❓ Question regarding evidence for National Competition Policy payments being tied to liquor industry deregulation and requests tabling of relevant documents. The Treasurer confirms the link, tables documents, and criticises the opposition.
AnsweredQoN 1145Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to a comment made on 12 October 2001 by the Minister for Racing and Gaming that one of Labor’s election promises was to oppose deregulation of the liquor industry in order to protect retailers and encourage responsible behaviour around alcohol. (1) What evidence can he provide to prove the that national competition policy payments will be lost unless he deregulates trading in the liquor industry, given that that was the excuse he tried to use to justify the deregulation of trading hours? (2) Will the Treasurer table the documents from the National Competition Council stating that payments will be withheld if the Government does not provide liquor stores with an additional 36 hours of trading, and restaurants with additional capacity to sell liquor that is not ancillary to a meal? Mr E.S. RIPPER
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(2) I thank the member for some notice of this question. I will table some documents. In a letter to the Premier on 18 November 2002 the President of the National Competition Council clearly indicates that he expects reform to liquor licensing legislation, otherwise payments will be deducted or suspended. The federal Treasurer is expected to make a decision on Western Australia’s 2003-04 competition payments in October or November this year. There has been a lot of ill-informed comment from members opposite to the effect that the threat to competition policy payments is somehow not real. The threat to competition payments is all too real; it is a very significant threat to the Government’s 2003-04 budget. I would love to debate the detail of the recommendations of the National Competition Council to Peter Costello for reductions in our competition policy payment. Unfortunately, the Council of Australian Governments agreement on competition policy, which was signed off by the previous Government, imposes confidentiality obligations on this Government while the federal Treasurer considers the recommendations. If Peter Costello releases us from those confidentiality obligations, I will be delighted to engage in the debate. Given the views on various competition policy matters expressed by members of the Opposition, I hope they join with the Government in seeking to preserve Western Australia’s competition policy payments. I have given up hope of that from the quislings in the Liberal Opposition. However, I hope that the National Party takes to heart the interests of the State and uses its relationship with the Deputy Prime Minister to see whether we can get a sensible approach from the Commonwealth Government on our competition policy payments. I intend to table a copy of the National Competition Council’s letter and the 2002 National Competition Council policy assessment of liquor licensing which expresses concern about the discriminatory treatment between different types of premises and packaged liquor outlets. In reading through the letter from Graham Samuel to the Premier, I noticed something that has great relevance to an earlier answer I gave the House. The letter from Graham Samuel reads - Finally, I wish to reiterate the Council’s view of the considerable importance of the current process of reform of the State’s electricity monopoly corporation, Western Power. The Council reported on this matter in the 2002 assessment, noting that Western Australia has an obligation derived from clause 4 of the Competition Principles Agreement to the structural reform of Western Power, which the State is addressing consistent with its NCP reform obligations by conducting a comprehensive review of the structure of Western Power against clause 4 principles. As indicated in the 2002 assessment report, the Council believes the reform of Western Power is the most important competition issue facing the State. . . . The President of the NCC draws attention to the obligations of the State because they are formal obligations that were signed up to by the Cabinet of which the Leader of the Opposition was such a senior member. I am pleased to table the two documents to which I referred. [See paper No 1534.]
