❓ A parliamentary question regarding a prohibition notice on rubber hoses in vehicle LPG installations, focusing on the extent of consultation with industry, cost impact, and the Minister's decision-making process. The Minister defends his actions by stating he read correspondence, made inquiries on costs and technical competence, and relied on agency advice.
AnsweredQoN 670Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
VEHICLE LPG INSTALLATIONS — RUBBER-LINED HOSE PROHIBITION NOTICE
I refer to the answer the minister gave to my question asked yesterday, Tuesday, 24 June 2008 about the prohibition notice issued in respect of rubber hoses in vehicle liquefied petroleum gas installations. Noting the minister’s response was, in part, “Extensive consultation was carried out with automotive industry associations and autogas installers prior to the issuing of the prohibition order”, I ask — (1) Did the minister make any inquiries about the likely costs and impact of this prohibition order on consumers and industry? (2) Did the minister receive any representations from automotive industry associations only to dismiss them without considering them? (3) Did he simply sign the prohibition order that was placed in front of him by his public servants without inquiring into these matters? Hon JON FORD
I refer to the answer the minister gave to my question asked yesterday, Tuesday, 24 June 2008 about the prohibition notice issued in respect of rubber hoses in vehicle liquefied petroleum gas installations. Noting the minister’s response was, in part, “Extensive consultation was carried out with automotive industry associations and autogas installers prior to the issuing of the prohibition order”, I ask — (1) Did the minister make any inquiries about the likely costs and impact of this prohibition order on consumers and industry? (2) Did the minister receive any representations from automotive industry associations only to dismiss them without considering them? (3) Did he simply sign the prohibition order that was placed in front of him by his public servants without inquiring into these matters? Hon JON FORD
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(3) I personally read some correspondence from industry in regard to this. I made personal inquiries of my agency on costs. I also made inquiries on the technical competence of the advice, including what other jurisdictions were doing, but I did not personally receive any industry advice in that I had no interviews. Hon Simon O’Brien : That is probably because industry did not know it was happening because it had not been consulted. Hon JON FORD : I was advised by my agency that there had been extensive consultation. That led me to query the technical competence, because of the types of arguments that were going on in regard to how they could determine that plasticizer damage was the source of the leaching. The industry was claiming that it was contaminated fuel. Part of the response was at a national level, and their counterargument was that it could not possibly be. There were two reasons for contaminated fuel not being the cause. Technically, it was not capable of causing the damage, which I was not sure whether I accepted, and the fact is that the same levels of failures were recorded around the country. When there is that sort of problem consistently across the country, it would be highly unlikely to be caused by fuel, because it comes from different sources, so I accepted the argument of the agency.
(1) Did the minister make any inquiries about the likely costs and impact of this prohibition order on consumers and industry? (2) Did the minister receive any representations from automotive industry associations only to dismiss them without considering them? (3) Did he simply sign the prohibition order that was placed in front of him by his public servants without inquiring into these matters? Hon JON FORD replied: (1)-(3) I personally read some correspondence from industry in regard to this. I made personal inquiries of my agency on costs. I also made inquiries on the technical competence of the advice, including what other jurisdictions were doing, but I did not personally receive any industry advice in that I had no interviews. Hon Simon O’Brien : That is probably because industry did not know it was happening because it had not been consulted. Hon JON FORD : I was advised by my agency that there had been extensive consultation. That led me to query the technical competence, because of the types of arguments that were going on in regard to how they could determine that plasticizer damage was the source of the leaching. The industry was claiming that it was contaminated fuel. Part of the response was at a national level, and their counterargument was that it could not possibly be. There were two reasons for contaminated fuel not being the cause. Technically, it was not capable of causing the damage, which I was not sure whether I accepted, and the fact is that the same levels of failures were recorded around the country. When there is that sort of problem consistently across the country, it would be highly unlikely to be caused by fuel, because it comes from different sources, so I accepted the argument of the agency.
