes somewhat difficult. It is apparent to me that this alteration in the way a public interest test was to be determined was applied to national competition policy reviews that occurred beyond 2000. From 2001, reviews such as that done for the potato marketing legislation followed the new prescription. What seems to be the case - I will need to check this more carefully - is that when an NCP review had begun before that date, the persons conducting that review may not have been advised of the new prescription. Therefore, a review such as that started in 2000 of the Fish Resources Management Act, might have continued to work through under the old prescription without knowledge of the new prescription. That would raise a question about whether the review was adequate. Some of that is speculation, which is not something I should do on my feet. However, that is the only way I can answer the question. I think that is the case but I will certainly go back and examine it. If that is the case, it might require the application of a test different from that already applied. It is made more complicated by the fact that the National Competition Council has provided some advice to the Western Australian Government on NCP compliance. However, that advice will remain confidential for a period - not a long period. I understand that its status at the moment is confidential and there are things contained in that advice that might shed some light on this question. However, I am not free to advise the House about that. As accurately as I can put it, that is the situation, although all the matters that I have mentioned will need to be thoroughly checked.
(1) Will the minister confirm that other Australian States and Territories have sought and been granted exemptions through the National Competition Council and federal Treasury for input restrictions in their rock lobster industries? (2) It is known that some corporate investors would prefer a quota system rather than input restrictions. However, given the unsustainability of most of the world’s rock lobster fisheries and the amendments to the national competition policy arrangements in relation to public interest assessments, specified in attachment B of the Council of Australian Governments November 2000 communiqué under the heading “Transparency”, which states - · . . . Governments should document the public interest reasons supporting a decision or assessment and make them available to interested parties and the public. · When examining those matters identified under clause 1(3) of the CPA, Governments should give consideration to explicitly identifying the likely impact of reform measures on specific industry sectors and communities, including expected costs in adjusting to change . . . I ask whether these public interest assessments and social or environmental impact studies were ever undertaken by the previous Government in relation to the proposal to remove input restrictions in the western rock lobster industry in Western Australia or to relace them with some other measures, including quotas? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank Hon Dee Margetts for the informal notice she provided of this question. (1)-(2) Hon Dee Margetts has identified an area of national competition policy compliance that I think is well advised but causes me some difficulty. To give honourable members some background to the processes that have occurred, around November 2000, by agreement by COAG, the process of assessment of public interest was altered somewhat, as Hon Dee Margetts has outlined. Attachment B to the Council of Australian Governments’ communiqué of November 2000 states - In meeting the requirements of sub-clauses 1(3)(a)(b) and (c) of the CPA, which relate to the application of the public interest test, Governments should document the public interest reasons supporting a decision or assessment and make them available to interested parties and the public. This becomes somewhat difficult. It is apparent to me that this alteration in the way a public interest test was to be determined was applied to national competition policy reviews that occurred beyond 2000. From 2001, reviews such as that done for the potato marketing legislation followed the new prescription. What seems to be the case - I will need to check this more carefully - is that when an NCP review had begun before that date, the persons conducting that review may not have been advised of the new prescription. Therefore, a review such as that started in 2000 of the Fish Resources Management Act, might have continued to work through under the old prescription without knowledge of the new prescription. That would raise a question about whether the review was adequate. Some of that is speculation, which is not something I should do on my feet. However, that is the only way I can answer the question. I think that is the case but I will certainly go back and examine it. If that is the case, it might require the application of a test different from that already applied. It is made more complicated by the fact that the National Competition Council has provided some advice to the Western Australian Government on NCP compliance. However, that advice will remain confidential for a period - not a long period. I understand that its status at the moment is confidential and there are things contained in that advice that might shed some light on this question. However, I am not free to advise the House about that. As accurately as I can put it, that is the situation, although all the matters that I have mentioned will need to be thoroughly checked.
