❓ Questioning the Treasurer's justification for deregulating liquor trading based on potential loss of national competition policy bonus payments, specifically regarding the impact on independent businesses and the influence of major supermarket chains. The Treasurer deflects, questioning the National Party's motives and citing confidentiality agreements.
AnsweredQoN 1306Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the Treasurer’s claim that the Western Australian Government will not receive $40 million in national competition policy bonus payments, justifying this as the reason to deregulate liquor trading. (1) Given that he has been advised of the approximate amount for non-compliance with national competition policy on reviewing the Liquor Licensing Act 1988, will he confirm that the amount is less than $4 million? (2) For a penalty of less than $4 million for not introducing Sunday trading for liquor stores and removing the public needs test, why is he willing to disadvantage independent hoteliers and hand the liquor industry over to the two major supermarket chains? Mr E.S. RIPPER
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(2) One would have to ask why the National Party wants to disadvantage those independent businesses that run liquor stores. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr E.S. RIPPER: One would also have to ask why the National Party would want to disadvantage those independent businesses that run restaurants. Why would the National Party insist on describing the Government’s proposal as the deregulation of the liquor industry? There is no such proposal for the deregulation of the liquor industry. What is proposed is non-discriminatory regulation of the liquor industry. I am not certain that the processes yet allow me to discuss the specifics of competition policy payments. Without confirming any amounts, I am surprised that the National Party would regard $4 million a year as being a small amount. It represents a primary school a year. I am sure that if the National Party were thinking about primary schools in one of its electorates, it would not regard the loss of $4 million a year as being insignificant. I am not confirming that figure because it may not be possible for me to go into the detail of the figures at this stage of the process. The sooner I can discuss the matter with the public of Western Australia the better. Mr C.J. Barnett: Why should the public not be informed? Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition is exactly right. The public is entitled to the information. As soon as the agreement that was signed by the previous Government and the Commonwealth Government allows me to release the information, I certainly will do so.
(1) Given that he has been advised of the approximate amount for non-compliance with national competition policy on reviewing the Liquor Licensing Act 1988, will he confirm that the amount is less than $4 million? (2) For a penalty of less than $4 million for not introducing Sunday trading for liquor stores and removing the public needs test, why is he willing to disadvantage independent hoteliers and hand the liquor industry over to the two major supermarket chains? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) One would have to ask why the National Party wants to disadvantage those independent businesses that run liquor stores. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr E.S. RIPPER: One would also have to ask why the National Party would want to disadvantage those independent businesses that run restaurants. Why would the National Party insist on describing the Government’s proposal as the deregulation of the liquor industry? There is no such proposal for the deregulation of the liquor industry. What is proposed is non-discriminatory regulation of the liquor industry. I am not certain that the processes yet allow me to discuss the specifics of competition policy payments. Without confirming any amounts, I am surprised that the National Party would regard $4 million a year as being a small amount. It represents a primary school a year. I am sure that if the National Party were thinking about primary schools in one of its electorates, it would not regard the loss of $4 million a year as being insignificant. I am not confirming that figure because it may not be possible for me to go into the detail of the figures at this stage of the process. The sooner I can discuss the matter with the public of Western Australia the better. Mr C.J. Barnett: Why should the public not be informed? Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition is exactly right. The public is entitled to the information. As soon as the agreement that was signed by the previous Government and the Commonwealth Government allows me to release the information, I certainly will do so.
(2) For a penalty of less than $4 million for not introducing Sunday trading for liquor stores and removing the public needs test, why is he willing to disadvantage independent hoteliers and hand the liquor industry over to the two major supermarket chains? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) One would have to ask why the National Party wants to disadvantage those independent businesses that run liquor stores. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr E.S. RIPPER: One would also have to ask why the National Party would want to disadvantage those independent businesses that run restaurants. Why would the National Party insist on describing the Government’s proposal as the deregulation of the liquor industry? There is no such proposal for the deregulation of the liquor industry. What is proposed is non-discriminatory regulation of the liquor industry. I am not certain that the processes yet allow me to discuss the specifics of competition policy payments. Without confirming any amounts, I am surprised that the National Party would regard $4 million a year as being a small amount. It represents a primary school a year. I am sure that if the National Party were thinking about primary schools in one of its electorates, it would not regard the loss of $4 million a year as being insignificant. I am not confirming that figure because it may not be possible for me to go into the detail of the figures at this stage of the process. The sooner I can discuss the matter with the public of Western Australia the better. Mr C.J. Barnett: Why should the public not be informed? Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition is exactly right. The public is entitled to the information. As soon as the agreement that was signed by the previous Government and the Commonwealth Government allows me to release the information, I certainly will do so.
Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) One would have to ask why the National Party wants to disadvantage those independent businesses that run liquor stores. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr E.S. RIPPER: One would also have to ask why the National Party would want to disadvantage those independent businesses that run restaurants. Why would the National Party insist on describing the Government’s proposal as the deregulation of the liquor industry? There is no such proposal for the deregulation of the liquor industry. What is proposed is non-discriminatory regulation of the liquor industry. I am not certain that the processes yet allow me to discuss the specifics of competition policy payments. Without confirming any amounts, I am surprised that the National Party would regard $4 million a year as being a small amount. It represents a primary school a year. I am sure that if the National Party were thinking about primary schools in one of its electorates, it would not regard the loss of $4 million a year as being insignificant. I am not confirming that figure because it may not be possible for me to go into the detail of the figures at this stage of the process. The sooner I can discuss the matter with the public of Western Australia the better. Mr C.J. Barnett: Why should the public not be informed? Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition is exactly right. The public is entitled to the information. As soon as the agreement that was signed by the previous Government and the Commonwealth Government allows me to release the information, I certainly will do so.
(1)-(2) One would have to ask why the National Party wants to disadvantage those independent businesses that run liquor stores. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr E.S. RIPPER: One would also have to ask why the National Party would want to disadvantage those independent businesses that run restaurants. Why would the National Party insist on describing the Government’s proposal as the deregulation of the liquor industry? There is no such proposal for the deregulation of the liquor industry. What is proposed is non-discriminatory regulation of the liquor industry. I am not certain that the processes yet allow me to discuss the specifics of competition policy payments. Without confirming any amounts, I am surprised that the National Party would regard $4 million a year as being a small amount. It represents a primary school a year. I am sure that if the National Party were thinking about primary schools in one of its electorates, it would not regard the loss of $4 million a year as being insignificant. I am not confirming that figure because it may not be possible for me to go into the detail of the figures at this stage of the process. The sooner I can discuss the matter with the public of Western Australia the better. Mr C.J. Barnett: Why should the public not be informed? Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition is exactly right. The public is entitled to the information. As soon as the agreement that was signed by the previous Government and the Commonwealth Government allows me to release the information, I certainly will do so.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr E.S. RIPPER: One would also have to ask why the National Party would want to disadvantage those independent businesses that run restaurants. Why would the National Party insist on describing the Government’s proposal as the deregulation of the liquor industry? There is no such proposal for the deregulation of the liquor industry. What is proposed is non-discriminatory regulation of the liquor industry. I am not certain that the processes yet allow me to discuss the specifics of competition policy payments. Without confirming any amounts, I am surprised that the National Party would regard $4 million a year as being a small amount. It represents a primary school a year. I am sure that if the National Party were thinking about primary schools in one of its electorates, it would not regard the loss of $4 million a year as being insignificant. I am not confirming that figure because it may not be possible for me to go into the detail of the figures at this stage of the process. The sooner I can discuss the matter with the public of Western Australia the better. Mr C.J. Barnett: Why should the public not be informed? Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition is exactly right. The public is entitled to the information. As soon as the agreement that was signed by the previous Government and the Commonwealth Government allows me to release the information, I certainly will do so.
The SPEAKER: Members! Mr E.S. RIPPER: One would also have to ask why the National Party would want to disadvantage those independent businesses that run restaurants. Why would the National Party insist on describing the Government’s proposal as the deregulation of the liquor industry? There is no such proposal for the deregulation of the liquor industry. What is proposed is non-discriminatory regulation of the liquor industry. I am not certain that the processes yet allow me to discuss the specifics of competition policy payments. Without confirming any amounts, I am surprised that the National Party would regard $4 million a year as being a small amount. It represents a primary school a year. I am sure that if the National Party were thinking about primary schools in one of its electorates, it would not regard the loss of $4 million a year as being insignificant. I am not confirming that figure because it may not be possible for me to go into the detail of the figures at this stage of the process. The sooner I can discuss the matter with the public of Western Australia the better. Mr C.J. Barnett: Why should the public not be informed? Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition is exactly right. The public is entitled to the information. As soon as the agreement that was signed by the previous Government and the Commonwealth Government allows me to release the information, I certainly will do so.
