❓ Opposition parties' resistance to the Premier's plans for extended retail trading hours, liquor licensing, and electricity reform. The Premier accuses the opposition of hypocrisy and obstructionism, referencing past government actions.
AnsweredQoN 59Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the Premier’s decision to abandon his plan to extend liquor trading hours due to opposition from the Liberal Party and the Greens (WA). (1) As the Liberal Party, Greens (WA), the National Party and One Nation also oppose the Premier’s plan to extend weeknight retail trading hours, can we expect another backflip soon? (2) If not, how does he explain Labor’s blatant hypocrisy? Dr G.I. GALLOP
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(2) The Australian Labor Party has not abandoned - to use the member’s expression - plans to reform - Mr C.J. Barnett: How is your ticker? Tick, tick, tock, clunk! Dr G.I. GALLOP: It has not abandoned its plans to - Mr C.J. Barnett: You keep talking about tickers. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I will start again, Mr Speaker. We have not abandoned our plans for our electricity industry. We still look forward to the day when some commonsense prevails in the Liberal Party and we can get on with the job of electricity reform. We also have not abandoned our plans to bring about a more sensible liquor licensing regime for our State. However, given the obstinacy and negativity of the opposition parties, we cannot get our plans for those two issues through the Parliament. The issues of electricity and liquor licensing reform will not go away; nor will the issue of trading hours. We look forward to the vote on trading hours in the Legislative Council, as everyone in Western Australia will see who stands for a commonsense approach to reform of our trading hours that gives Western Australian citizens a choice. We will be very interested when that vote is taken. We will inform everyone in Western Australia - Mr C.J. Barnett: So will your backbenchers. Dr G.I. GALLOP: That is because they are 100 per cent behind what we do with trading hours reform. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The issue of economic reform is fascinating. A journal article on the electricity reform question was recently published. The article deals with the issue of hypocrisy and is fascinating. It also deals with the energy reform processes that occurred under the previous Government. As part of the Council of Australian Governments, the Premier of the previous Government signed up to the competition reform process, which included changes in our electricity industry based upon disaggregation. That was of course recommended by the Carnegie review and McCarrey. The then Premier agreed to it at a COAG meeting. Of course, the changes did not happen under the previous Government. I wonder why they did not happen. I read to the House the conclusions of this academic article. Mr C.J. Barnett: Which academics? Dr G.I. GALLOP: Stephen Barton and Peter van Onselen. Mr C.J. Barnett: Who are they? Dr G.I. GALLOP: One works with the federal Government and the other is an academic in New South Wales. Mr C.J. Barnett: You’re right on the ball here! Please read on. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They do not like hearing an opinion, do they? The article states - The reform agenda introduced by the Court government contrasts sharply with the urgency that marked the Industries Commission, Hilmer and Carnegie Reports. I am quoting, so the Leader of the Opposition will be named. Is that okay, Mr Speaker? I continue - It seems that the corporate culture of SECWA remained. Colin Barnett, seemed to have been “captured” by the two new utilities, echoing the sentiments that competition should not come at any cost, despite the CoAG agreements . . . The introduction of competition into the energy sector gathered a considerable degree of momentum during the early 1990s and yet it virtually stopped dead at Colin Barnett’s feet. Barnett was widely regarded as a moderate and reasonable man, with leadership ambitions. By “toeing” the SECWA line, Barnett had access to the privileges of a high profile portfolio, without the political damage associated with extensive reform. Barnett’s “capture” is probably also a symptom of the confusion associated with the goals of the Court government in the energy sector. Those opposite have not learnt anything. They are not committed to reform. The Leader of the Opposition was captured. Mr C.J. Barnett: Is this it? This is fascinating. You are listening to two academics, but you will not listen to the one million people who did not have electricity a month ago. Dr G.I. GALLOP: In the media this morning the Leader of the Opposition said that no change should be introduced if there was divided opinion about it. That comment was made by a person who wants to lead Western Australia! He says there should be no change if there is divided opinion. That is not leadership; that is weakness. On the issues of electricity reform, liquor licensing reform and trading hours reform, the Liberal Party in this State can be described only as negative and backward looking. The people of Western Australia want to go forward. We want to take them forward. However, yet again, the Legislative Council is acting as an obstacle to sensible reform. These reforms will come, but only if a Labor Government is in place. Point of Order Mr B.K. MASTERS: Is it possible for the Premier to lay on the Table the academic document he quoted from? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I am very, very happy to table the article from the journal Policy and Society. This journal is No 2 of volume 22 and was published in December 2003. The article is written by Stephen Barton and Peter van Onselen. [See paper No 2170.]
(1) As the Liberal Party, Greens (WA), the National Party and One Nation also oppose the Premier’s plan to extend weeknight retail trading hours, can we expect another backflip soon? (2) If not, how does he explain Labor’s blatant hypocrisy? Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: (1)-(2) The Australian Labor Party has not abandoned - to use the member’s expression - plans to reform - Mr C.J. Barnett: How is your ticker? Tick, tick, tock, clunk! Dr G.I. GALLOP: It has not abandoned its plans to - Mr C.J. Barnett: You keep talking about tickers. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I will start again, Mr Speaker. We have not abandoned our plans for our electricity industry. We still look forward to the day when some commonsense prevails in the Liberal Party and we can get on with the job of electricity reform. We also have not abandoned our plans to bring about a more sensible liquor licensing regime for our State. However, given the obstinacy and negativity of the opposition parties, we cannot get our plans for those two issues through the Parliament. The issues of electricity and liquor licensing reform will not go away; nor will the issue of trading hours. We look forward to the vote on trading hours in the Legislative Council, as everyone in Western Australia will see who stands for a commonsense approach to reform of our trading hours that gives Western Australian citizens a choice. We will be very interested when that vote is taken. We will inform everyone in Western Australia - Mr C.J. Barnett: So will your backbenchers. Dr G.I. GALLOP: That is because they are 100 per cent behind what we do with trading hours reform. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The issue of economic reform is fascinating. A journal article on the electricity reform question was recently published. The article deals with the issue of hypocrisy and is fascinating. It also deals with the energy reform processes that occurred under the previous Government. As part of the Council of Australian Governments, the Premier of the previous Government signed up to the competition reform process, which included changes in our electricity industry based upon disaggregation. That was of course recommended by the Carnegie review and McCarrey. The then Premier agreed to it at a COAG meeting. Of course, the changes did not happen under the previous Government. I wonder why they did not happen. I read to the House the conclusions of this academic article. Mr C.J. Barnett: Which academics? Dr G.I. GALLOP: Stephen Barton and Peter van Onselen. Mr C.J. Barnett: Who are they? Dr G.I. GALLOP: One works with the federal Government and the other is an academic in New South Wales. Mr C.J. Barnett: You’re right on the ball here! Please read on. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They do not like hearing an opinion, do they? The article states - The reform agenda introduced by the Court government contrasts sharply with the urgency that marked the Industries Commission, Hilmer and Carnegie Reports. I am quoting, so the Leader of the Opposition will be named. Is that okay, Mr Speaker? I continue - It seems that the corporate culture of SECWA remained. Colin Barnett, seemed to have been “captured” by the two new utilities, echoing the sentiments that competition should not come at any cost, despite the CoAG agreements . . . The introduction of competition into the energy sector gathered a considerable degree of momentum during the early 1990s and yet it virtually stopped dead at Colin Barnett’s feet. Barnett was widely regarded as a moderate and reasonable man, with leadership ambitions. By “toeing” the SECWA line, Barnett had access to the privileges of a high profile portfolio, without the political damage associated with extensive reform. Barnett’s “capture” is probably also a symptom of the confusion associated with the goals of the Court government in the energy sector. Those opposite have not learnt anything. They are not committed to reform. The Leader of the Opposition was captured. Mr C.J. Barnett: Is this it? This is fascinating. You are listening to two academics, but you will not listen to the one million people who did not have electricity a month ago. Dr G.I. GALLOP: In the media this morning the Leader of the Opposition said that no change should be introduced if there was divided opinion about it. That comment was made by a person who wants to lead Western Australia! He says there should be no change if there is divided opinion. That is not leadership; that is weakness. On the issues of electricity reform, liquor licensing reform and trading hours reform, the Liberal Party in this State can be described only as negative and backward looking. The people of Western Australia want to go forward. We want to take them forward. However, yet again, the Legislative Council is acting as an obstacle to sensible reform. These reforms will come, but only if a Labor Government is in place. Point of Order Mr B.K. MASTERS: Is it possible for the Premier to lay on the Table the academic document he quoted from? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I am very, very happy to table the article from the journal Policy and Society. This journal is No 2 of volume 22 and was published in December 2003. The article is written by Stephen Barton and Peter van Onselen. [See paper No 2170.]
