❓ Question regarding contradictory reports on electricity price changes following the proposed break-up of Western Power. The Minister's answer deflects, questions the Opposition's stance, and defends the reform by highlighting potential economic benefits and competition policy payments.
AnsweredQoN 225Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
WESTERN POWER, ELECTRICITY PRICES
I refer the minister to the report of the Electricity Reform Task Force that justifies breaking up Wester Power into three entities, with the promise of a small reduction in household electricity prices. (1) Will the minister confirm a report in The West Australian on 18 October that, according to a joint Western Power-State Government document, electricity prices will rise by seven per cent in the first year following such a break-up? (2) How does the minister explain this contradiction, especially given his consistent comments that electricity prices will fall, and when will consumers see such a fall? Mr E.S. RIPPER
I refer the minister to the report of the Electricity Reform Task Force that justifies breaking up Wester Power into three entities, with the promise of a small reduction in household electricity prices. (1) Will the minister confirm a report in The West Australian on 18 October that, according to a joint Western Power-State Government document, electricity prices will rise by seven per cent in the first year following such a break-up? (2) How does the minister explain this contradiction, especially given his consistent comments that electricity prices will fall, and when will consumers see such a fall? Mr E.S. RIPPER
AnswerView source ↗
I have an interesting question for the Opposition: why has the Leader of the Opposition stopped making comments on electricity reform? He used to say a lot on electricity reform but he has gone very quiet. Has it got something to do with the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia, the Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia, the Property Council of Australia and the Sustainable Energy industry Association all supporting electricity reform, not to mention the eminent members of the upper House who appear to support the electricity reform agenda? Let us come back to the questions that have been raised by the official opposition spokesperson on energy. (1)-(2) A report was compiled for Western Power by Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu; the report is on the Electricity Reform Task Force site. Mr J.H.D. Day: Are you going to admit a report was also done by Treasury? Mr E.S. RIPPER: The member for Darling Range is correct, Treasury was represented on the steering committee. The report is on the task force’s web site, and it is also analysed in one of its reports. The task force says there is a problem with Deloitte’s report. The problem is pretty basic: Deloitte did not analyse in its main report the scenarios recommended by the Electricity Reform Task Force. When this was pointed out, Deloitte conducted another analysis of a scenario that was close to that recommended by the Electricity Reform Task Force. Even then, there was a problem because the Deloitte’s report is a static analysis and does not take into account the impact of competition. The whole idea of creating a competitive electricity market and disaggregating Western Power is to subject the competitive elements of Western Power and its successor organisation to the discipline of the market, so I would expect there to be some improvement in the cost structure of Western Power. When members read the sensitivity analysis at the back of the Deloitte’s report, they will find that, if there is a 25 per cent reduction in Western Power’s costs, as a result of the impact of competition, there will be extra value in Western Power and its successor organisation compared with the value of a vertically integrated utility, and the State will receive higher payments. We will certainly not get increased electricity prices or reduced payments to the State from that particular element of the sensitivity analysis conducted by Deloitte. Deloitte’s report did not do two other things. Firstly, it did not take into account the extra revenue that will flow to the State as a result of improved economic growth. If this State has economic growth equivalent to $1 billion in net present value, obviously additional revenue will flow to the State Government from that economic growth. Treasury estimates that might be as high as $15 million per annum. Secondly, the report does not take into account that Western Australia receives $73 million a year in competition policy payments from the federal Government. I know that under the competition policy agreement signed by the previous coalition Government we would lose a significant proportion of those $73 million payments. Mr C.J. Barnett: Who is running the State? Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Opposition signed the agreement and put us into this position. We must take account of reality and be pragmatic; we would lose some of our competition policy payments if we did not reform the electricity system. The Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Minister for Energy should not worry too much about the Deloitte report. This issue was comprehensively dealt with in the Electricity Reform Task Force report. The real question is: does the Opposition favour lower electricity prices or does it favour jobs, investment and growth? If the latter, it will support electricity reform. If it opposes electricity reform, it will be opposing investment, jobs and growth. We may get a statement on electricity reform from the Leader of the Opposition, now that he is interjecting.
(1) Will the minister confirm a report in The West Australian on 18 October that, according to a joint Western Power-State Government document, electricity prices will rise by seven per cent in the first year following such a break-up? (2) How does the minister explain this contradiction, especially given his consistent comments that electricity prices will fall, and when will consumers see such a fall? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: I have an interesting question for the Opposition: why has the Leader of the Opposition stopped making comments on electricity reform? He used to say a lot on electricity reform but he has gone very quiet. Has it got something to do with the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia, the Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia, the Property Council of Australia and the Sustainable Energy industry Association all supporting electricity reform, not to mention the eminent members of the upper House who appear to support the electricity reform agenda? Let us come back to the questions that have been raised by the official opposition spokesperson on energy. (1)-(2) A report was compiled for Western Power by Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu; the report is on the Electricity Reform Task Force site. Mr J.H.D. Day: Are you going to admit a report was also done by Treasury? Mr E.S. RIPPER: The member for Darling Range is correct, Treasury was represented on the steering committee. The report is on the task force’s web site, and it is also analysed in one of its reports. The task force says there is a problem with Deloitte’s report. The problem is pretty basic: Deloitte did not analyse in its main report the scenarios recommended by the Electricity Reform Task Force. When this was pointed out, Deloitte conducted another analysis of a scenario that was close to that recommended by the Electricity Reform Task Force. Even then, there was a problem because the Deloitte’s report is a static analysis and does not take into account the impact of competition. The whole idea of creating a competitive electricity market and disaggregating Western Power is to subject the competitive elements of Western Power and its successor organisation to the discipline of the market, so I would expect there to be some improvement in the cost structure of Western Power. When members read the sensitivity analysis at the back of the Deloitte’s report, they will find that, if there is a 25 per cent reduction in Western Power’s costs, as a result of the impact of competition, there will be extra value in Western Power and its successor organisation compared with the value of a vertically integrated utility, and the State will receive higher payments. We will certainly not get increased electricity prices or reduced payments to the State from that particular element of the sensitivity analysis conducted by Deloitte. Deloitte’s report did not do two other things. Firstly, it did not take into account the extra revenue that will flow to the State as a result of improved economic growth. If this State has economic growth equivalent to $1 billion in net present value, obviously additional revenue will flow to the State Government from that economic growth. Treasury estimates that might be as high as $15 million per annum. Secondly, the report does not take into account that Western Australia receives $73 million a year in competition policy payments from the federal Government. I know that under the competition policy agreement signed by the previous coalition Government we would lose a significant proportion of those $73 million payments. Mr C.J. Barnett: Who is running the State? Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Opposition signed the agreement and put us into this position. We must take account of reality and be pragmatic; we would lose some of our competition policy payments if we did not reform the electricity system. The Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Minister for Energy should not worry too much about the Deloitte report. This issue was comprehensively dealt with in the Electricity Reform Task Force report. The real question is: does the Opposition favour lower electricity prices or does it favour jobs, investment and growth? If the latter, it will support electricity reform. If it opposes electricity reform, it will be opposing investment, jobs and growth. We may get a statement on electricity reform from the Leader of the Opposition, now that he is interjecting.