(2) Did the minister receive any representations from automotive industry associations only to dismiss them without considering them? (3) Did he simply sign the prohibition order that was placed in front of him by his public servants without inquiring into these matters? Hon JON FORD replied: (1)-(3) I personally read some correspondence from industry in regard to this. I made personal inquiries of my agency on costs. I also made inquiries on the technical competence of the advice, including what other jurisdictions were doing, but I did not personally receive any industry advice in that I had no interviews. Hon Simon O’Brien : That is probably because industry did not know it was happening because it had not been consulted. Hon JON FORD : I was advised by my agency that there had been extensive consultation. That led me to query the technical competence, because of the types of arguments that were going on in regard to how they could determine that plasticizer damage was the source of the leaching. The industry was claiming that it was contaminated fuel. Part of the response was at a national level, and their counterargument was that it could not possibly be. There were two reasons for contaminated fuel not being the cause. Technically, it was not capable of causing the damage, which I was not sure whether I accepted, and the fact is that the same levels of failures were recorded around the country. When there is that sort of problem consistently across the country, it would be highly unlikely to be caused by fuel, because it comes from different sources, so I accepted the argument of the agency.
(3) Did he simply sign the prohibition order that was placed in front of him by his public servants without inquiring into these matters? Hon JON FORD replied: (1)-(3) I personally read some correspondence from industry in regard to this. I made personal inquiries of my agency on costs. I also made inquiries on the technical competence of the advice, including what other jurisdictions were doing, but I did not personally receive any industry advice in that I had no interviews. Hon Simon O’Brien : That is probably because industry did not know it was happening because it had not been consulted. Hon JON FORD : I was advised by my agency that there had been extensive consultation. That led me to query the technical competence, because of the types of arguments that were going on in regard to how they could determine that plasticizer damage was the source of the leaching. The industry was claiming that it was contaminated fuel. Part of the response was at a national level, and their counterargument was that it could not possibly be. There were two reasons for contaminated fuel not being the cause. Technically, it was not capable of causing the damage, which I was not sure whether I accepted, and the fact is that the same levels of failures were recorded around the country. When there is that sort of problem consistently across the country, it would be highly unlikely to be caused by fuel, because it comes from different sources, so I accepted the argument of the agency.
Hon JON FORD replied: (1)-(3) I personally read some correspondence from industry in regard to this. I made personal inquiries of my agency on costs. I also made inquiries on the technical competence of the advice, including what other jurisdictions were doing, but I did not personally receive any industry advice in that I had no interviews. Hon Simon O’Brien : That is probably because industry did not know it was happening because it had not been consulted. Hon JON FORD : I was advised by my agency that there had been extensive consultation. That led me to query the technical competence, because of the types of arguments that were going on in regard to how they could determine that plasticizer damage was the source of the leaching. The industry was claiming that it was contaminated fuel. Part of the response was at a national level, and their counterargument was that it could not possibly be. There were two reasons for contaminated fuel not being the cause. Technically, it was not capable of causing the damage, which I was not sure whether I accepted, and the fact is that the same levels of failures were recorded around the country. When there is that sort of problem consistently across the country, it would be highly unlikely to be caused by fuel, because it comes from different sources, so I accepted the argument of the agency.
(1)-(3) I personally read some correspondence from industry in regard to this. I made personal inquiries of my agency on costs. I also made inquiries on the technical competence of the advice, including what other jurisdictions were doing, but I did not personally receive any industry advice in that I had no interviews. Hon Simon O’Brien : That is probably because industry did not know it was happening because it had not been consulted. Hon JON FORD : I was advised by my agency that there had been extensive consultation. That led me to query the technical competence, because of the types of arguments that were going on in regard to how they could determine that plasticizer damage was the source of the leaching. The industry was claiming that it was contaminated fuel. Part of the response was at a national level, and their counterargument was that it could not possibly be. There were two reasons for contaminated fuel not being the cause. Technically, it was not capable of causing the damage, which I was not sure whether I accepted, and the fact is that the same levels of failures were recorded around the country. When there is that sort of problem consistently across the country, it would be highly unlikely to be caused by fuel, because it comes from different sources, so I accepted the argument of the agency.