Mr E.S. RIPPER: One would also have to ask why the National Party would want to disadvantage those independent businesses that run restaurants. Why would the National Party insist on describing the Government’s proposal as the deregulation of the liquor industry? There is no such proposal for the deregulation of the liquor industry. What is proposed is non-discriminatory regulation of the liquor industry. I am not certain that the processes yet allow me to discuss the specifics of competition policy payments. Without confirming any amounts, I am surprised that the National Party would regard $4 million a year as being a small amount. It represents a primary school a year. I am sure that if the National Party were thinking about primary schools in one of its electorates, it would not regard the loss of $4 million a year as being insignificant. I am not confirming that figure because it may not be possible for me to go into the detail of the figures at this stage of the process. The sooner I can discuss the matter with the public of Western Australia the better. Mr C.J. Barnett: Why should the public not be informed? Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition is exactly right. The public is entitled to the information. As soon as the agreement that was signed by the previous Government and the Commonwealth Government allows me to release the information, I certainly will do so.
Mr C.J. Barnett: Why should the public not be informed? Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition is exactly right. The public is entitled to the information. As soon as the agreement that was signed by the previous Government and the Commonwealth Government allows me to release the information, I certainly will do so.
Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition is exactly right. The public is entitled to the information. As soon as the agreement that was signed by the previous Government and the Commonwealth Government allows me to release the information, I certainly will do so.
(1) Given that he has been advised of the approximate amount for non-compliance with national competition policy on reviewing the Liquor Licensing Act 1988, will he confirm that the amount is less than $4 million? (2) For a penalty of less than $4 million for not introducing Sunday trading for liquor stores and removing the public needs test, why is he willing to disadvantage independent hoteliers and hand the liquor industry over to the two major supermarket chains? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) One would have to ask why the National Party wants to disadvantage those independent businesses that run liquor stores. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr E.S. RIPPER: One would also have to ask why the National Party would want to disadvantage those independent businesses that run restaurants. Why would the National Party insist on describing the Government’s proposal as the deregulation of the liquor industry? There is no such proposal for the deregulation of the liquor industry. What is proposed is non-discriminatory regulation of the liquor industry. I am not certain that the processes yet allow me to discuss the specifics of competition policy payments. Without confirming any amounts, I am surprised that the National Party would regard $4 million a year as being a small amount. It represents a primary school a year. I am sure that if the National Party were thinking about primary schools in one of its electorates, it would not regard the loss of $4 million a year as being insignificant. I am not confirming that figure because it may not be possible for me to go into the detail of the figures at this stage of the process. The sooner I can discuss the matter with the public of Western Australia the better. Mr C.J. Barnett: Why should the public not be informed? Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition is exactly right. The public is entitled to the information. As soon as the agreement that was signed by the previous Government and the Commonwealth Government allows me to release the information, I certainly will do so.
(2) For a penalty of less than $4 million for not introducing Sunday trading for liquor stores and removing the public needs test, why is he willing to disadvantage independent hoteliers and hand the liquor industry over to the two major supermarket chains? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) One would have to ask why the National Party wants to disadvantage those independent businesses that run liquor stores. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr E.S. RIPPER: One would also have to ask why the National Party would want to disadvantage those independent businesses that run restaurants. Why would the National Party insist on describing the Government’s proposal as the deregulation of the liquor industry? There is no such proposal for the deregulation of the liquor industry. What is proposed is non-discriminatory regulation of the liquor industry. I am not certain that the processes yet allow me to discuss the specifics of competition policy payments. Without confirming any amounts, I am surprised that the National Party would regard $4 million a year as being a small amount. It represents a primary school a year. I am sure that if the National Party were thinking about primary schools in one of its electorates, it would not regard the loss of $4 million a year as being insignificant. I am not confirming that figure because it may not be possible for me to go into the detail of the figures at this stage of the process. The sooner I can discuss the matter with the public of Western Australia the better. Mr C.J. Barnett: Why should the public not be informed? Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition is exactly right. The public is entitled to the information. As soon as the agreement that was signed by the previous Government and the Commonwealth Government allows me to release the information, I certainly will do so.
Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) One would have to ask why the National Party wants to disadvantage those independent businesses that run liquor stores. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr E.S. RIPPER: One would also have to ask why the National Party would want to disadvantage those independent businesses that run restaurants. Why would the National Party insist on describing the Government’s proposal as the deregulation of the liquor industry? There is no such proposal for the deregulation of the liquor industry. What is proposed is non-discriminatory regulation of the liquor industry. I am not certain that the processes yet allow me to discuss the specifics of competition policy payments. Without confirming any amounts, I am surprised that the National Party would regard $4 million a year as being a small amount. It represents a primary school a year. I am sure that if the National Party were thinking about primary schools in one of its electorates, it would not regard the loss of $4 million a year as being insignificant. I am not confirming that figure because it may not be possible for me to go into the detail of the figures at this stage of the process. The sooner I can discuss the matter with the public of Western Australia the better. Mr C.J. Barnett: Why should the public not be informed? Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition is exactly right. The public is entitled to the information. As soon as the agreement that was signed by the previous Government and the Commonwealth Government allows me to release the information, I certainly will do so.