(2) How does the minister explain this contradiction, especially given his consistent comments that electricity prices will fall, and when will consumers see such a fall? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: I have an interesting question for the Opposition: why has the Leader of the Opposition stopped making comments on electricity reform? He used to say a lot on electricity reform but he has gone very quiet. Has it got something to do with the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia, the Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia, the Property Council of Australia and the Sustainable Energy industry Association all supporting electricity reform, not to mention the eminent members of the upper House who appear to support the electricity reform agenda? Let us come back to the questions that have been raised by the official opposition spokesperson on energy. (1)-(2) A report was compiled for Western Power by Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu; the report is on the Electricity Reform Task Force site. Mr J.H.D. Day: Are you going to admit a report was also done by Treasury? Mr E.S. RIPPER: The member for Darling Range is correct, Treasury was represented on the steering committee. The report is on the task force’s web site, and it is also analysed in one of its reports. The task force says there is a problem with Deloitte’s report. The problem is pretty basic: Deloitte did not analyse in its main report the scenarios recommended by the Electricity Reform Task Force. When this was pointed out, Deloitte conducted another analysis of a scenario that was close to that recommended by the Electricity Reform Task Force. Even then, there was a problem because the Deloitte’s report is a static analysis and does not take into account the impact of competition. The whole idea of creating a competitive electricity market and disaggregating Western Power is to subject the competitive elements of Western Power and its successor organisation to the discipline of the market, so I would expect there to be some improvement in the cost structure of Western Power. When members read the sensitivity analysis at the back of the Deloitte’s report, they will find that, if there is a 25 per cent reduction in Western Power’s costs, as a result of the impact of competition, there will be extra value in Western Power and its successor organisation compared with the value of a vertically integrated utility, and the State will receive higher payments. We will certainly not get increased electricity prices or reduced payments to the State from that particular element of the sensitivity analysis conducted by Deloitte. Deloitte’s report did not do two other things. Firstly, it did not take into account the extra revenue that will flow to the State as a result of improved economic growth. If this State has economic growth equivalent to $1 billion in net present value, obviously additional revenue will flow to the State Government from that economic growth. Treasury estimates that might be as high as $15 million per annum. Secondly, the report does not take into account that Western Australia receives $73 million a year in competition policy payments from the federal Government. I know that under the competition policy agreement signed by the previous coalition Government we would lose a significant proportion of those $73 million payments. Mr C.J. Barnett: Who is running the State? Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Opposition signed the agreement and put us into this position. We must take account of reality and be pragmatic; we would lose some of our competition policy payments if we did not reform the electricity system. The Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Minister for Energy should not worry too much about the Deloitte report. This issue was comprehensively dealt with in the Electricity Reform Task Force report. The real question is: does the Opposition favour lower electricity prices or does it favour jobs, investment and growth? If the latter, it will support electricity reform. If it opposes electricity reform, it will be opposing investment, jobs and growth. We may get a statement on electricity reform from the Leader of the Opposition, now that he is interjecting.
Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: I have an interesting question for the Opposition: why has the Leader of the Opposition stopped making comments on electricity reform? He used to say a lot on electricity reform but he has gone very quiet. Has it got something to do with the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia, the Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia, the Property Council of Australia and the Sustainable Energy industry Association all supporting electricity reform, not to mention the eminent members of the upper House who appear to support the electricity reform agenda? Let us come back to the questions that have been raised by the official opposition spokesperson on energy. (1)-(2) A report was compiled for Western Power by Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu; the report is on the Electricity Reform Task Force site. Mr J.H.D. Day: Are you going to admit a report was also done by Treasury? Mr E.S. RIPPER: The member for Darling Range is correct, Treasury was represented on the steering committee. The report is on the task force’s web site, and it is also analysed in one of its reports. The task force says there is a problem with Deloitte’s report. The problem is pretty basic: Deloitte did not analyse in its main report the scenarios recommended by the Electricity Reform Task Force. When this was pointed out, Deloitte conducted another analysis of a scenario that was close to that recommended by the Electricity Reform Task Force. Even then, there was a problem because the Deloitte’s report is a static analysis and does not take into account the impact of competition. The whole idea of creating a competitive electricity market and disaggregating Western Power is to subject the competitive elements of Western Power and its successor organisation to the discipline of the market, so I would expect there to be some improvement in the cost structure of Western Power. When members read the sensitivity analysis at the back of the Deloitte’s report, they will find that, if there is a 25 per cent reduction in Western Power’s costs, as a result of the impact of competition, there will be extra value in Western Power and its successor organisation compared with the value of a vertically integrated utility, and the State will receive higher payments. We will certainly not get increased electricity prices or reduced payments to the State from that particular element of the sensitivity analysis conducted by Deloitte. Deloitte’s report did not do two other things. Firstly, it did not take into account the extra revenue that will flow to the State as a result of improved economic growth. If this State has economic growth equivalent to $1 billion in net present value, obviously additional revenue will flow to the State Government from that economic growth. Treasury estimates that might be as high as $15 million per annum. Secondly, the report does not take into account that Western Australia receives $73 million a year in competition policy payments from the federal Government. I know that under the competition policy agreement signed by the previous coalition Government we would lose a significant proportion of those $73 million payments. Mr C.J. Barnett: Who is running the State? Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Opposition signed the agreement and put us into this position. We must take account of reality and be pragmatic; we would lose some of our competition policy payments if we did not reform the electricity system. The Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Minister for Energy should not worry too much about the Deloitte report. This issue was comprehensively dealt with in the Electricity Reform Task Force report. The real question is: does the Opposition favour lower electricity prices or does it favour jobs, investment and growth? If the latter, it will support electricity reform. If it opposes electricity reform, it will be opposing investment, jobs and growth. We may get a statement on electricity reform from the Leader of the Opposition, now that he is interjecting.