(2) It is known that some corporate investors would prefer a quota system rather than input restrictions. However, given the unsustainability of most of the world’s rock lobster fisheries and the amendments to the national competition policy arrangements in relation to public interest assessments, specified in attachment B of the Council of Australian Governments November 2000 communiqué under the heading “Transparency”, which states - · . . . Governments should document the public interest reasons supporting a decision or assessment and make them available to interested parties and the public. · When examining those matters identified under clause 1(3) of the CPA, Governments should give consideration to explicitly identifying the likely impact of reform measures on specific industry sectors and communities, including expected costs in adjusting to change . . . I ask whether these public interest assessments and social or environmental impact studies were ever undertaken by the previous Government in relation to the proposal to remove input restrictions in the western rock lobster industry in Western Australia or to relace them with some other measures, including quotas? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank Hon Dee Margetts for the informal notice she provided of this question. (1)-(2) Hon Dee Margetts has identified an area of national competition policy compliance that I think is well advised but causes me some difficulty. To give honourable members some background to the processes that have occurred, around November 2000, by agreement by COAG, the process of assessment of public interest was altered somewhat, as Hon Dee Margetts has outlined. Attachment B to the Council of Australian Governments’ communiqué of November 2000 states - In meeting the requirements of sub-clauses 1(3)(a)(b) and (c) of the CPA, which relate to the application of the public interest test, Governments should document the public interest reasons supporting a decision or assessment and make them available to interested parties and the public. This becomes somewhat difficult. It is apparent to me that this alteration in the way a public interest test was to be determined was applied to national competition policy reviews that occurred beyond 2000. From 2001, reviews such as that done for the potato marketing legislation followed the new prescription. What seems to be the case - I will need to check this more carefully - is that when an NCP review had begun before that date, the persons conducting that review may not have been advised of the new prescription. Therefore, a review such as that started in 2000 of the Fish Resources Management Act, might have continued to work through under the old prescription without knowledge of the new prescription. That would raise a question about whether the review was adequate. Some of that is speculation, which is not something I should do on my feet. However, that is the only way I can answer the question. I think that is the case but I will certainly go back and examine it. If that is the case, it might require the application of a test different from that already applied. It is made more complicated by the fact that the National Competition Council has provided some advice to the Western Australian Government on NCP compliance. However, that advice will remain confidential for a period - not a long period. I understand that its status at the moment is confidential and there are things contained in that advice that might shed some light on this question. However, I am not free to advise the House about that. As accurately as I can put it, that is the situation, although all the matters that I have mentioned will need to be thoroughly checked.
· When examining those matters identified under clause 1(3) of the CPA, Governments should give consideration to explicitly identifying the likely impact of reform measures on specific industry sectors and communities, including expected costs in adjusting to change . . .
I thank Hon Dee Margetts for the informal notice she provided of this question. (1)-(2) Hon Dee Margetts has identified an area of national competition policy compliance that I think is well advised but causes me some difficulty. To give honourable members some background to the processes that have occurred, around November 2000, by agreement by COAG, the process of assessment of public interest was altered somewhat, as Hon Dee Margetts has outlined. Attachment B to the Council of Australian Governments’ communiqué of November 2000 states - In meeting the requirements of sub-clauses 1(3)(a)(b) and (c) of the CPA, which relate to the application of the public interest test, Governments should document the public interest reasons supporting a decision or assessment and make them available to interested parties and the public. This becomes somewhat difficult. It is apparent to me that this alteration in the way a public interest test was to be determined was applied to national competition policy reviews that occurred beyond 2000. From 2001, reviews such as that done for the potato marketing legislation followed the new prescription. What seems to be the case - I will need to check this more carefully - is that when an NCP review had begun before that date, the persons conducting that review may not have been advised of the new prescription. Therefore, a review such as that started in 2000 of the Fish Resources Management Act, might have continued to work through under the old prescription without knowledge of the new prescription. That would raise a question about whether the review was adequate. Some of that is speculation, which is not something I should do on my feet. However, that is the only way I can answer the question. I think that is the case but I will certainly go back and examine it. If that is the case, it might require the application of a test different from that already applied. It is made more complicated by the fact that the National Competition Council has provided some advice to the Western Australian Government on NCP compliance. However, that advice will remain confidential for a period - not a long period. I understand that its status at the moment is confidential and there are things contained in that advice that might shed some light on this question. However, I am not free to advise the House about that. As accurately as I can put it, that is the situation, although all the matters that I have mentioned will need to be thoroughly checked.
(1)-(2) Hon Dee Margetts has identified an area of national competition policy compliance that I think is well advised but causes me some difficulty. To give honourable members some background to the processes that have occurred, around November 2000, by agreement by COAG, the process of assessment of public interest was altered somewhat, as Hon Dee Margetts has outlined. Attachment B to the Council of Australian Governments’ communiqué of November 2000 states - In meeting the requirements of sub-clauses 1(3)(a)(b) and (c) of the CPA, which relate to the application of the public interest test, Governments should document the public interest reasons supporting a decision or assessment and make them available to interested parties and the public. This becomes somewhat difficult. It is apparent to me that this alteration in the way a public interest test was to be determined was applied to national competition policy reviews that occurred beyond 2000. From 2001, reviews such as that done for the potato marketing legislation followed the new prescription. What seems to be the case - I will need to check this more carefully - is that when an NCP review had begun before that date, the persons conducting that review may not have been advised of the new prescription. Therefore, a review such as that started in 2000 of the Fish Resources Management Act, might have continued to work through under the old prescription without knowledge of the new prescription. That would raise a question about whether the review was adequate. Some of that is speculation, which is not something I should do on my feet. However, that is the only way I can answer the question. I think that is the case but I will certainly go back and examine it. If that is the case, it might require the application of a test different from that already applied. It is made more complicated by the fact that the National Competition Council has provided some advice to the Western Australian Government on NCP compliance. However, that advice will remain confidential for a period - not a long period. I understand that its status at the moment is confidential and there are things contained in that advice that might shed some light on this question. However, I am not free to advise the House about that. As accurately as I can put it, that is the situation, although all the matters that I have mentioned will need to be thoroughly checked.
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.