(1) What evidence can he provide to prove the that national competition policy payments will be lost unless he deregulates trading in the liquor industry, given that that was the excuse he tried to use to justify the deregulation of trading hours? (2) Will the Treasurer table the documents from the National Competition Council stating that payments will be withheld if the Government does not provide liquor stores with an additional 36 hours of trading, and restaurants with additional capacity to sell liquor that is not ancillary to a meal? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) I thank the member for some notice of this question. I will table some documents. In a letter to the Premier on 18 November 2002 the President of the National Competition Council clearly indicates that he expects reform to liquor licensing legislation, otherwise payments will be deducted or suspended. The federal Treasurer is expected to make a decision on Western Australia’s 2003-04 competition payments in October or November this year. There has been a lot of ill-informed comment from members opposite to the effect that the threat to competition policy payments is somehow not real. The threat to competition payments is all too real; it is a very significant threat to the Government’s 2003-04 budget. I would love to debate the detail of the recommendations of the National Competition Council to Peter Costello for reductions in our competition policy payment. Unfortunately, the Council of Australian Governments agreement on competition policy, which was signed off by the previous Government, imposes confidentiality obligations on this Government while the federal Treasurer considers the recommendations. If Peter Costello releases us from those confidentiality obligations, I will be delighted to engage in the debate. Given the views on various competition policy matters expressed by members of the Opposition, I hope they join with the Government in seeking to preserve Western Australia’s competition policy payments. I have given up hope of that from the quislings in the Liberal Opposition. However, I hope that the National Party takes to heart the interests of the State and uses its relationship with the Deputy Prime Minister to see whether we can get a sensible approach from the Commonwealth Government on our competition policy payments. I intend to table a copy of the National Competition Council’s letter and the 2002 National Competition Council policy assessment of liquor licensing which expresses concern about the discriminatory treatment between different types of premises and packaged liquor outlets. In reading through the letter from Graham Samuel to the Premier, I noticed something that has great relevance to an earlier answer I gave the House. The letter from Graham Samuel reads - Finally, I wish to reiterate the Council’s view of the considerable importance of the current process of reform of the State’s electricity monopoly corporation, Western Power. The Council reported on this matter in the 2002 assessment, noting that Western Australia has an obligation derived from clause 4 of the Competition Principles Agreement to the structural reform of Western Power, which the State is addressing consistent with its NCP reform obligations by conducting a comprehensive review of the structure of Western Power against clause 4 principles. As indicated in the 2002 assessment report, the Council believes the reform of Western Power is the most important competition issue facing the State. . . . The President of the NCC draws attention to the obligations of the State because they are formal obligations that were signed up to by the Cabinet of which the Leader of the Opposition was such a senior member. I am pleased to table the two documents to which I referred. [See paper No 1534.]
(2) Will the Treasurer table the documents from the National Competition Council stating that payments will be withheld if the Government does not provide liquor stores with an additional 36 hours of trading, and restaurants with additional capacity to sell liquor that is not ancillary to a meal? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) I thank the member for some notice of this question. I will table some documents. In a letter to the Premier on 18 November 2002 the President of the National Competition Council clearly indicates that he expects reform to liquor licensing legislation, otherwise payments will be deducted or suspended. The federal Treasurer is expected to make a decision on Western Australia’s 2003-04 competition payments in October or November this year. There has been a lot of ill-informed comment from members opposite to the effect that the threat to competition policy payments is somehow not real. The threat to competition payments is all too real; it is a very significant threat to the Government’s 2003-04 budget. I would love to debate the detail of the recommendations of the National Competition Council to Peter Costello for reductions in our competition policy payment. Unfortunately, the Council of Australian Governments agreement on competition policy, which was signed off by the previous Government, imposes confidentiality obligations on this Government while the federal Treasurer considers the recommendations. If Peter Costello releases us from those confidentiality obligations, I will be delighted to engage in the debate. Given the views on various competition policy matters expressed by members of the Opposition, I hope they join with the Government in seeking to preserve Western Australia’s competition policy payments. I have given up hope of that from the quislings in the Liberal Opposition. However, I hope that the National Party takes to heart the interests of the State and uses its relationship with the Deputy Prime Minister to see whether we can get a sensible approach from the Commonwealth Government on our competition policy payments. I intend to table a copy of the National Competition Council’s letter and the 2002 National Competition Council policy assessment of liquor licensing which expresses concern about the discriminatory treatment between different types of premises and packaged liquor outlets. In reading through the letter from Graham Samuel to the Premier, I noticed something that has great relevance to an earlier answer I gave the House. The letter from Graham Samuel reads - Finally, I wish to reiterate the Council’s view of the considerable importance of the current process of reform of the State’s electricity monopoly corporation, Western Power. The Council reported on this matter in the 2002 assessment, noting that Western Australia has an obligation derived from clause 4 of the Competition Principles Agreement to the structural reform of Western Power, which the State is addressing consistent with its NCP reform obligations by conducting a comprehensive review of the structure of Western Power against clause 4 principles. As indicated in the 2002 assessment report, the Council believes the reform of Western Power is the most important competition issue facing the State. . . . The President of the NCC draws attention to the obligations of the State because they are formal obligations that were signed up to by the Cabinet of which the Leader of the Opposition was such a senior member. I am pleased to table the two documents to which I referred. [See paper No 1534.]
Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) I thank the member for some notice of this question. I will table some documents. In a letter to the Premier on 18 November 2002 the President of the National Competition Council clearly indicates that he expects reform to liquor licensing legislation, otherwise payments will be deducted or suspended. The federal Treasurer is expected to make a decision on Western Australia’s 2003-04 competition payments in October or November this year. There has been a lot of ill-informed comment from members opposite to the effect that the threat to competition policy payments is somehow not real. The threat to competition payments is all too real; it is a very significant threat to the Government’s 2003-04 budget. I would love to debate the detail of the recommendations of the National Competition Council to Peter Costello for reductions in our competition policy payment. Unfortunately, the Council of Australian Governments agreement on competition policy, which was signed off by the previous Government, imposes confidentiality obligations on this Government while the federal Treasurer considers the recommendations. If Peter Costello releases us from those confidentiality obligations, I will be delighted to engage in the debate. Given the views on various competition policy matters expressed by members of the Opposition, I hope they join with the Government in seeking to preserve Western Australia’s competition policy payments. I have given up hope of that from the quislings in the Liberal Opposition. However, I hope that the National Party takes to heart the interests of the State and uses its relationship with the Deputy Prime Minister to see whether we can get a sensible approach from the Commonwealth Government on our competition policy payments. I intend to table a copy of the National Competition Council’s letter and the 2002 National Competition Council policy assessment of liquor licensing which expresses concern about the discriminatory treatment between different types of premises and packaged liquor outlets. In reading through the letter from Graham Samuel to the Premier, I noticed something that has great relevance to an earlier answer I gave the House. The letter from Graham Samuel reads - Finally, I wish to reiterate the Council’s view of the considerable importance of the current process of reform of the State’s electricity monopoly corporation, Western Power. The Council reported on this matter in the 2002 assessment, noting that Western Australia has an obligation derived from clause 4 of the Competition Principles Agreement to the structural reform of Western Power, which the State is addressing consistent with its NCP reform obligations by conducting a comprehensive review of the structure of Western Power against clause 4 principles. As indicated in the 2002 assessment report, the Council believes the reform of Western Power is the most important competition issue facing the State. . . . The President of the NCC draws attention to the obligations of the State because they are formal obligations that were signed up to by the Cabinet of which the Leader of the Opposition was such a senior member. I am pleased to table the two documents to which I referred. [See paper No 1534.]