I have an interesting question for the Opposition: why has the Leader of the Opposition stopped making comments on electricity reform? He used to say a lot on electricity reform but he has gone very quiet. Has it got something to do with the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia, the Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia, the Property Council of Australia and the Sustainable Energy industry Association all supporting electricity reform, not to mention the eminent members of the upper House who appear to support the electricity reform agenda? Let us come back to the questions that have been raised by the official opposition spokesperson on energy. (1)-(2) A report was compiled for Western Power by Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu; the report is on the Electricity Reform Task Force site. Mr J.H.D. Day: Are you going to admit a report was also done by Treasury? Mr E.S. RIPPER: The member for Darling Range is correct, Treasury was represented on the steering committee. The report is on the task force’s web site, and it is also analysed in one of its reports. The task force says there is a problem with Deloitte’s report. The problem is pretty basic: Deloitte did not analyse in its main report the scenarios recommended by the Electricity Reform Task Force. When this was pointed out, Deloitte conducted another analysis of a scenario that was close to that recommended by the Electricity Reform Task Force. Even then, there was a problem because the Deloitte’s report is a static analysis and does not take into account the impact of competition. The whole idea of creating a competitive electricity market and disaggregating Western Power is to subject the competitive elements of Western Power and its successor organisation to the discipline of the market, so I would expect there to be some improvement in the cost structure of Western Power. When members read the sensitivity analysis at the back of the Deloitte’s report, they will find that, if there is a 25 per cent reduction in Western Power’s costs, as a result of the impact of competition, there will be extra value in Western Power and its successor organisation compared with the value of a vertically integrated utility, and the State will receive higher payments. We will certainly not get increased electricity prices or reduced payments to the State from that particular element of the sensitivity analysis conducted by Deloitte. Deloitte’s report did not do two other things. Firstly, it did not take into account the extra revenue that will flow to the State as a result of improved economic growth. If this State has economic growth equivalent to $1 billion in net present value, obviously additional revenue will flow to the State Government from that economic growth. Treasury estimates that might be as high as $15 million per annum. Secondly, the report does not take into account that Western Australia receives $73 million a year in competition policy payments from the federal Government. I know that under the competition policy agreement signed by the previous coalition Government we would lose a significant proportion of those $73 million payments. Mr C.J. Barnett: Who is running the State? Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Opposition signed the agreement and put us into this position. We must take account of reality and be pragmatic; we would lose some of our competition policy payments if we did not reform the electricity system. The Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Minister for Energy should not worry too much about the Deloitte report. This issue was comprehensively dealt with in the Electricity Reform Task Force report. The real question is: does the Opposition favour lower electricity prices or does it favour jobs, investment and growth? If the latter, it will support electricity reform. If it opposes electricity reform, it will be opposing investment, jobs and growth. We may get a statement on electricity reform from the Leader of the Opposition, now that he is interjecting.
(1)-(2) A report was compiled for Western Power by Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu; the report is on the Electricity Reform Task Force site. Mr J.H.D. Day: Are you going to admit a report was also done by Treasury? Mr E.S. RIPPER: The member for Darling Range is correct, Treasury was represented on the steering committee. The report is on the task force’s web site, and it is also analysed in one of its reports. The task force says there is a problem with Deloitte’s report. The problem is pretty basic: Deloitte did not analyse in its main report the scenarios recommended by the Electricity Reform Task Force. When this was pointed out, Deloitte conducted another analysis of a scenario that was close to that recommended by the Electricity Reform Task Force. Even then, there was a problem because the Deloitte’s report is a static analysis and does not take into account the impact of competition. The whole idea of creating a competitive electricity market and disaggregating Western Power is to subject the competitive elements of Western Power and its successor organisation to the discipline of the market, so I would expect there to be some improvement in the cost structure of Western Power. When members read the sensitivity analysis at the back of the Deloitte’s report, they will find that, if there is a 25 per cent reduction in Western Power’s costs, as a result of the impact of competition, there will be extra value in Western Power and its successor organisation compared with the value of a vertically integrated utility, and the State will receive higher payments. We will certainly not get increased electricity prices or reduced payments to the State from that particular element of the sensitivity analysis conducted by Deloitte. Deloitte’s report did not do two other things. Firstly, it did not take into account the extra revenue that will flow to the State as a result of improved economic growth. If this State has economic growth equivalent to $1 billion in net present value, obviously additional revenue will flow to the State Government from that economic growth. Treasury estimates that might be as high as $15 million per annum. Secondly, the report does not take into account that Western Australia receives $73 million a year in competition policy payments from the federal Government. I know that under the competition policy agreement signed by the previous coalition Government we would lose a significant proportion of those $73 million payments. Mr C.J. Barnett: Who is running the State? Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Opposition signed the agreement and put us into this position. We must take account of reality and be pragmatic; we would lose some of our competition policy payments if we did not reform the electricity system. The Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Minister for Energy should not worry too much about the Deloitte report. This issue was comprehensively dealt with in the Electricity Reform Task Force report. The real question is: does the Opposition favour lower electricity prices or does it favour jobs, investment and growth? If the latter, it will support electricity reform. If it opposes electricity reform, it will be opposing investment, jobs and growth. We may get a statement on electricity reform from the Leader of the Opposition, now that he is interjecting.