(1)-(2) One would have to ask why the National Party wants to disadvantage those independent businesses that run liquor stores. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr E.S. RIPPER: One would also have to ask why the National Party would want to disadvantage those independent businesses that run restaurants. Why would the National Party insist on describing the Government’s proposal as the deregulation of the liquor industry? There is no such proposal for the deregulation of the liquor industry. What is proposed is non-discriminatory regulation of the liquor industry. I am not certain that the processes yet allow me to discuss the specifics of competition policy payments. Without confirming any amounts, I am surprised that the National Party would regard $4 million a year as being a small amount. It represents a primary school a year. I am sure that if the National Party were thinking about primary schools in one of its electorates, it would not regard the loss of $4 million a year as being insignificant. I am not confirming that figure because it may not be possible for me to go into the detail of the figures at this stage of the process. The sooner I can discuss the matter with the public of Western Australia the better. Mr C.J. Barnett: Why should the public not be informed? Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition is exactly right. The public is entitled to the information. As soon as the agreement that was signed by the previous Government and the Commonwealth Government allows me to release the information, I certainly will do so.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr E.S. RIPPER: One would also have to ask why the National Party would want to disadvantage those independent businesses that run restaurants. Why would the National Party insist on describing the Government’s proposal as the deregulation of the liquor industry? There is no such proposal for the deregulation of the liquor industry. What is proposed is non-discriminatory regulation of the liquor industry. I am not certain that the processes yet allow me to discuss the specifics of competition policy payments. Without confirming any amounts, I am surprised that the National Party would regard $4 million a year as being a small amount. It represents a primary school a year. I am sure that if the National Party were thinking about primary schools in one of its electorates, it would not regard the loss of $4 million a year as being insignificant. I am not confirming that figure because it may not be possible for me to go into the detail of the figures at this stage of the process. The sooner I can discuss the matter with the public of Western Australia the better. Mr C.J. Barnett: Why should the public not be informed? Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition is exactly right. The public is entitled to the information. As soon as the agreement that was signed by the previous Government and the Commonwealth Government allows me to release the information, I certainly will do so.
The SPEAKER: Members! Mr E.S. RIPPER: One would also have to ask why the National Party would want to disadvantage those independent businesses that run restaurants. Why would the National Party insist on describing the Government’s proposal as the deregulation of the liquor industry? There is no such proposal for the deregulation of the liquor industry. What is proposed is non-discriminatory regulation of the liquor industry. I am not certain that the processes yet allow me to discuss the specifics of competition policy payments. Without confirming any amounts, I am surprised that the National Party would regard $4 million a year as being a small amount. It represents a primary school a year. I am sure that if the National Party were thinking about primary schools in one of its electorates, it would not regard the loss of $4 million a year as being insignificant. I am not confirming that figure because it may not be possible for me to go into the detail of the figures at this stage of the process. The sooner I can discuss the matter with the public of Western Australia the better. Mr C.J. Barnett: Why should the public not be informed? Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition is exactly right. The public is entitled to the information. As soon as the agreement that was signed by the previous Government and the Commonwealth Government allows me to release the information, I certainly will do so.
Mr E.S. RIPPER: One would also have to ask why the National Party would want to disadvantage those independent businesses that run restaurants. Why would the National Party insist on describing the Government’s proposal as the deregulation of the liquor industry? There is no such proposal for the deregulation of the liquor industry. What is proposed is non-discriminatory regulation of the liquor industry. I am not certain that the processes yet allow me to discuss the specifics of competition policy payments. Without confirming any amounts, I am surprised that the National Party would regard $4 million a year as being a small amount. It represents a primary school a year. I am sure that if the National Party were thinking about primary schools in one of its electorates, it would not regard the loss of $4 million a year as being insignificant. I am not confirming that figure because it may not be possible for me to go into the detail of the figures at this stage of the process. The sooner I can discuss the matter with the public of Western Australia the better. Mr C.J. Barnett: Why should the public not be informed? Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition is exactly right. The public is entitled to the information. As soon as the agreement that was signed by the previous Government and the Commonwealth Government allows me to release the information, I certainly will do so.
Mr C.J. Barnett: Why should the public not be informed? Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition is exactly right. The public is entitled to the information. As soon as the agreement that was signed by the previous Government and the Commonwealth Government allows me to release the information, I certainly will do so.
Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition is exactly right. The public is entitled to the information. As soon as the agreement that was signed by the previous Government and the Commonwealth Government allows me to release the information, I certainly will do so.
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.