(1)-(2) I thank the member for some notice of this question. I will table some documents. In a letter to the Premier on 18 November 2002 the President of the National Competition Council clearly indicates that he expects reform to liquor licensing legislation, otherwise payments will be deducted or suspended. The federal Treasurer is expected to make a decision on Western Australia’s 2003-04 competition payments in October or November this year. There has been a lot of ill-informed comment from members opposite to the effect that the threat to competition policy payments is somehow not real. The threat to competition payments is all too real; it is a very significant threat to the Government’s 2003-04 budget. I would love to debate the detail of the recommendations of the National Competition Council to Peter Costello for reductions in our competition policy payment. Unfortunately, the Council of Australian Governments agreement on competition policy, which was signed off by the previous Government, imposes confidentiality obligations on this Government while the federal Treasurer considers the recommendations. If Peter Costello releases us from those confidentiality obligations, I will be delighted to engage in the debate. Given the views on various competition policy matters expressed by members of the Opposition, I hope they join with the Government in seeking to preserve Western Australia’s competition policy payments. I have given up hope of that from the quislings in the Liberal Opposition. However, I hope that the National Party takes to heart the interests of the State and uses its relationship with the Deputy Prime Minister to see whether we can get a sensible approach from the Commonwealth Government on our competition policy payments. I intend to table a copy of the National Competition Council’s letter and the 2002 National Competition Council policy assessment of liquor licensing which expresses concern about the discriminatory treatment between different types of premises and packaged liquor outlets. In reading through the letter from Graham Samuel to the Premier, I noticed something that has great relevance to an earlier answer I gave the House. The letter from Graham Samuel reads - Finally, I wish to reiterate the Council’s view of the considerable importance of the current process of reform of the State’s electricity monopoly corporation, Western Power. The Council reported on this matter in the 2002 assessment, noting that Western Australia has an obligation derived from clause 4 of the Competition Principles Agreement to the structural reform of Western Power, which the State is addressing consistent with its NCP reform obligations by conducting a comprehensive review of the structure of Western Power against clause 4 principles. As indicated in the 2002 assessment report, the Council believes the reform of Western Power is the most important competition issue facing the State. . . . The President of the NCC draws attention to the obligations of the State because they are formal obligations that were signed up to by the Cabinet of which the Leader of the Opposition was such a senior member. I am pleased to table the two documents to which I referred. [See paper No 1534.]
As indicated in the 2002 assessment report, the Council believes the reform of Western Power is the most important competition issue facing the State. . . .
(1) What evidence can he provide to prove the that national competition policy payments will be lost unless he deregulates trading in the liquor industry, given that that was the excuse he tried to use to justify the deregulation of trading hours? (2) Will the Treasurer table the documents from the National Competition Council stating that payments will be withheld if the Government does not provide liquor stores with an additional 36 hours of trading, and restaurants with additional capacity to sell liquor that is not ancillary to a meal? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) I thank the member for some notice of this question. I will table some documents. In a letter to the Premier on 18 November 2002 the President of the National Competition Council clearly indicates that he expects reform to liquor licensing legislation, otherwise payments will be deducted or suspended. The federal Treasurer is expected to make a decision on Western Australia’s 2003-04 competition payments in October or November this year. There has been a lot of ill-informed comment from members opposite to the effect that the threat to competition policy payments is somehow not real. The threat to competition payments is all too real; it is a very significant threat to the Government’s 2003-04 budget. I would love to debate the detail of the recommendations of the National Competition Council to Peter Costello for reductions in our competition policy payment. Unfortunately, the Council of Australian Governments agreement on competition policy, which was signed off by the previous Government, imposes confidentiality obligations on this Government while the federal Treasurer considers the recommendations. If Peter Costello releases us from those confidentiality obligations, I will be delighted to engage in the debate. Given the views on various competition policy matters expressed by members of the Opposition, I hope they join with the Government in seeking to preserve Western Australia’s competition policy payments. I have given up hope of that from the quislings in the Liberal Opposition. However, I hope that the National Party takes to heart the interests of the State and uses its relationship with the Deputy Prime Minister to see whether we can get a sensible approach from the Commonwealth Government on our competition policy payments. I intend to table a copy of the National Competition Council’s letter and the 2002 National Competition Council policy assessment of liquor licensing which expresses concern about the discriminatory treatment between different types of premises and packaged liquor outlets. In reading through the letter from Graham Samuel to the Premier, I noticed something that has great relevance to an earlier answer I gave the House. The letter from Graham Samuel reads - Finally, I wish to reiterate the Council’s view of the considerable importance of the current process of reform of the State’s electricity monopoly corporation, Western Power. The Council reported on this matter in the 2002 assessment, noting that Western Australia has an obligation derived from clause 4 of the Competition Principles Agreement to the structural reform of Western Power, which the State is addressing consistent with its NCP reform obligations by conducting a comprehensive review of the structure of Western Power against clause 4 principles. As indicated in the 2002 assessment report, the Council believes the reform of Western Power is the most important competition issue facing the State. . . . The President of the NCC draws attention to the obligations of the State because they are formal obligations that were signed up to by the Cabinet of which the Leader of the Opposition was such a senior member. I am pleased to table the two documents to which I referred. [See paper No 1534.]