Mr J.H.D. Day: Are you going to admit a report was also done by Treasury? Mr E.S. RIPPER: The member for Darling Range is correct, Treasury was represented on the steering committee. The report is on the task force’s web site, and it is also analysed in one of its reports. The task force says there is a problem with Deloitte’s report. The problem is pretty basic: Deloitte did not analyse in its main report the scenarios recommended by the Electricity Reform Task Force. When this was pointed out, Deloitte conducted another analysis of a scenario that was close to that recommended by the Electricity Reform Task Force. Even then, there was a problem because the Deloitte’s report is a static analysis and does not take into account the impact of competition. The whole idea of creating a competitive electricity market and disaggregating Western Power is to subject the competitive elements of Western Power and its successor organisation to the discipline of the market, so I would expect there to be some improvement in the cost structure of Western Power. When members read the sensitivity analysis at the back of the Deloitte’s report, they will find that, if there is a 25 per cent reduction in Western Power’s costs, as a result of the impact of competition, there will be extra value in Western Power and its successor organisation compared with the value of a vertically integrated utility, and the State will receive higher payments. We will certainly not get increased electricity prices or reduced payments to the State from that particular element of the sensitivity analysis conducted by Deloitte. Deloitte’s report did not do two other things. Firstly, it did not take into account the extra revenue that will flow to the State as a result of improved economic growth. If this State has economic growth equivalent to $1 billion in net present value, obviously additional revenue will flow to the State Government from that economic growth. Treasury estimates that might be as high as $15 million per annum. Secondly, the report does not take into account that Western Australia receives $73 million a year in competition policy payments from the federal Government. I know that under the competition policy agreement signed by the previous coalition Government we would lose a significant proportion of those $73 million payments. Mr C.J. Barnett: Who is running the State? Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Opposition signed the agreement and put us into this position. We must take account of reality and be pragmatic; we would lose some of our competition policy payments if we did not reform the electricity system. The Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Minister for Energy should not worry too much about the Deloitte report. This issue was comprehensively dealt with in the Electricity Reform Task Force report. The real question is: does the Opposition favour lower electricity prices or does it favour jobs, investment and growth? If the latter, it will support electricity reform. If it opposes electricity reform, it will be opposing investment, jobs and growth. We may get a statement on electricity reform from the Leader of the Opposition, now that he is interjecting.
Mr E.S. RIPPER: The member for Darling Range is correct, Treasury was represented on the steering committee. The report is on the task force’s web site, and it is also analysed in one of its reports. The task force says there is a problem with Deloitte’s report. The problem is pretty basic: Deloitte did not analyse in its main report the scenarios recommended by the Electricity Reform Task Force. When this was pointed out, Deloitte conducted another analysis of a scenario that was close to that recommended by the Electricity Reform Task Force. Even then, there was a problem because the Deloitte’s report is a static analysis and does not take into account the impact of competition. The whole idea of creating a competitive electricity market and disaggregating Western Power is to subject the competitive elements of Western Power and its successor organisation to the discipline of the market, so I would expect there to be some improvement in the cost structure of Western Power. When members read the sensitivity analysis at the back of the Deloitte’s report, they will find that, if there is a 25 per cent reduction in Western Power’s costs, as a result of the impact of competition, there will be extra value in Western Power and its successor organisation compared with the value of a vertically integrated utility, and the State will receive higher payments. We will certainly not get increased electricity prices or reduced payments to the State from that particular element of the sensitivity analysis conducted by Deloitte. Deloitte’s report did not do two other things. Firstly, it did not take into account the extra revenue that will flow to the State as a result of improved economic growth. If this State has economic growth equivalent to $1 billion in net present value, obviously additional revenue will flow to the State Government from that economic growth. Treasury estimates that might be as high as $15 million per annum. Secondly, the report does not take into account that Western Australia receives $73 million a year in competition policy payments from the federal Government. I know that under the competition policy agreement signed by the previous coalition Government we would lose a significant proportion of those $73 million payments. Mr C.J. Barnett: Who is running the State? Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Opposition signed the agreement and put us into this position. We must take account of reality and be pragmatic; we would lose some of our competition policy payments if we did not reform the electricity system. The Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Minister for Energy should not worry too much about the Deloitte report. This issue was comprehensively dealt with in the Electricity Reform Task Force report. The real question is: does the Opposition favour lower electricity prices or does it favour jobs, investment and growth? If the latter, it will support electricity reform. If it opposes electricity reform, it will be opposing investment, jobs and growth. We may get a statement on electricity reform from the Leader of the Opposition, now that he is interjecting.
The whole idea of creating a competitive electricity market and disaggregating Western Power is to subject the competitive elements of Western Power and its successor organisation to the discipline of the market, so I would expect there to be some improvement in the cost structure of Western Power. When members read the sensitivity analysis at the back of the Deloitte’s report, they will find that, if there is a 25 per cent reduction in Western Power’s costs, as a result of the impact of competition, there will be extra value in Western Power and its successor organisation compared with the value of a vertically integrated utility, and the State will receive higher payments. We will certainly not get increased electricity prices or reduced payments to the State from that particular element of the sensitivity analysis conducted by Deloitte. Deloitte’s report did not do two other things. Firstly, it did not take into account the extra revenue that will flow to the State as a result of improved economic growth. If this State has economic growth equivalent to $1 billion in net present value, obviously additional revenue will flow to the State Government from that economic growth. Treasury estimates that might be as high as $15 million per annum. Secondly, the report does not take into account that Western Australia receives $73 million a year in competition policy payments from the federal Government. I know that under the competition policy agreement signed by the previous coalition Government we would lose a significant proportion of those $73 million payments. Mr C.J. Barnett: Who is running the State? Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Opposition signed the agreement and put us into this position. We must take account of reality and be pragmatic; we would lose some of our competition policy payments if we did not reform the electricity system. The Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Minister for Energy should not worry too much about the Deloitte report. This issue was comprehensively dealt with in the Electricity Reform Task Force report. The real question is: does the Opposition favour lower electricity prices or does it favour jobs, investment and growth? If the latter, it will support electricity reform. If it opposes electricity reform, it will be opposing investment, jobs and growth. We may get a statement on electricity reform from the Leader of the Opposition, now that he is interjecting.