(2) If not, how does he explain Labor’s blatant hypocrisy? Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: (1)-(2) The Australian Labor Party has not abandoned - to use the member’s expression - plans to reform - Mr C.J. Barnett: How is your ticker? Tick, tick, tock, clunk! Dr G.I. GALLOP: It has not abandoned its plans to - Mr C.J. Barnett: You keep talking about tickers. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I will start again, Mr Speaker. We have not abandoned our plans for our electricity industry. We still look forward to the day when some commonsense prevails in the Liberal Party and we can get on with the job of electricity reform. We also have not abandoned our plans to bring about a more sensible liquor licensing regime for our State. However, given the obstinacy and negativity of the opposition parties, we cannot get our plans for those two issues through the Parliament. The issues of electricity and liquor licensing reform will not go away; nor will the issue of trading hours. We look forward to the vote on trading hours in the Legislative Council, as everyone in Western Australia will see who stands for a commonsense approach to reform of our trading hours that gives Western Australian citizens a choice. We will be very interested when that vote is taken. We will inform everyone in Western Australia - Mr C.J. Barnett: So will your backbenchers. Dr G.I. GALLOP: That is because they are 100 per cent behind what we do with trading hours reform. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The issue of economic reform is fascinating. A journal article on the electricity reform question was recently published. The article deals with the issue of hypocrisy and is fascinating. It also deals with the energy reform processes that occurred under the previous Government. As part of the Council of Australian Governments, the Premier of the previous Government signed up to the competition reform process, which included changes in our electricity industry based upon disaggregation. That was of course recommended by the Carnegie review and McCarrey. The then Premier agreed to it at a COAG meeting. Of course, the changes did not happen under the previous Government. I wonder why they did not happen. I read to the House the conclusions of this academic article. Mr C.J. Barnett: Which academics? Dr G.I. GALLOP: Stephen Barton and Peter van Onselen. Mr C.J. Barnett: Who are they? Dr G.I. GALLOP: One works with the federal Government and the other is an academic in New South Wales. Mr C.J. Barnett: You’re right on the ball here! Please read on. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They do not like hearing an opinion, do they? The article states - The reform agenda introduced by the Court government contrasts sharply with the urgency that marked the Industries Commission, Hilmer and Carnegie Reports. I am quoting, so the Leader of the Opposition will be named. Is that okay, Mr Speaker? I continue - It seems that the corporate culture of SECWA remained. Colin Barnett, seemed to have been “captured” by the two new utilities, echoing the sentiments that competition should not come at any cost, despite the CoAG agreements . . . The introduction of competition into the energy sector gathered a considerable degree of momentum during the early 1990s and yet it virtually stopped dead at Colin Barnett’s feet. Barnett was widely regarded as a moderate and reasonable man, with leadership ambitions. By “toeing” the SECWA line, Barnett had access to the privileges of a high profile portfolio, without the political damage associated with extensive reform. Barnett’s “capture” is probably also a symptom of the confusion associated with the goals of the Court government in the energy sector. Those opposite have not learnt anything. They are not committed to reform. The Leader of the Opposition was captured. Mr C.J. Barnett: Is this it? This is fascinating. You are listening to two academics, but you will not listen to the one million people who did not have electricity a month ago. Dr G.I. GALLOP: In the media this morning the Leader of the Opposition said that no change should be introduced if there was divided opinion about it. That comment was made by a person who wants to lead Western Australia! He says there should be no change if there is divided opinion. That is not leadership; that is weakness. On the issues of electricity reform, liquor licensing reform and trading hours reform, the Liberal Party in this State can be described only as negative and backward looking. The people of Western Australia want to go forward. We want to take them forward. However, yet again, the Legislative Council is acting as an obstacle to sensible reform. These reforms will come, but only if a Labor Government is in place. Point of Order Mr B.K. MASTERS: Is it possible for the Premier to lay on the Table the academic document he quoted from? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I am very, very happy to table the article from the journal Policy and Society. This journal is No 2 of volume 22 and was published in December 2003. The article is written by Stephen Barton and Peter van Onselen. [See paper No 2170.]
Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: (1)-(2) The Australian Labor Party has not abandoned - to use the member’s expression - plans to reform - Mr C.J. Barnett: How is your ticker? Tick, tick, tock, clunk! Dr G.I. GALLOP: It has not abandoned its plans to - Mr C.J. Barnett: You keep talking about tickers. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I will start again, Mr Speaker. We have not abandoned our plans for our electricity industry. We still look forward to the day when some commonsense prevails in the Liberal Party and we can get on with the job of electricity reform. We also have not abandoned our plans to bring about a more sensible liquor licensing regime for our State. However, given the obstinacy and negativity of the opposition parties, we cannot get our plans for those two issues through the Parliament. The issues of electricity and liquor licensing reform will not go away; nor will the issue of trading hours. We look forward to the vote on trading hours in the Legislative Council, as everyone in Western Australia will see who stands for a commonsense approach to reform of our trading hours that gives Western Australian citizens a choice. We will be very interested when that vote is taken. We will inform everyone in Western Australia - Mr C.J. Barnett: So will your backbenchers. Dr G.I. GALLOP: That is because they are 100 per cent behind what we do with trading hours reform. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The issue of economic reform is fascinating. A journal article on the electricity reform question was recently published. The article deals with the issue of hypocrisy and is fascinating. It also deals with the energy reform processes that occurred under the previous Government. As part of the Council of Australian Governments, the Premier of the previous Government signed up to the competition reform process, which included changes in our electricity industry based upon disaggregation. That was of course recommended by the Carnegie review and McCarrey. The then Premier agreed to it at a COAG meeting. Of course, the changes did not happen under the previous Government. I wonder why they did not happen. I read to the House the conclusions of this academic article. Mr C.J. Barnett: Which academics? Dr G.I. GALLOP: Stephen Barton and Peter van Onselen. Mr C.J. Barnett: Who are they? Dr G.I. GALLOP: One works with the federal Government and the other is an academic in New South Wales. Mr C.J. Barnett: You’re right on the ball here! Please read on. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They do not like hearing an opinion, do they? The article states - The reform agenda introduced by the Court government contrasts sharply with the urgency that marked the Industries Commission, Hilmer and Carnegie Reports. I am quoting, so the Leader of the Opposition will be named. Is that okay, Mr Speaker? I continue - It seems that the corporate culture of SECWA remained. Colin Barnett, seemed to have been “captured” by the two new utilities, echoing the sentiments that competition should not come at any cost, despite the CoAG agreements . . . The introduction of competition into the energy sector gathered a considerable degree of momentum during the early 1990s and yet it virtually stopped dead at Colin Barnett’s feet. Barnett was widely regarded as a moderate and reasonable man, with leadership ambitions. By “toeing” the SECWA line, Barnett had access to the privileges of a high profile portfolio, without the political damage associated with extensive reform. Barnett’s “capture” is probably also a symptom of the confusion associated with the goals of the Court government in the energy sector. Those opposite have not learnt anything. They are not committed to reform. The Leader of the Opposition was captured. Mr C.J. Barnett: Is this it? This is fascinating. You are listening to two academics, but you will not listen to the one million people who did not have electricity a month ago. Dr G.I. GALLOP: In the media this morning the Leader of the Opposition said that no change should be introduced if there was divided opinion about it. That comment was made by a person who wants to lead Western Australia! He says there should be no change if there is divided opinion. That is not leadership; that is weakness. On the issues of electricity reform, liquor licensing reform and trading hours reform, the Liberal Party in this State can be described only as negative and backward looking. The people of Western Australia want to go forward. We want to take them forward. However, yet again, the Legislative Council is acting as an obstacle to sensible reform. These reforms will come, but only if a Labor Government is in place. Point of Order Mr B.K. MASTERS: Is it possible for the Premier to lay on the Table the academic document he quoted from? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I am very, very happy to table the article from the journal Policy and Society. This journal is No 2 of volume 22 and was published in December 2003. The article is written by Stephen Barton and Peter van Onselen. [See paper No 2170.]
(1)-(2) The Australian Labor Party has not abandoned - to use the member’s expression - plans to reform - Mr C.J. Barnett: How is your ticker? Tick, tick, tock, clunk! Dr G.I. GALLOP: It has not abandoned its plans to - Mr C.J. Barnett: You keep talking about tickers. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I will start again, Mr Speaker. We have not abandoned our plans for our electricity industry. We still look forward to the day when some commonsense prevails in the Liberal Party and we can get on with the job of electricity reform. We also have not abandoned our plans to bring about a more sensible liquor licensing regime for our State. However, given the obstinacy and negativity of the opposition parties, we cannot get our plans for those two issues through the Parliament. The issues of electricity and liquor licensing reform will not go away; nor will the issue of trading hours. We look forward to the vote on trading hours in the Legislative Council, as everyone in Western Australia will see who stands for a commonsense approach to reform of our trading hours that gives Western Australian citizens a choice. We will be very interested when that vote is taken. We will inform everyone in Western Australia - Mr C.J. Barnett: So will your backbenchers. Dr G.I. GALLOP: That is because they are 100 per cent behind what we do with trading hours reform. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The issue of economic reform is fascinating. A journal article on the electricity reform question was recently published. The article deals with the issue of hypocrisy and is fascinating. It also deals with the energy reform processes that occurred under the previous Government. As part of the Council of Australian Governments, the Premier of the previous Government signed up to the competition reform process, which included changes in our electricity industry based upon disaggregation. That was of course recommended by the Carnegie review and McCarrey. The then Premier agreed to it at a COAG meeting. Of course, the changes did not happen under the previous Government. I wonder why they did not happen. I read to the House the conclusions of this academic article. Mr C.J. Barnett: Which academics? Dr G.I. GALLOP: Stephen Barton and Peter van Onselen. Mr C.J. Barnett: Who are they? Dr G.I. GALLOP: One works with the federal Government and the other is an academic in New South Wales. Mr C.J. Barnett: You’re right on the ball here! Please read on. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They do not like hearing an opinion, do they? The article states - The reform agenda introduced by the Court government contrasts sharply with the urgency that marked the Industries Commission, Hilmer and Carnegie Reports. I am quoting, so the Leader of the Opposition will be named. Is that okay, Mr Speaker? I continue - It seems that the corporate culture of SECWA remained. Colin Barnett, seemed to have been “captured” by the two new utilities, echoing the sentiments that competition should not come at any cost, despite the CoAG agreements . . . The introduction of competition into the energy sector gathered a considerable degree of momentum during the early 1990s and yet it virtually stopped dead at Colin Barnett’s feet. Barnett was widely regarded as a moderate and reasonable man, with leadership ambitions. By “toeing” the SECWA line, Barnett had access to the privileges of a high profile portfolio, without the political damage associated with extensive reform. Barnett’s “capture” is probably also a symptom of the confusion associated with the goals of the Court government in the energy sector. Those opposite have not learnt anything. They are not committed to reform. The Leader of the Opposition was captured. Mr C.J. Barnett: Is this it? This is fascinating. You are listening to two academics, but you will not listen to the one million people who did not have electricity a month ago. Dr G.I. GALLOP: In the media this morning the Leader of the Opposition said that no change should be introduced if there was divided opinion about it. That comment was made by a person who wants to lead Western Australia! He says there should be no change if there is divided opinion. That is not leadership; that is weakness. On the issues of electricity reform, liquor licensing reform and trading hours reform, the Liberal Party in this State can be described only as negative and backward looking. The people of Western Australia want to go forward. We want to take them forward. However, yet again, the Legislative Council is acting as an obstacle to sensible reform. These reforms will come, but only if a Labor Government is in place. Point of Order Mr B.K. MASTERS: Is it possible for the Premier to lay on the Table the academic document he quoted from? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I am very, very happy to table the article from the journal Policy and Society. This journal is No 2 of volume 22 and was published in December 2003. The article is written by Stephen Barton and Peter van Onselen. [See paper No 2170.]