Hon Simon O’Brien : That is probably because industry did not know it was happening because it had not been consulted. Hon JON FORD : I was advised by my agency that there had been extensive consultation. That led me to query the technical competence, because of the types of arguments that were going on in regard to how they could determine that plasticizer damage was the source of the leaching. The industry was claiming that it was contaminated fuel. Part of the response was at a national level, and their counterargument was that it could not possibly be. There were two reasons for contaminated fuel not being the cause. Technically, it was not capable of causing the damage, which I was not sure whether I accepted, and the fact is that the same levels of failures were recorded around the country. When there is that sort of problem consistently across the country, it would be highly unlikely to be caused by fuel, because it comes from different sources, so I accepted the argument of the agency.
Hon JON FORD : I was advised by my agency that there had been extensive consultation. That led me to query the technical competence, because of the types of arguments that were going on in regard to how they could determine that plasticizer damage was the source of the leaching. The industry was claiming that it was contaminated fuel. Part of the response was at a national level, and their counterargument was that it could not possibly be. There were two reasons for contaminated fuel not being the cause. Technically, it was not capable of causing the damage, which I was not sure whether I accepted, and the fact is that the same levels of failures were recorded around the country. When there is that sort of problem consistently across the country, it would be highly unlikely to be caused by fuel, because it comes from different sources, so I accepted the argument of the agency.
(1) Did the minister make any inquiries about the likely costs and impact of this prohibition order on consumers and industry? (2) Did the minister receive any representations from automotive industry associations only to dismiss them without considering them? (3) Did he simply sign the prohibition order that was placed in front of him by his public servants without inquiring into these matters? Hon JON FORD replied: (1)-(3) I personally read some correspondence from industry in regard to this. I made personal inquiries of my agency on costs. I also made inquiries on the technical competence of the advice, including what other jurisdictions were doing, but I did not personally receive any industry advice in that I had no interviews. Hon Simon O’Brien : That is probably because industry did not know it was happening because it had not been consulted. Hon JON FORD : I was advised by my agency that there had been extensive consultation. That led me to query the technical competence, because of the types of arguments that were going on in regard to how they could determine that plasticizer damage was the source of the leaching. The industry was claiming that it was contaminated fuel. Part of the response was at a national level, and their counterargument was that it could not possibly be. There were two reasons for contaminated fuel not being the cause. Technically, it was not capable of causing the damage, which I was not sure whether I accepted, and the fact is that the same levels of failures were recorded around the country. When there is that sort of problem consistently across the country, it would be highly unlikely to be caused by fuel, because it comes from different sources, so I accepted the argument of the agency.
(2) Did the minister receive any representations from automotive industry associations only to dismiss them without considering them? (3) Did he simply sign the prohibition order that was placed in front of him by his public servants without inquiring into these matters? Hon JON FORD replied: (1)-(3) I personally read some correspondence from industry in regard to this. I made personal inquiries of my agency on costs. I also made inquiries on the technical competence of the advice, including what other jurisdictions were doing, but I did not personally receive any industry advice in that I had no interviews. Hon Simon O’Brien : That is probably because industry did not know it was happening because it had not been consulted. Hon JON FORD : I was advised by my agency that there had been extensive consultation. That led me to query the technical competence, because of the types of arguments that were going on in regard to how they could determine that plasticizer damage was the source of the leaching. The industry was claiming that it was contaminated fuel. Part of the response was at a national level, and their counterargument was that it could not possibly be. There were two reasons for contaminated fuel not being the cause. Technically, it was not capable of causing the damage, which I was not sure whether I accepted, and the fact is that the same levels of failures were recorded around the country. When there is that sort of problem consistently across the country, it would be highly unlikely to be caused by fuel, because it comes from different sources, so I accepted the argument of the agency.