Deloitte’s report did not do two other things. Firstly, it did not take into account the extra revenue that will flow to the State as a result of improved economic growth. If this State has economic growth equivalent to $1 billion in net present value, obviously additional revenue will flow to the State Government from that economic growth. Treasury estimates that might be as high as $15 million per annum. Secondly, the report does not take into account that Western Australia receives $73 million a year in competition policy payments from the federal Government. I know that under the competition policy agreement signed by the previous coalition Government we would lose a significant proportion of those $73 million payments. Mr C.J. Barnett: Who is running the State? Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Opposition signed the agreement and put us into this position. We must take account of reality and be pragmatic; we would lose some of our competition policy payments if we did not reform the electricity system. The Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Minister for Energy should not worry too much about the Deloitte report. This issue was comprehensively dealt with in the Electricity Reform Task Force report. The real question is: does the Opposition favour lower electricity prices or does it favour jobs, investment and growth? If the latter, it will support electricity reform. If it opposes electricity reform, it will be opposing investment, jobs and growth. We may get a statement on electricity reform from the Leader of the Opposition, now that he is interjecting.
Mr C.J. Barnett: Who is running the State? Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Opposition signed the agreement and put us into this position. We must take account of reality and be pragmatic; we would lose some of our competition policy payments if we did not reform the electricity system. The Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Minister for Energy should not worry too much about the Deloitte report. This issue was comprehensively dealt with in the Electricity Reform Task Force report. The real question is: does the Opposition favour lower electricity prices or does it favour jobs, investment and growth? If the latter, it will support electricity reform. If it opposes electricity reform, it will be opposing investment, jobs and growth. We may get a statement on electricity reform from the Leader of the Opposition, now that he is interjecting.
Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Opposition signed the agreement and put us into this position. We must take account of reality and be pragmatic; we would lose some of our competition policy payments if we did not reform the electricity system. The Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Minister for Energy should not worry too much about the Deloitte report. This issue was comprehensively dealt with in the Electricity Reform Task Force report. The real question is: does the Opposition favour lower electricity prices or does it favour jobs, investment and growth? If the latter, it will support electricity reform. If it opposes electricity reform, it will be opposing investment, jobs and growth. We may get a statement on electricity reform from the Leader of the Opposition, now that he is interjecting.
(1) Will the minister confirm a report in The West Australian on 18 October that, according to a joint Western Power-State Government document, electricity prices will rise by seven per cent in the first year following such a break-up? (2) How does the minister explain this contradiction, especially given his consistent comments that electricity prices will fall, and when will consumers see such a fall? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: I have an interesting question for the Opposition: why has the Leader of the Opposition stopped making comments on electricity reform? He used to say a lot on electricity reform but he has gone very quiet. Has it got something to do with the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia, the Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia, the Property Council of Australia and the Sustainable Energy industry Association all supporting electricity reform, not to mention the eminent members of the upper House who appear to support the electricity reform agenda? Let us come back to the questions that have been raised by the official opposition spokesperson on energy. (1)-(2) A report was compiled for Western Power by Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu; the report is on the Electricity Reform Task Force site. Mr J.H.D. Day: Are you going to admit a report was also done by Treasury? Mr E.S. RIPPER: The member for Darling Range is correct, Treasury was represented on the steering committee. The report is on the task force’s web site, and it is also analysed in one of its reports. The task force says there is a problem with Deloitte’s report. The problem is pretty basic: Deloitte did not analyse in its main report the scenarios recommended by the Electricity Reform Task Force. When this was pointed out, Deloitte conducted another analysis of a scenario that was close to that recommended by the Electricity Reform Task Force. Even then, there was a problem because the Deloitte’s report is a static analysis and does not take into account the impact of competition. The whole idea of creating a competitive electricity market and disaggregating Western Power is to subject the competitive elements of Western Power and its successor organisation to the discipline of the market, so I would expect there to be some improvement in the cost structure of Western Power. When members read the sensitivity analysis at the back of the Deloitte’s report, they will find that, if there is a 25 per cent reduction in Western Power’s costs, as a result of the impact of competition, there will be extra value in Western Power and its successor organisation compared with the value of a vertically integrated utility, and the State will receive higher payments. We will certainly not get increased electricity prices or reduced payments to the State from that particular element of the sensitivity analysis conducted by Deloitte. Deloitte’s report did not do two other things. Firstly, it did not take into account the extra revenue that will flow to the State as a result of improved economic growth. If this State has economic growth equivalent to $1 billion in net present value, obviously additional revenue will flow to the State Government from that economic growth. Treasury estimates that might be as high as $15 million per annum. Secondly, the report does not take into account that Western Australia receives $73 million a year in competition policy payments from the federal Government. I know that under the competition policy agreement signed by the previous coalition Government we would lose a significant proportion of those $73 million payments. Mr C.J. Barnett: Who is running the State? Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Opposition signed the agreement and put us into this position. We must take account of reality and be pragmatic; we would lose some of our competition policy payments if we did not reform the electricity system. The Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Minister for Energy should not worry too much about the Deloitte report. This issue was comprehensively dealt with in the Electricity Reform Task Force report. The real question is: does the Opposition favour lower electricity prices or does it favour jobs, investment and growth? If the latter, it will support electricity reform. If it opposes electricity reform, it will be opposing investment, jobs and growth. We may get a statement on electricity reform from the Leader of the Opposition, now that he is interjecting.