Mr C.J. Barnett: How is your ticker? Tick, tick, tock, clunk! Dr G.I. GALLOP: It has not abandoned its plans to - Mr C.J. Barnett: You keep talking about tickers. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I will start again, Mr Speaker. We have not abandoned our plans for our electricity industry. We still look forward to the day when some commonsense prevails in the Liberal Party and we can get on with the job of electricity reform. We also have not abandoned our plans to bring about a more sensible liquor licensing regime for our State. However, given the obstinacy and negativity of the opposition parties, we cannot get our plans for those two issues through the Parliament. The issues of electricity and liquor licensing reform will not go away; nor will the issue of trading hours. We look forward to the vote on trading hours in the Legislative Council, as everyone in Western Australia will see who stands for a commonsense approach to reform of our trading hours that gives Western Australian citizens a choice. We will be very interested when that vote is taken. We will inform everyone in Western Australia - Mr C.J. Barnett: So will your backbenchers. Dr G.I. GALLOP: That is because they are 100 per cent behind what we do with trading hours reform. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The issue of economic reform is fascinating. A journal article on the electricity reform question was recently published. The article deals with the issue of hypocrisy and is fascinating. It also deals with the energy reform processes that occurred under the previous Government. As part of the Council of Australian Governments, the Premier of the previous Government signed up to the competition reform process, which included changes in our electricity industry based upon disaggregation. That was of course recommended by the Carnegie review and McCarrey. The then Premier agreed to it at a COAG meeting. Of course, the changes did not happen under the previous Government. I wonder why they did not happen. I read to the House the conclusions of this academic article. Mr C.J. Barnett: Which academics? Dr G.I. GALLOP: Stephen Barton and Peter van Onselen. Mr C.J. Barnett: Who are they? Dr G.I. GALLOP: One works with the federal Government and the other is an academic in New South Wales. Mr C.J. Barnett: You’re right on the ball here! Please read on. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They do not like hearing an opinion, do they? The article states - The reform agenda introduced by the Court government contrasts sharply with the urgency that marked the Industries Commission, Hilmer and Carnegie Reports. I am quoting, so the Leader of the Opposition will be named. Is that okay, Mr Speaker? I continue - It seems that the corporate culture of SECWA remained. Colin Barnett, seemed to have been “captured” by the two new utilities, echoing the sentiments that competition should not come at any cost, despite the CoAG agreements . . . The introduction of competition into the energy sector gathered a considerable degree of momentum during the early 1990s and yet it virtually stopped dead at Colin Barnett’s feet. Barnett was widely regarded as a moderate and reasonable man, with leadership ambitions. By “toeing” the SECWA line, Barnett had access to the privileges of a high profile portfolio, without the political damage associated with extensive reform. Barnett’s “capture” is probably also a symptom of the confusion associated with the goals of the Court government in the energy sector. Those opposite have not learnt anything. They are not committed to reform. The Leader of the Opposition was captured. Mr C.J. Barnett: Is this it? This is fascinating. You are listening to two academics, but you will not listen to the one million people who did not have electricity a month ago. Dr G.I. GALLOP: In the media this morning the Leader of the Opposition said that no change should be introduced if there was divided opinion about it. That comment was made by a person who wants to lead Western Australia! He says there should be no change if there is divided opinion. That is not leadership; that is weakness. On the issues of electricity reform, liquor licensing reform and trading hours reform, the Liberal Party in this State can be described only as negative and backward looking. The people of Western Australia want to go forward. We want to take them forward. However, yet again, the Legislative Council is acting as an obstacle to sensible reform. These reforms will come, but only if a Labor Government is in place. Point of Order Mr B.K. MASTERS: Is it possible for the Premier to lay on the Table the academic document he quoted from? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I am very, very happy to table the article from the journal Policy and Society. This journal is No 2 of volume 22 and was published in December 2003. The article is written by Stephen Barton and Peter van Onselen. [See paper No 2170.]
Dr G.I. GALLOP: It has not abandoned its plans to - Mr C.J. Barnett: You keep talking about tickers. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I will start again, Mr Speaker. We have not abandoned our plans for our electricity industry. We still look forward to the day when some commonsense prevails in the Liberal Party and we can get on with the job of electricity reform. We also have not abandoned our plans to bring about a more sensible liquor licensing regime for our State. However, given the obstinacy and negativity of the opposition parties, we cannot get our plans for those two issues through the Parliament. The issues of electricity and liquor licensing reform will not go away; nor will the issue of trading hours. We look forward to the vote on trading hours in the Legislative Council, as everyone in Western Australia will see who stands for a commonsense approach to reform of our trading hours that gives Western Australian citizens a choice. We will be very interested when that vote is taken. We will inform everyone in Western Australia - Mr C.J. Barnett: So will your backbenchers. Dr G.I. GALLOP: That is because they are 100 per cent behind what we do with trading hours reform. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The issue of economic reform is fascinating. A journal article on the electricity reform question was recently published. The article deals with the issue of hypocrisy and is fascinating. It also deals with the energy reform processes that occurred under the previous Government. As part of the Council of Australian Governments, the Premier of the previous Government signed up to the competition reform process, which included changes in our electricity industry based upon disaggregation. That was of course recommended by the Carnegie review and McCarrey. The then Premier agreed to it at a COAG meeting. Of course, the changes did not happen under the previous Government. I wonder why they did not happen. I read to the House the conclusions of this academic article. Mr C.J. Barnett: Which academics? Dr G.I. GALLOP: Stephen Barton and Peter van Onselen. Mr C.J. Barnett: Who are they? Dr G.I. GALLOP: One works with the federal Government and the other is an academic in New South Wales. Mr C.J. Barnett: You’re right on the ball here! Please read on. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They do not like hearing an opinion, do they? The article states - The reform agenda introduced by the Court government contrasts sharply with the urgency that marked the Industries Commission, Hilmer and Carnegie Reports. I am quoting, so the Leader of the Opposition will be named. Is that okay, Mr Speaker? I continue - It seems that the corporate culture of SECWA remained. Colin Barnett, seemed to have been “captured” by the two new utilities, echoing the sentiments that competition should not come at any cost, despite the CoAG agreements . . . The introduction of competition into the energy sector gathered a considerable degree of momentum during the early 1990s and yet it virtually stopped dead at Colin Barnett’s feet. Barnett was widely regarded as a moderate and reasonable man, with leadership ambitions. By “toeing” the SECWA line, Barnett had access to the privileges of a high profile portfolio, without the political damage associated with extensive reform. Barnett’s “capture” is probably also a symptom of the confusion associated with the goals of the Court government in the energy sector. Those opposite have not learnt anything. They are not committed to reform. The Leader of the Opposition was captured. Mr C.J. Barnett: Is this it? This is fascinating. You are listening to two academics, but you will not listen to the one million people who did not have electricity a month ago. Dr G.I. GALLOP: In the media this morning the Leader of the Opposition said that no change should be introduced if there was divided opinion about it. That comment was made by a person who wants to lead Western Australia! He says there should be no change if there is divided opinion. That is not leadership; that is weakness. On the issues of electricity reform, liquor licensing reform and trading hours reform, the Liberal Party in this State can be described only as negative and backward looking. The people of Western Australia want to go forward. We want to take them forward. However, yet again, the Legislative Council is acting as an obstacle to sensible reform. These reforms will come, but only if a Labor Government is in place. Point of Order Mr B.K. MASTERS: Is it possible for the Premier to lay on the Table the academic document he quoted from? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I am very, very happy to table the article from the journal Policy and Society. This journal is No 2 of volume 22 and was published in December 2003. The article is written by Stephen Barton and Peter van Onselen. [See paper No 2170.]