(2) Will the Treasurer table the documents from the National Competition Council stating that payments will be withheld if the Government does not provide liquor stores with an additional 36 hours of trading, and restaurants with additional capacity to sell liquor that is not ancillary to a meal? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) I thank the member for some notice of this question. I will table some documents. In a letter to the Premier on 18 November 2002 the President of the National Competition Council clearly indicates that he expects reform to liquor licensing legislation, otherwise payments will be deducted or suspended. The federal Treasurer is expected to make a decision on Western Australia’s 2003-04 competition payments in October or November this year. There has been a lot of ill-informed comment from members opposite to the effect that the threat to competition policy payments is somehow not real. The threat to competition payments is all too real; it is a very significant threat to the Government’s 2003-04 budget. I would love to debate the detail of the recommendations of the National Competition Council to Peter Costello for reductions in our competition policy payment. Unfortunately, the Council of Australian Governments agreement on competition policy, which was signed off by the previous Government, imposes confidentiality obligations on this Government while the federal Treasurer considers the recommendations. If Peter Costello releases us from those confidentiality obligations, I will be delighted to engage in the debate. Given the views on various competition policy matters expressed by members of the Opposition, I hope they join with the Government in seeking to preserve Western Australia’s competition policy payments. I have given up hope of that from the quislings in the Liberal Opposition. However, I hope that the National Party takes to heart the interests of the State and uses its relationship with the Deputy Prime Minister to see whether we can get a sensible approach from the Commonwealth Government on our competition policy payments. I intend to table a copy of the National Competition Council’s letter and the 2002 National Competition Council policy assessment of liquor licensing which expresses concern about the discriminatory treatment between different types of premises and packaged liquor outlets. In reading through the letter from Graham Samuel to the Premier, I noticed something that has great relevance to an earlier answer I gave the House. The letter from Graham Samuel reads - Finally, I wish to reiterate the Council’s view of the considerable importance of the current process of reform of the State’s electricity monopoly corporation, Western Power. The Council reported on this matter in the 2002 assessment, noting that Western Australia has an obligation derived from clause 4 of the Competition Principles Agreement to the structural reform of Western Power, which the State is addressing consistent with its NCP reform obligations by conducting a comprehensive review of the structure of Western Power against clause 4 principles. As indicated in the 2002 assessment report, the Council believes the reform of Western Power is the most important competition issue facing the State. . . . The President of the NCC draws attention to the obligations of the State because they are formal obligations that were signed up to by the Cabinet of which the Leader of the Opposition was such a senior member. I am pleased to table the two documents to which I referred. [See paper No 1534.]
Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) I thank the member for some notice of this question. I will table some documents. In a letter to the Premier on 18 November 2002 the President of the National Competition Council clearly indicates that he expects reform to liquor licensing legislation, otherwise payments will be deducted or suspended. The federal Treasurer is expected to make a decision on Western Australia’s 2003-04 competition payments in October or November this year. There has been a lot of ill-informed comment from members opposite to the effect that the threat to competition policy payments is somehow not real. The threat to competition payments is all too real; it is a very significant threat to the Government’s 2003-04 budget. I would love to debate the detail of the recommendations of the National Competition Council to Peter Costello for reductions in our competition policy payment. Unfortunately, the Council of Australian Governments agreement on competition policy, which was signed off by the previous Government, imposes confidentiality obligations on this Government while the federal Treasurer considers the recommendations. If Peter Costello releases us from those confidentiality obligations, I will be delighted to engage in the debate. Given the views on various competition policy matters expressed by members of the Opposition, I hope they join with the Government in seeking to preserve Western Australia’s competition policy payments. I have given up hope of that from the quislings in the Liberal Opposition. However, I hope that the National Party takes to heart the interests of the State and uses its relationship with the Deputy Prime Minister to see whether we can get a sensible approach from the Commonwealth Government on our competition policy payments. I intend to table a copy of the National Competition Council’s letter and the 2002 National Competition Council policy assessment of liquor licensing which expresses concern about the discriminatory treatment between different types of premises and packaged liquor outlets. In reading through the letter from Graham Samuel to the Premier, I noticed something that has great relevance to an earlier answer I gave the House. The letter from Graham Samuel reads - Finally, I wish to reiterate the Council’s view of the considerable importance of the current process of reform of the State’s electricity monopoly corporation, Western Power. The Council reported on this matter in the 2002 assessment, noting that Western Australia has an obligation derived from clause 4 of the Competition Principles Agreement to the structural reform of Western Power, which the State is addressing consistent with its NCP reform obligations by conducting a comprehensive review of the structure of Western Power against clause 4 principles. As indicated in the 2002 assessment report, the Council believes the reform of Western Power is the most important competition issue facing the State. . . . The President of the NCC draws attention to the obligations of the State because they are formal obligations that were signed up to by the Cabinet of which the Leader of the Opposition was such a senior member. I am pleased to table the two documents to which I referred. [See paper No 1534.]
(1)-(2) I thank the member for some notice of this question. I will table some documents. In a letter to the Premier on 18 November 2002 the President of the National Competition Council clearly indicates that he expects reform to liquor licensing legislation, otherwise payments will be deducted or suspended. The federal Treasurer is expected to make a decision on Western Australia’s 2003-04 competition payments in October or November this year. There has been a lot of ill-informed comment from members opposite to the effect that the threat to competition policy payments is somehow not real. The threat to competition payments is all too real; it is a very significant threat to the Government’s 2003-04 budget. I would love to debate the detail of the recommendations of the National Competition Council to Peter Costello for reductions in our competition policy payment. Unfortunately, the Council of Australian Governments agreement on competition policy, which was signed off by the previous Government, imposes confidentiality obligations on this Government while the federal Treasurer considers the recommendations. If Peter Costello releases us from those confidentiality obligations, I will be delighted to engage in the debate. Given the views on various competition policy matters expressed by members of the Opposition, I hope they join with the Government in seeking to preserve Western Australia’s competition policy payments. I have given up hope of that from the quislings in the Liberal Opposition. However, I hope that the National Party takes to heart the interests of the State and uses its relationship with the Deputy Prime Minister to see whether we can get a sensible approach from the Commonwealth Government on our competition policy payments. I intend to table a copy of the National Competition Council’s letter and the 2002 National Competition Council policy assessment of liquor licensing which expresses concern about the discriminatory treatment between different types of premises and packaged liquor outlets. In reading through the letter from Graham Samuel to the Premier, I noticed something that has great relevance to an earlier answer I gave the House. The letter from Graham Samuel reads - Finally, I wish to reiterate the Council’s view of the considerable importance of the current process of reform of the State’s electricity monopoly corporation, Western Power. The Council reported on this matter in the 2002 assessment, noting that Western Australia has an obligation derived from clause 4 of the Competition Principles Agreement to the structural reform of Western Power, which the State is addressing consistent with its NCP reform obligations by conducting a comprehensive review of the structure of Western Power against clause 4 principles. As indicated in the 2002 assessment report, the Council believes the reform of Western Power is the most important competition issue facing the State. . . . The President of the NCC draws attention to the obligations of the State because they are formal obligations that were signed up to by the Cabinet of which the Leader of the Opposition was such a senior member. I am pleased to table the two documents to which I referred. [See paper No 1534.]
As indicated in the 2002 assessment report, the Council believes the reform of Western Power is the most important competition issue facing the State. . . .
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.