(2) How does the minister explain this contradiction, especially given his consistent comments that electricity prices will fall, and when will consumers see such a fall? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: I have an interesting question for the Opposition: why has the Leader of the Opposition stopped making comments on electricity reform? He used to say a lot on electricity reform but he has gone very quiet. Has it got something to do with the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia, the Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia, the Property Council of Australia and the Sustainable Energy industry Association all supporting electricity reform, not to mention the eminent members of the upper House who appear to support the electricity reform agenda? Let us come back to the questions that have been raised by the official opposition spokesperson on energy. (1)-(2) A report was compiled for Western Power by Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu; the report is on the Electricity Reform Task Force site. Mr J.H.D. Day: Are you going to admit a report was also done by Treasury? Mr E.S. RIPPER: The member for Darling Range is correct, Treasury was represented on the steering committee. The report is on the task force’s web site, and it is also analysed in one of its reports. The task force says there is a problem with Deloitte’s report. The problem is pretty basic: Deloitte did not analyse in its main report the scenarios recommended by the Electricity Reform Task Force. When this was pointed out, Deloitte conducted another analysis of a scenario that was close to that recommended by the Electricity Reform Task Force. Even then, there was a problem because the Deloitte’s report is a static analysis and does not take into account the impact of competition. The whole idea of creating a competitive electricity market and disaggregating Western Power is to subject the competitive elements of Western Power and its successor organisation to the discipline of the market, so I would expect there to be some improvement in the cost structure of Western Power. When members read the sensitivity analysis at the back of the Deloitte’s report, they will find that, if there is a 25 per cent reduction in Western Power’s costs, as a result of the impact of competition, there will be extra value in Western Power and its successor organisation compared with the value of a vertically integrated utility, and the State will receive higher payments. We will certainly not get increased electricity prices or reduced payments to the State from that particular element of the sensitivity analysis conducted by Deloitte. Deloitte’s report did not do two other things. Firstly, it did not take into account the extra revenue that will flow to the State as a result of improved economic growth. If this State has economic growth equivalent to $1 billion in net present value, obviously additional revenue will flow to the State Government from that economic growth. Treasury estimates that might be as high as $15 million per annum. Secondly, the report does not take into account that Western Australia receives $73 million a year in competition policy payments from the federal Government. I know that under the competition policy agreement signed by the previous coalition Government we would lose a significant proportion of those $73 million payments. Mr C.J. Barnett: Who is running the State? Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Opposition signed the agreement and put us into this position. We must take account of reality and be pragmatic; we would lose some of our competition policy payments if we did not reform the electricity system. The Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Minister for Energy should not worry too much about the Deloitte report. This issue was comprehensively dealt with in the Electricity Reform Task Force report. The real question is: does the Opposition favour lower electricity prices or does it favour jobs, investment and growth? If the latter, it will support electricity reform. If it opposes electricity reform, it will be opposing investment, jobs and growth. We may get a statement on electricity reform from the Leader of the Opposition, now that he is interjecting.
Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: I have an interesting question for the Opposition: why has the Leader of the Opposition stopped making comments on electricity reform? He used to say a lot on electricity reform but he has gone very quiet. Has it got something to do with the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia, the Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia, the Property Council of Australia and the Sustainable Energy industry Association all supporting electricity reform, not to mention the eminent members of the upper House who appear to support the electricity reform agenda? Let us come back to the questions that have been raised by the official opposition spokesperson on energy. (1)-(2) A report was compiled for Western Power by Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu; the report is on the Electricity Reform Task Force site. Mr J.H.D. Day: Are you going to admit a report was also done by Treasury? Mr E.S. RIPPER: The member for Darling Range is correct, Treasury was represented on the steering committee. The report is on the task force’s web site, and it is also analysed in one of its reports. The task force says there is a problem with Deloitte’s report. The problem is pretty basic: Deloitte did not analyse in its main report the scenarios recommended by the Electricity Reform Task Force. When this was pointed out, Deloitte conducted another analysis of a scenario that was close to that recommended by the Electricity Reform Task Force. Even then, there was a problem because the Deloitte’s report is a static analysis and does not take into account the impact of competition. The whole idea of creating a competitive electricity market and disaggregating Western Power is to subject the competitive elements of Western Power and its successor organisation to the discipline of the market, so I would expect there to be some improvement in the cost structure of Western Power. When members read the sensitivity analysis at the back of the Deloitte’s report, they will find that, if there is a 25 per cent reduction in Western Power’s costs, as a result of the impact of competition, there will be extra value in Western Power and its successor organisation compared with the value of a vertically integrated utility, and the State will receive higher payments. We will certainly not get increased electricity prices or reduced payments to the State from that particular element of the sensitivity analysis conducted by Deloitte. Deloitte’s report did not do two other things. Firstly, it did not take into account the extra revenue that will flow to the State as a result of improved economic growth. If this State has economic growth equivalent to $1 billion in net present value, obviously additional revenue will flow to the State Government from that economic growth. Treasury estimates that might be as high as $15 million per annum. Secondly, the report does not take into account that Western Australia receives $73 million a year in competition policy payments from the federal Government. I know that under the competition policy agreement signed by the previous coalition Government we would lose a significant proportion of those $73 million payments. Mr C.J. Barnett: Who is running the State? Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Opposition signed the agreement and put us into this position. We must take account of reality and be pragmatic; we would lose some of our competition policy payments if we did not reform the electricity system. The Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Minister for Energy should not worry too much about the Deloitte report. This issue was comprehensively dealt with in the Electricity Reform Task Force report. The real question is: does the Opposition favour lower electricity prices or does it favour jobs, investment and growth? If the latter, it will support electricity reform. If it opposes electricity reform, it will be opposing investment, jobs and growth. We may get a statement on electricity reform from the Leader of the Opposition, now that he is interjecting.