Mr C.J. Barnett: You keep talking about tickers. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I will start again, Mr Speaker. We have not abandoned our plans for our electricity industry. We still look forward to the day when some commonsense prevails in the Liberal Party and we can get on with the job of electricity reform. We also have not abandoned our plans to bring about a more sensible liquor licensing regime for our State. However, given the obstinacy and negativity of the opposition parties, we cannot get our plans for those two issues through the Parliament. The issues of electricity and liquor licensing reform will not go away; nor will the issue of trading hours. We look forward to the vote on trading hours in the Legislative Council, as everyone in Western Australia will see who stands for a commonsense approach to reform of our trading hours that gives Western Australian citizens a choice. We will be very interested when that vote is taken. We will inform everyone in Western Australia - Mr C.J. Barnett: So will your backbenchers. Dr G.I. GALLOP: That is because they are 100 per cent behind what we do with trading hours reform. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The issue of economic reform is fascinating. A journal article on the electricity reform question was recently published. The article deals with the issue of hypocrisy and is fascinating. It also deals with the energy reform processes that occurred under the previous Government. As part of the Council of Australian Governments, the Premier of the previous Government signed up to the competition reform process, which included changes in our electricity industry based upon disaggregation. That was of course recommended by the Carnegie review and McCarrey. The then Premier agreed to it at a COAG meeting. Of course, the changes did not happen under the previous Government. I wonder why they did not happen. I read to the House the conclusions of this academic article. Mr C.J. Barnett: Which academics? Dr G.I. GALLOP: Stephen Barton and Peter van Onselen. Mr C.J. Barnett: Who are they? Dr G.I. GALLOP: One works with the federal Government and the other is an academic in New South Wales. Mr C.J. Barnett: You’re right on the ball here! Please read on. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They do not like hearing an opinion, do they? The article states - The reform agenda introduced by the Court government contrasts sharply with the urgency that marked the Industries Commission, Hilmer and Carnegie Reports. I am quoting, so the Leader of the Opposition will be named. Is that okay, Mr Speaker? I continue - It seems that the corporate culture of SECWA remained. Colin Barnett, seemed to have been “captured” by the two new utilities, echoing the sentiments that competition should not come at any cost, despite the CoAG agreements . . . The introduction of competition into the energy sector gathered a considerable degree of momentum during the early 1990s and yet it virtually stopped dead at Colin Barnett’s feet. Barnett was widely regarded as a moderate and reasonable man, with leadership ambitions. By “toeing” the SECWA line, Barnett had access to the privileges of a high profile portfolio, without the political damage associated with extensive reform. Barnett’s “capture” is probably also a symptom of the confusion associated with the goals of the Court government in the energy sector. Those opposite have not learnt anything. They are not committed to reform. The Leader of the Opposition was captured. Mr C.J. Barnett: Is this it? This is fascinating. You are listening to two academics, but you will not listen to the one million people who did not have electricity a month ago. Dr G.I. GALLOP: In the media this morning the Leader of the Opposition said that no change should be introduced if there was divided opinion about it. That comment was made by a person who wants to lead Western Australia! He says there should be no change if there is divided opinion. That is not leadership; that is weakness. On the issues of electricity reform, liquor licensing reform and trading hours reform, the Liberal Party in this State can be described only as negative and backward looking. The people of Western Australia want to go forward. We want to take them forward. However, yet again, the Legislative Council is acting as an obstacle to sensible reform. These reforms will come, but only if a Labor Government is in place. Point of Order Mr B.K. MASTERS: Is it possible for the Premier to lay on the Table the academic document he quoted from? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I am very, very happy to table the article from the journal Policy and Society. This journal is No 2 of volume 22 and was published in December 2003. The article is written by Stephen Barton and Peter van Onselen. [See paper No 2170.]
Dr G.I. GALLOP: I will start again, Mr Speaker. We have not abandoned our plans for our electricity industry. We still look forward to the day when some commonsense prevails in the Liberal Party and we can get on with the job of electricity reform. We also have not abandoned our plans to bring about a more sensible liquor licensing regime for our State. However, given the obstinacy and negativity of the opposition parties, we cannot get our plans for those two issues through the Parliament. The issues of electricity and liquor licensing reform will not go away; nor will the issue of trading hours. We look forward to the vote on trading hours in the Legislative Council, as everyone in Western Australia will see who stands for a commonsense approach to reform of our trading hours that gives Western Australian citizens a choice. We will be very interested when that vote is taken. We will inform everyone in Western Australia - Mr C.J. Barnett: So will your backbenchers. Dr G.I. GALLOP: That is because they are 100 per cent behind what we do with trading hours reform. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The issue of economic reform is fascinating. A journal article on the electricity reform question was recently published. The article deals with the issue of hypocrisy and is fascinating. It also deals with the energy reform processes that occurred under the previous Government. As part of the Council of Australian Governments, the Premier of the previous Government signed up to the competition reform process, which included changes in our electricity industry based upon disaggregation. That was of course recommended by the Carnegie review and McCarrey. The then Premier agreed to it at a COAG meeting. Of course, the changes did not happen under the previous Government. I wonder why they did not happen. I read to the House the conclusions of this academic article. Mr C.J. Barnett: Which academics? Dr G.I. GALLOP: Stephen Barton and Peter van Onselen. Mr C.J. Barnett: Who are they? Dr G.I. GALLOP: One works with the federal Government and the other is an academic in New South Wales. Mr C.J. Barnett: You’re right on the ball here! Please read on. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They do not like hearing an opinion, do they? The article states - The reform agenda introduced by the Court government contrasts sharply with the urgency that marked the Industries Commission, Hilmer and Carnegie Reports. I am quoting, so the Leader of the Opposition will be named. Is that okay, Mr Speaker? I continue - It seems that the corporate culture of SECWA remained. Colin Barnett, seemed to have been “captured” by the two new utilities, echoing the sentiments that competition should not come at any cost, despite the CoAG agreements . . . The introduction of competition into the energy sector gathered a considerable degree of momentum during the early 1990s and yet it virtually stopped dead at Colin Barnett’s feet. Barnett was widely regarded as a moderate and reasonable man, with leadership ambitions. By “toeing” the SECWA line, Barnett had access to the privileges of a high profile portfolio, without the political damage associated with extensive reform. Barnett’s “capture” is probably also a symptom of the confusion associated with the goals of the Court government in the energy sector. Those opposite have not learnt anything. They are not committed to reform. The Leader of the Opposition was captured. Mr C.J. Barnett: Is this it? This is fascinating. You are listening to two academics, but you will not listen to the one million people who did not have electricity a month ago. Dr G.I. GALLOP: In the media this morning the Leader of the Opposition said that no change should be introduced if there was divided opinion about it. That comment was made by a person who wants to lead Western Australia! He says there should be no change if there is divided opinion. That is not leadership; that is weakness. On the issues of electricity reform, liquor licensing reform and trading hours reform, the Liberal Party in this State can be described only as negative and backward looking. The people of Western Australia want to go forward. We want to take them forward. However, yet again, the Legislative Council is acting as an obstacle to sensible reform. These reforms will come, but only if a Labor Government is in place. Point of Order Mr B.K. MASTERS: Is it possible for the Premier to lay on the Table the academic document he quoted from? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I am very, very happy to table the article from the journal Policy and Society. This journal is No 2 of volume 22 and was published in December 2003. The article is written by Stephen Barton and Peter van Onselen. [See paper No 2170.]