(3) Did he simply sign the prohibition order that was placed in front of him by his public servants without inquiring into these matters? Hon JON FORD replied: (1)-(3) I personally read some correspondence from industry in regard to this. I made personal inquiries of my agency on costs. I also made inquiries on the technical competence of the advice, including what other jurisdictions were doing, but I did not personally receive any industry advice in that I had no interviews. Hon Simon O’Brien : That is probably because industry did not know it was happening because it had not been consulted. Hon JON FORD : I was advised by my agency that there had been extensive consultation. That led me to query the technical competence, because of the types of arguments that were going on in regard to how they could determine that plasticizer damage was the source of the leaching. The industry was claiming that it was contaminated fuel. Part of the response was at a national level, and their counterargument was that it could not possibly be. There were two reasons for contaminated fuel not being the cause. Technically, it was not capable of causing the damage, which I was not sure whether I accepted, and the fact is that the same levels of failures were recorded around the country. When there is that sort of problem consistently across the country, it would be highly unlikely to be caused by fuel, because it comes from different sources, so I accepted the argument of the agency.
Hon JON FORD replied: (1)-(3) I personally read some correspondence from industry in regard to this. I made personal inquiries of my agency on costs. I also made inquiries on the technical competence of the advice, including what other jurisdictions were doing, but I did not personally receive any industry advice in that I had no interviews. Hon Simon O’Brien : That is probably because industry did not know it was happening because it had not been consulted. Hon JON FORD : I was advised by my agency that there had been extensive consultation. That led me to query the technical competence, because of the types of arguments that were going on in regard to how they could determine that plasticizer damage was the source of the leaching. The industry was claiming that it was contaminated fuel. Part of the response was at a national level, and their counterargument was that it could not possibly be. There were two reasons for contaminated fuel not being the cause. Technically, it was not capable of causing the damage, which I was not sure whether I accepted, and the fact is that the same levels of failures were recorded around the country. When there is that sort of problem consistently across the country, it would be highly unlikely to be caused by fuel, because it comes from different sources, so I accepted the argument of the agency.
(1)-(3) I personally read some correspondence from industry in regard to this. I made personal inquiries of my agency on costs. I also made inquiries on the technical competence of the advice, including what other jurisdictions were doing, but I did not personally receive any industry advice in that I had no interviews. Hon Simon O’Brien : That is probably because industry did not know it was happening because it had not been consulted. Hon JON FORD : I was advised by my agency that there had been extensive consultation. That led me to query the technical competence, because of the types of arguments that were going on in regard to how they could determine that plasticizer damage was the source of the leaching. The industry was claiming that it was contaminated fuel. Part of the response was at a national level, and their counterargument was that it could not possibly be. There were two reasons for contaminated fuel not being the cause. Technically, it was not capable of causing the damage, which I was not sure whether I accepted, and the fact is that the same levels of failures were recorded around the country. When there is that sort of problem consistently across the country, it would be highly unlikely to be caused by fuel, because it comes from different sources, so I accepted the argument of the agency.
Hon Simon O’Brien : That is probably because industry did not know it was happening because it had not been consulted. Hon JON FORD : I was advised by my agency that there had been extensive consultation. That led me to query the technical competence, because of the types of arguments that were going on in regard to how they could determine that plasticizer damage was the source of the leaching. The industry was claiming that it was contaminated fuel. Part of the response was at a national level, and their counterargument was that it could not possibly be. There were two reasons for contaminated fuel not being the cause. Technically, it was not capable of causing the damage, which I was not sure whether I accepted, and the fact is that the same levels of failures were recorded around the country. When there is that sort of problem consistently across the country, it would be highly unlikely to be caused by fuel, because it comes from different sources, so I accepted the argument of the agency.
Hon JON FORD : I was advised by my agency that there had been extensive consultation. That led me to query the technical competence, because of the types of arguments that were going on in regard to how they could determine that plasticizer damage was the source of the leaching. The industry was claiming that it was contaminated fuel. Part of the response was at a national level, and their counterargument was that it could not possibly be. There were two reasons for contaminated fuel not being the cause. Technically, it was not capable of causing the damage, which I was not sure whether I accepted, and the fact is that the same levels of failures were recorded around the country. When there is that sort of problem consistently across the country, it would be highly unlikely to be caused by fuel, because it comes from different sources, so I accepted the argument of the agency.
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.