I have an interesting question for the Opposition: why has the Leader of the Opposition stopped making comments on electricity reform? He used to say a lot on electricity reform but he has gone very quiet. Has it got something to do with the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia, the Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia, the Property Council of Australia and the Sustainable Energy industry Association all supporting electricity reform, not to mention the eminent members of the upper House who appear to support the electricity reform agenda? Let us come back to the questions that have been raised by the official opposition spokesperson on energy. (1)-(2) A report was compiled for Western Power by Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu; the report is on the Electricity Reform Task Force site. Mr J.H.D. Day: Are you going to admit a report was also done by Treasury? Mr E.S. RIPPER: The member for Darling Range is correct, Treasury was represented on the steering committee. The report is on the task force’s web site, and it is also analysed in one of its reports. The task force says there is a problem with Deloitte’s report. The problem is pretty basic: Deloitte did not analyse in its main report the scenarios recommended by the Electricity Reform Task Force. When this was pointed out, Deloitte conducted another analysis of a scenario that was close to that recommended by the Electricity Reform Task Force. Even then, there was a problem because the Deloitte’s report is a static analysis and does not take into account the impact of competition. The whole idea of creating a competitive electricity market and disaggregating Western Power is to subject the competitive elements of Western Power and its successor organisation to the discipline of the market, so I would expect there to be some improvement in the cost structure of Western Power. When members read the sensitivity analysis at the back of the Deloitte’s report, they will find that, if there is a 25 per cent reduction in Western Power’s costs, as a result of the impact of competition, there will be extra value in Western Power and its successor organisation compared with the value of a vertically integrated utility, and the State will receive higher payments. We will certainly not get increased electricity prices or reduced payments to the State from that particular element of the sensitivity analysis conducted by Deloitte. Deloitte’s report did not do two other things. Firstly, it did not take into account the extra revenue that will flow to the State as a result of improved economic growth. If this State has economic growth equivalent to $1 billion in net present value, obviously additional revenue will flow to the State Government from that economic growth. Treasury estimates that might be as high as $15 million per annum. Secondly, the report does not take into account that Western Australia receives $73 million a year in competition policy payments from the federal Government. I know that under the competition policy agreement signed by the previous coalition Government we would lose a significant proportion of those $73 million payments. Mr C.J. Barnett: Who is running the State? Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Opposition signed the agreement and put us into this position. We must take account of reality and be pragmatic; we would lose some of our competition policy payments if we did not reform the electricity system. The Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Minister for Energy should not worry too much about the Deloitte report. This issue was comprehensively dealt with in the Electricity Reform Task Force report. The real question is: does the Opposition favour lower electricity prices or does it favour jobs, investment and growth? If the latter, it will support electricity reform. If it opposes electricity reform, it will be opposing investment, jobs and growth. We may get a statement on electricity reform from the Leader of the Opposition, now that he is interjecting.
(1)-(2) A report was compiled for Western Power by Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu; the report is on the Electricity Reform Task Force site. Mr J.H.D. Day: Are you going to admit a report was also done by Treasury? Mr E.S. RIPPER: The member for Darling Range is correct, Treasury was represented on the steering committee. The report is on the task force’s web site, and it is also analysed in one of its reports. The task force says there is a problem with Deloitte’s report. The problem is pretty basic: Deloitte did not analyse in its main report the scenarios recommended by the Electricity Reform Task Force. When this was pointed out, Deloitte conducted another analysis of a scenario that was close to that recommended by the Electricity Reform Task Force. Even then, there was a problem because the Deloitte’s report is a static analysis and does not take into account the impact of competition. The whole idea of creating a competitive electricity market and disaggregating Western Power is to subject the competitive elements of Western Power and its successor organisation to the discipline of the market, so I would expect there to be some improvement in the cost structure of Western Power. When members read the sensitivity analysis at the back of the Deloitte’s report, they will find that, if there is a 25 per cent reduction in Western Power’s costs, as a result of the impact of competition, there will be extra value in Western Power and its successor organisation compared with the value of a vertically integrated utility, and the State will receive higher payments. We will certainly not get increased electricity prices or reduced payments to the State from that particular element of the sensitivity analysis conducted by Deloitte. Deloitte’s report did not do two other things. Firstly, it did not take into account the extra revenue that will flow to the State as a result of improved economic growth. If this State has economic growth equivalent to $1 billion in net present value, obviously additional revenue will flow to the State Government from that economic growth. Treasury estimates that might be as high as $15 million per annum. Secondly, the report does not take into account that Western Australia receives $73 million a year in competition policy payments from the federal Government. I know that under the competition policy agreement signed by the previous coalition Government we would lose a significant proportion of those $73 million payments. Mr C.J. Barnett: Who is running the State? Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Opposition signed the agreement and put us into this position. We must take account of reality and be pragmatic; we would lose some of our competition policy payments if we did not reform the electricity system. The Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Minister for Energy should not worry too much about the Deloitte report. This issue was comprehensively dealt with in the Electricity Reform Task Force report. The real question is: does the Opposition favour lower electricity prices or does it favour jobs, investment and growth? If the latter, it will support electricity reform. If it opposes electricity reform, it will be opposing investment, jobs and growth. We may get a statement on electricity reform from the Leader of the Opposition, now that he is interjecting.
Mr J.H.D. Day: Are you going to admit a report was also done by Treasury? Mr E.S. RIPPER: The member for Darling Range is correct, Treasury was represented on the steering committee. The report is on the task force’s web site, and it is also analysed in one of its reports. The task force says there is a problem with Deloitte’s report. The problem is pretty basic: Deloitte did not analyse in its main report the scenarios recommended by the Electricity Reform Task Force. When this was pointed out, Deloitte conducted another analysis of a scenario that was close to that recommended by the Electricity Reform Task Force. Even then, there was a problem because the Deloitte’s report is a static analysis and does not take into account the impact of competition. The whole idea of creating a competitive electricity market and disaggregating Western Power is to subject the competitive elements of Western Power and its successor organisation to the discipline of the market, so I would expect there to be some improvement in the cost structure of Western Power. When members read the sensitivity analysis at the back of the Deloitte’s report, they will find that, if there is a 25 per cent reduction in Western Power’s costs, as a result of the impact of competition, there will be extra value in Western Power and its successor organisation compared with the value of a vertically integrated utility, and the State will receive higher payments. We will certainly not get increased electricity prices or reduced payments to the State from that particular element of the sensitivity analysis conducted by Deloitte. Deloitte’s report did not do two other things. Firstly, it did not take into account the extra revenue that will flow to the State as a result of improved economic growth. If this State has economic growth equivalent to $1 billion in net present value, obviously additional revenue will flow to the State Government from that economic growth. Treasury estimates that might be as high as $15 million per annum. Secondly, the report does not take into account that Western Australia receives $73 million a year in competition policy payments from the federal Government. I know that under the competition policy agreement signed by the previous coalition Government we would lose a significant proportion of those $73 million payments. Mr C.J. Barnett: Who is running the State? Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Opposition signed the agreement and put us into this position. We must take account of reality and be pragmatic; we would lose some of our competition policy payments if we did not reform the electricity system. The Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Minister for Energy should not worry too much about the Deloitte report. This issue was comprehensively dealt with in the Electricity Reform Task Force report. The real question is: does the Opposition favour lower electricity prices or does it favour jobs, investment and growth? If the latter, it will support electricity reform. If it opposes electricity reform, it will be opposing investment, jobs and growth. We may get a statement on electricity reform from the Leader of the Opposition, now that he is interjecting.