Mr C.J. Barnett: So will your backbenchers. Dr G.I. GALLOP: That is because they are 100 per cent behind what we do with trading hours reform. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The issue of economic reform is fascinating. A journal article on the electricity reform question was recently published. The article deals with the issue of hypocrisy and is fascinating. It also deals with the energy reform processes that occurred under the previous Government. As part of the Council of Australian Governments, the Premier of the previous Government signed up to the competition reform process, which included changes in our electricity industry based upon disaggregation. That was of course recommended by the Carnegie review and McCarrey. The then Premier agreed to it at a COAG meeting. Of course, the changes did not happen under the previous Government. I wonder why they did not happen. I read to the House the conclusions of this academic article. Mr C.J. Barnett: Which academics? Dr G.I. GALLOP: Stephen Barton and Peter van Onselen. Mr C.J. Barnett: Who are they? Dr G.I. GALLOP: One works with the federal Government and the other is an academic in New South Wales. Mr C.J. Barnett: You’re right on the ball here! Please read on. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They do not like hearing an opinion, do they? The article states - The reform agenda introduced by the Court government contrasts sharply with the urgency that marked the Industries Commission, Hilmer and Carnegie Reports. I am quoting, so the Leader of the Opposition will be named. Is that okay, Mr Speaker? I continue - It seems that the corporate culture of SECWA remained. Colin Barnett, seemed to have been “captured” by the two new utilities, echoing the sentiments that competition should not come at any cost, despite the CoAG agreements . . . The introduction of competition into the energy sector gathered a considerable degree of momentum during the early 1990s and yet it virtually stopped dead at Colin Barnett’s feet. Barnett was widely regarded as a moderate and reasonable man, with leadership ambitions. By “toeing” the SECWA line, Barnett had access to the privileges of a high profile portfolio, without the political damage associated with extensive reform. Barnett’s “capture” is probably also a symptom of the confusion associated with the goals of the Court government in the energy sector. Those opposite have not learnt anything. They are not committed to reform. The Leader of the Opposition was captured. Mr C.J. Barnett: Is this it? This is fascinating. You are listening to two academics, but you will not listen to the one million people who did not have electricity a month ago. Dr G.I. GALLOP: In the media this morning the Leader of the Opposition said that no change should be introduced if there was divided opinion about it. That comment was made by a person who wants to lead Western Australia! He says there should be no change if there is divided opinion. That is not leadership; that is weakness. On the issues of electricity reform, liquor licensing reform and trading hours reform, the Liberal Party in this State can be described only as negative and backward looking. The people of Western Australia want to go forward. We want to take them forward. However, yet again, the Legislative Council is acting as an obstacle to sensible reform. These reforms will come, but only if a Labor Government is in place. Point of Order Mr B.K. MASTERS: Is it possible for the Premier to lay on the Table the academic document he quoted from? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I am very, very happy to table the article from the journal Policy and Society. This journal is No 2 of volume 22 and was published in December 2003. The article is written by Stephen Barton and Peter van Onselen. [See paper No 2170.]
Dr G.I. GALLOP: That is because they are 100 per cent behind what we do with trading hours reform. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The issue of economic reform is fascinating. A journal article on the electricity reform question was recently published. The article deals with the issue of hypocrisy and is fascinating. It also deals with the energy reform processes that occurred under the previous Government. As part of the Council of Australian Governments, the Premier of the previous Government signed up to the competition reform process, which included changes in our electricity industry based upon disaggregation. That was of course recommended by the Carnegie review and McCarrey. The then Premier agreed to it at a COAG meeting. Of course, the changes did not happen under the previous Government. I wonder why they did not happen. I read to the House the conclusions of this academic article. Mr C.J. Barnett: Which academics? Dr G.I. GALLOP: Stephen Barton and Peter van Onselen. Mr C.J. Barnett: Who are they? Dr G.I. GALLOP: One works with the federal Government and the other is an academic in New South Wales. Mr C.J. Barnett: You’re right on the ball here! Please read on. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They do not like hearing an opinion, do they? The article states - The reform agenda introduced by the Court government contrasts sharply with the urgency that marked the Industries Commission, Hilmer and Carnegie Reports. I am quoting, so the Leader of the Opposition will be named. Is that okay, Mr Speaker? I continue - It seems that the corporate culture of SECWA remained. Colin Barnett, seemed to have been “captured” by the two new utilities, echoing the sentiments that competition should not come at any cost, despite the CoAG agreements . . . The introduction of competition into the energy sector gathered a considerable degree of momentum during the early 1990s and yet it virtually stopped dead at Colin Barnett’s feet. Barnett was widely regarded as a moderate and reasonable man, with leadership ambitions. By “toeing” the SECWA line, Barnett had access to the privileges of a high profile portfolio, without the political damage associated with extensive reform. Barnett’s “capture” is probably also a symptom of the confusion associated with the goals of the Court government in the energy sector. Those opposite have not learnt anything. They are not committed to reform. The Leader of the Opposition was captured. Mr C.J. Barnett: Is this it? This is fascinating. You are listening to two academics, but you will not listen to the one million people who did not have electricity a month ago. Dr G.I. GALLOP: In the media this morning the Leader of the Opposition said that no change should be introduced if there was divided opinion about it. That comment was made by a person who wants to lead Western Australia! He says there should be no change if there is divided opinion. That is not leadership; that is weakness. On the issues of electricity reform, liquor licensing reform and trading hours reform, the Liberal Party in this State can be described only as negative and backward looking. The people of Western Australia want to go forward. We want to take them forward. However, yet again, the Legislative Council is acting as an obstacle to sensible reform. These reforms will come, but only if a Labor Government is in place. Point of Order Mr B.K. MASTERS: Is it possible for the Premier to lay on the Table the academic document he quoted from? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I am very, very happy to table the article from the journal Policy and Society. This journal is No 2 of volume 22 and was published in December 2003. The article is written by Stephen Barton and Peter van Onselen. [See paper No 2170.]
Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The issue of economic reform is fascinating. A journal article on the electricity reform question was recently published. The article deals with the issue of hypocrisy and is fascinating. It also deals with the energy reform processes that occurred under the previous Government. As part of the Council of Australian Governments, the Premier of the previous Government signed up to the competition reform process, which included changes in our electricity industry based upon disaggregation. That was of course recommended by the Carnegie review and McCarrey. The then Premier agreed to it at a COAG meeting. Of course, the changes did not happen under the previous Government. I wonder why they did not happen. I read to the House the conclusions of this academic article. Mr C.J. Barnett: Which academics? Dr G.I. GALLOP: Stephen Barton and Peter van Onselen. Mr C.J. Barnett: Who are they? Dr G.I. GALLOP: One works with the federal Government and the other is an academic in New South Wales. Mr C.J. Barnett: You’re right on the ball here! Please read on. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They do not like hearing an opinion, do they? The article states - The reform agenda introduced by the Court government contrasts sharply with the urgency that marked the Industries Commission, Hilmer and Carnegie Reports. I am quoting, so the Leader of the Opposition will be named. Is that okay, Mr Speaker? I continue - It seems that the corporate culture of SECWA remained. Colin Barnett, seemed to have been “captured” by the two new utilities, echoing the sentiments that competition should not come at any cost, despite the CoAG agreements . . . The introduction of competition into the energy sector gathered a considerable degree of momentum during the early 1990s and yet it virtually stopped dead at Colin Barnett’s feet. Barnett was widely regarded as a moderate and reasonable man, with leadership ambitions. By “toeing” the SECWA line, Barnett had access to the privileges of a high profile portfolio, without the political damage associated with extensive reform. Barnett’s “capture” is probably also a symptom of the confusion associated with the goals of the Court government in the energy sector. Those opposite have not learnt anything. They are not committed to reform. The Leader of the Opposition was captured. Mr C.J. Barnett: Is this it? This is fascinating. You are listening to two academics, but you will not listen to the one million people who did not have electricity a month ago. Dr G.I. GALLOP: In the media this morning the Leader of the Opposition said that no change should be introduced if there was divided opinion about it. That comment was made by a person who wants to lead Western Australia! He says there should be no change if there is divided opinion. That is not leadership; that is weakness. On the issues of electricity reform, liquor licensing reform and trading hours reform, the Liberal Party in this State can be described only as negative and backward looking. The people of Western Australia want to go forward. We want to take them forward. However, yet again, the Legislative Council is acting as an obstacle to sensible reform. These reforms will come, but only if a Labor Government is in place. Point of Order Mr B.K. MASTERS: Is it possible for the Premier to lay on the Table the academic document he quoted from? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I am very, very happy to table the article from the journal Policy and Society. This journal is No 2 of volume 22 and was published in December 2003. The article is written by Stephen Barton and Peter van Onselen. [See paper No 2170.]
Dr G.I. GALLOP: The issue of economic reform is fascinating. A journal article on the electricity reform question was recently published. The article deals with the issue of hypocrisy and is fascinating. It also deals with the energy reform processes that occurred under the previous Government. As part of the Council of Australian Governments, the Premier of the previous Government signed up to the competition reform process, which included changes in our electricity industry based upon disaggregation. That was of course recommended by the Carnegie review and McCarrey. The then Premier agreed to it at a COAG meeting. Of course, the changes did not happen under the previous Government. I wonder why they did not happen. I read to the House the conclusions of this academic article. Mr C.J. Barnett: Which academics? Dr G.I. GALLOP: Stephen Barton and Peter van Onselen. Mr C.J. Barnett: Who are they? Dr G.I. GALLOP: One works with the federal Government and the other is an academic in New South Wales. Mr C.J. Barnett: You’re right on the ball here! Please read on. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They do not like hearing an opinion, do they? The article states - The reform agenda introduced by the Court government contrasts sharply with the urgency that marked the Industries Commission, Hilmer and Carnegie Reports. I am quoting, so the Leader of the Opposition will be named. Is that okay, Mr Speaker? I continue - It seems that the corporate culture of SECWA remained. Colin Barnett, seemed to have been “captured” by the two new utilities, echoing the sentiments that competition should not come at any cost, despite the CoAG agreements . . . The introduction of competition into the energy sector gathered a considerable degree of momentum during the early 1990s and yet it virtually stopped dead at Colin Barnett’s feet. Barnett was widely regarded as a moderate and reasonable man, with leadership ambitions. By “toeing” the SECWA line, Barnett had access to the privileges of a high profile portfolio, without the political damage associated with extensive reform. Barnett’s “capture” is probably also a symptom of the confusion associated with the goals of the Court government in the energy sector. Those opposite have not learnt anything. They are not committed to reform. The Leader of the Opposition was captured. Mr C.J. Barnett: Is this it? This is fascinating. You are listening to two academics, but you will not listen to the one million people who did not have electricity a month ago. Dr G.I. GALLOP: In the media this morning the Leader of the Opposition said that no change should be introduced if there was divided opinion about it. That comment was made by a person who wants to lead Western Australia! He says there should be no change if there is divided opinion. That is not leadership; that is weakness. On the issues of electricity reform, liquor licensing reform and trading hours reform, the Liberal Party in this State can be described only as negative and backward looking. The people of Western Australia want to go forward. We want to take them forward. However, yet again, the Legislative Council is acting as an obstacle to sensible reform. These reforms will come, but only if a Labor Government is in place. Point of Order Mr B.K. MASTERS: Is it possible for the Premier to lay on the Table the academic document he quoted from? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I am very, very happy to table the article from the journal Policy and Society. This journal is No 2 of volume 22 and was published in December 2003. The article is written by Stephen Barton and Peter van Onselen. [See paper No 2170.]
Mr C.J. Barnett: Which academics? Dr G.I. GALLOP: Stephen Barton and Peter van Onselen. Mr C.J. Barnett: Who are they? Dr G.I. GALLOP: One works with the federal Government and the other is an academic in New South Wales. Mr C.J. Barnett: You’re right on the ball here! Please read on. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They do not like hearing an opinion, do they? The article states - The reform agenda introduced by the Court government contrasts sharply with the urgency that marked the Industries Commission, Hilmer and Carnegie Reports. I am quoting, so the Leader of the Opposition will be named. Is that okay, Mr Speaker? I continue - It seems that the corporate culture of SECWA remained. Colin Barnett, seemed to have been “captured” by the two new utilities, echoing the sentiments that competition should not come at any cost, despite the CoAG agreements . . . The introduction of competition into the energy sector gathered a considerable degree of momentum during the early 1990s and yet it virtually stopped dead at Colin Barnett’s feet. Barnett was widely regarded as a moderate and reasonable man, with leadership ambitions. By “toeing” the SECWA line, Barnett had access to the privileges of a high profile portfolio, without the political damage associated with extensive reform. Barnett’s “capture” is probably also a symptom of the confusion associated with the goals of the Court government in the energy sector. Those opposite have not learnt anything. They are not committed to reform. The Leader of the Opposition was captured. Mr C.J. Barnett: Is this it? This is fascinating. You are listening to two academics, but you will not listen to the one million people who did not have electricity a month ago. Dr G.I. GALLOP: In the media this morning the Leader of the Opposition said that no change should be introduced if there was divided opinion about it. That comment was made by a person who wants to lead Western Australia! He says there should be no change if there is divided opinion. That is not leadership; that is weakness. On the issues of electricity reform, liquor licensing reform and trading hours reform, the Liberal Party in this State can be described only as negative and backward looking. The people of Western Australia want to go forward. We want to take them forward. However, yet again, the Legislative Council is acting as an obstacle to sensible reform. These reforms will come, but only if a Labor Government is in place. Point of Order Mr B.K. MASTERS: Is it possible for the Premier to lay on the Table the academic document he quoted from? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I am very, very happy to table the article from the journal Policy and Society. This journal is No 2 of volume 22 and was published in December 2003. The article is written by Stephen Barton and Peter van Onselen. [See paper No 2170.]