Mr E.S. RIPPER: The member for Darling Range is correct, Treasury was represented on the steering committee. The report is on the task force’s web site, and it is also analysed in one of its reports. The task force says there is a problem with Deloitte’s report. The problem is pretty basic: Deloitte did not analyse in its main report the scenarios recommended by the Electricity Reform Task Force. When this was pointed out, Deloitte conducted another analysis of a scenario that was close to that recommended by the Electricity Reform Task Force. Even then, there was a problem because the Deloitte’s report is a static analysis and does not take into account the impact of competition. The whole idea of creating a competitive electricity market and disaggregating Western Power is to subject the competitive elements of Western Power and its successor organisation to the discipline of the market, so I would expect there to be some improvement in the cost structure of Western Power. When members read the sensitivity analysis at the back of the Deloitte’s report, they will find that, if there is a 25 per cent reduction in Western Power’s costs, as a result of the impact of competition, there will be extra value in Western Power and its successor organisation compared with the value of a vertically integrated utility, and the State will receive higher payments. We will certainly not get increased electricity prices or reduced payments to the State from that particular element of the sensitivity analysis conducted by Deloitte. Deloitte’s report did not do two other things. Firstly, it did not take into account the extra revenue that will flow to the State as a result of improved economic growth. If this State has economic growth equivalent to $1 billion in net present value, obviously additional revenue will flow to the State Government from that economic growth. Treasury estimates that might be as high as $15 million per annum. Secondly, the report does not take into account that Western Australia receives $73 million a year in competition policy payments from the federal Government. I know that under the competition policy agreement signed by the previous coalition Government we would lose a significant proportion of those $73 million payments. Mr C.J. Barnett: Who is running the State? Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Opposition signed the agreement and put us into this position. We must take account of reality and be pragmatic; we would lose some of our competition policy payments if we did not reform the electricity system. The Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Minister for Energy should not worry too much about the Deloitte report. This issue was comprehensively dealt with in the Electricity Reform Task Force report. The real question is: does the Opposition favour lower electricity prices or does it favour jobs, investment and growth? If the latter, it will support electricity reform. If it opposes electricity reform, it will be opposing investment, jobs and growth. We may get a statement on electricity reform from the Leader of the Opposition, now that he is interjecting.
The whole idea of creating a competitive electricity market and disaggregating Western Power is to subject the competitive elements of Western Power and its successor organisation to the discipline of the market, so I would expect there to be some improvement in the cost structure of Western Power. When members read the sensitivity analysis at the back of the Deloitte’s report, they will find that, if there is a 25 per cent reduction in Western Power’s costs, as a result of the impact of competition, there will be extra value in Western Power and its successor organisation compared with the value of a vertically integrated utility, and the State will receive higher payments. We will certainly not get increased electricity prices or reduced payments to the State from that particular element of the sensitivity analysis conducted by Deloitte. Deloitte’s report did not do two other things. Firstly, it did not take into account the extra revenue that will flow to the State as a result of improved economic growth. If this State has economic growth equivalent to $1 billion in net present value, obviously additional revenue will flow to the State Government from that economic growth. Treasury estimates that might be as high as $15 million per annum. Secondly, the report does not take into account that Western Australia receives $73 million a year in competition policy payments from the federal Government. I know that under the competition policy agreement signed by the previous coalition Government we would lose a significant proportion of those $73 million payments. Mr C.J. Barnett: Who is running the State? Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Opposition signed the agreement and put us into this position. We must take account of reality and be pragmatic; we would lose some of our competition policy payments if we did not reform the electricity system. The Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Minister for Energy should not worry too much about the Deloitte report. This issue was comprehensively dealt with in the Electricity Reform Task Force report. The real question is: does the Opposition favour lower electricity prices or does it favour jobs, investment and growth? If the latter, it will support electricity reform. If it opposes electricity reform, it will be opposing investment, jobs and growth. We may get a statement on electricity reform from the Leader of the Opposition, now that he is interjecting.
Deloitte’s report did not do two other things. Firstly, it did not take into account the extra revenue that will flow to the State as a result of improved economic growth. If this State has economic growth equivalent to $1 billion in net present value, obviously additional revenue will flow to the State Government from that economic growth. Treasury estimates that might be as high as $15 million per annum. Secondly, the report does not take into account that Western Australia receives $73 million a year in competition policy payments from the federal Government. I know that under the competition policy agreement signed by the previous coalition Government we would lose a significant proportion of those $73 million payments. Mr C.J. Barnett: Who is running the State? Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Opposition signed the agreement and put us into this position. We must take account of reality and be pragmatic; we would lose some of our competition policy payments if we did not reform the electricity system. The Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Minister for Energy should not worry too much about the Deloitte report. This issue was comprehensively dealt with in the Electricity Reform Task Force report. The real question is: does the Opposition favour lower electricity prices or does it favour jobs, investment and growth? If the latter, it will support electricity reform. If it opposes electricity reform, it will be opposing investment, jobs and growth. We may get a statement on electricity reform from the Leader of the Opposition, now that he is interjecting.
Mr C.J. Barnett: Who is running the State? Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Opposition signed the agreement and put us into this position. We must take account of reality and be pragmatic; we would lose some of our competition policy payments if we did not reform the electricity system. The Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Minister for Energy should not worry too much about the Deloitte report. This issue was comprehensively dealt with in the Electricity Reform Task Force report. The real question is: does the Opposition favour lower electricity prices or does it favour jobs, investment and growth? If the latter, it will support electricity reform. If it opposes electricity reform, it will be opposing investment, jobs and growth. We may get a statement on electricity reform from the Leader of the Opposition, now that he is interjecting.
Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Opposition signed the agreement and put us into this position. We must take account of reality and be pragmatic; we would lose some of our competition policy payments if we did not reform the electricity system. The Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Minister for Energy should not worry too much about the Deloitte report. This issue was comprehensively dealt with in the Electricity Reform Task Force report. The real question is: does the Opposition favour lower electricity prices or does it favour jobs, investment and growth? If the latter, it will support electricity reform. If it opposes electricity reform, it will be opposing investment, jobs and growth. We may get a statement on electricity reform from the Leader of the Opposition, now that he is interjecting.
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.