Dr G.I. GALLOP: Stephen Barton and Peter van Onselen. Mr C.J. Barnett: Who are they? Dr G.I. GALLOP: One works with the federal Government and the other is an academic in New South Wales. Mr C.J. Barnett: You’re right on the ball here! Please read on. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They do not like hearing an opinion, do they? The article states - The reform agenda introduced by the Court government contrasts sharply with the urgency that marked the Industries Commission, Hilmer and Carnegie Reports. I am quoting, so the Leader of the Opposition will be named. Is that okay, Mr Speaker? I continue - It seems that the corporate culture of SECWA remained. Colin Barnett, seemed to have been “captured” by the two new utilities, echoing the sentiments that competition should not come at any cost, despite the CoAG agreements . . . The introduction of competition into the energy sector gathered a considerable degree of momentum during the early 1990s and yet it virtually stopped dead at Colin Barnett’s feet. Barnett was widely regarded as a moderate and reasonable man, with leadership ambitions. By “toeing” the SECWA line, Barnett had access to the privileges of a high profile portfolio, without the political damage associated with extensive reform. Barnett’s “capture” is probably also a symptom of the confusion associated with the goals of the Court government in the energy sector. Those opposite have not learnt anything. They are not committed to reform. The Leader of the Opposition was captured. Mr C.J. Barnett: Is this it? This is fascinating. You are listening to two academics, but you will not listen to the one million people who did not have electricity a month ago. Dr G.I. GALLOP: In the media this morning the Leader of the Opposition said that no change should be introduced if there was divided opinion about it. That comment was made by a person who wants to lead Western Australia! He says there should be no change if there is divided opinion. That is not leadership; that is weakness. On the issues of electricity reform, liquor licensing reform and trading hours reform, the Liberal Party in this State can be described only as negative and backward looking. The people of Western Australia want to go forward. We want to take them forward. However, yet again, the Legislative Council is acting as an obstacle to sensible reform. These reforms will come, but only if a Labor Government is in place. Point of Order Mr B.K. MASTERS: Is it possible for the Premier to lay on the Table the academic document he quoted from? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I am very, very happy to table the article from the journal Policy and Society. This journal is No 2 of volume 22 and was published in December 2003. The article is written by Stephen Barton and Peter van Onselen. [See paper No 2170.]
Mr C.J. Barnett: Who are they? Dr G.I. GALLOP: One works with the federal Government and the other is an academic in New South Wales. Mr C.J. Barnett: You’re right on the ball here! Please read on. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They do not like hearing an opinion, do they? The article states - The reform agenda introduced by the Court government contrasts sharply with the urgency that marked the Industries Commission, Hilmer and Carnegie Reports. I am quoting, so the Leader of the Opposition will be named. Is that okay, Mr Speaker? I continue - It seems that the corporate culture of SECWA remained. Colin Barnett, seemed to have been “captured” by the two new utilities, echoing the sentiments that competition should not come at any cost, despite the CoAG agreements . . . The introduction of competition into the energy sector gathered a considerable degree of momentum during the early 1990s and yet it virtually stopped dead at Colin Barnett’s feet. Barnett was widely regarded as a moderate and reasonable man, with leadership ambitions. By “toeing” the SECWA line, Barnett had access to the privileges of a high profile portfolio, without the political damage associated with extensive reform. Barnett’s “capture” is probably also a symptom of the confusion associated with the goals of the Court government in the energy sector. Those opposite have not learnt anything. They are not committed to reform. The Leader of the Opposition was captured. Mr C.J. Barnett: Is this it? This is fascinating. You are listening to two academics, but you will not listen to the one million people who did not have electricity a month ago. Dr G.I. GALLOP: In the media this morning the Leader of the Opposition said that no change should be introduced if there was divided opinion about it. That comment was made by a person who wants to lead Western Australia! He says there should be no change if there is divided opinion. That is not leadership; that is weakness. On the issues of electricity reform, liquor licensing reform and trading hours reform, the Liberal Party in this State can be described only as negative and backward looking. The people of Western Australia want to go forward. We want to take them forward. However, yet again, the Legislative Council is acting as an obstacle to sensible reform. These reforms will come, but only if a Labor Government is in place. Point of Order Mr B.K. MASTERS: Is it possible for the Premier to lay on the Table the academic document he quoted from? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I am very, very happy to table the article from the journal Policy and Society. This journal is No 2 of volume 22 and was published in December 2003. The article is written by Stephen Barton and Peter van Onselen. [See paper No 2170.]
Dr G.I. GALLOP: One works with the federal Government and the other is an academic in New South Wales. Mr C.J. Barnett: You’re right on the ball here! Please read on. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They do not like hearing an opinion, do they? The article states - The reform agenda introduced by the Court government contrasts sharply with the urgency that marked the Industries Commission, Hilmer and Carnegie Reports. I am quoting, so the Leader of the Opposition will be named. Is that okay, Mr Speaker? I continue - It seems that the corporate culture of SECWA remained. Colin Barnett, seemed to have been “captured” by the two new utilities, echoing the sentiments that competition should not come at any cost, despite the CoAG agreements . . . The introduction of competition into the energy sector gathered a considerable degree of momentum during the early 1990s and yet it virtually stopped dead at Colin Barnett’s feet. Barnett was widely regarded as a moderate and reasonable man, with leadership ambitions. By “toeing” the SECWA line, Barnett had access to the privileges of a high profile portfolio, without the political damage associated with extensive reform. Barnett’s “capture” is probably also a symptom of the confusion associated with the goals of the Court government in the energy sector. Those opposite have not learnt anything. They are not committed to reform. The Leader of the Opposition was captured. Mr C.J. Barnett: Is this it? This is fascinating. You are listening to two academics, but you will not listen to the one million people who did not have electricity a month ago. Dr G.I. GALLOP: In the media this morning the Leader of the Opposition said that no change should be introduced if there was divided opinion about it. That comment was made by a person who wants to lead Western Australia! He says there should be no change if there is divided opinion. That is not leadership; that is weakness. On the issues of electricity reform, liquor licensing reform and trading hours reform, the Liberal Party in this State can be described only as negative and backward looking. The people of Western Australia want to go forward. We want to take them forward. However, yet again, the Legislative Council is acting as an obstacle to sensible reform. These reforms will come, but only if a Labor Government is in place. Point of Order Mr B.K. MASTERS: Is it possible for the Premier to lay on the Table the academic document he quoted from? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I am very, very happy to table the article from the journal Policy and Society. This journal is No 2 of volume 22 and was published in December 2003. The article is written by Stephen Barton and Peter van Onselen. [See paper No 2170.]
Mr C.J. Barnett: You’re right on the ball here! Please read on. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They do not like hearing an opinion, do they? The article states - The reform agenda introduced by the Court government contrasts sharply with the urgency that marked the Industries Commission, Hilmer and Carnegie Reports. I am quoting, so the Leader of the Opposition will be named. Is that okay, Mr Speaker? I continue - It seems that the corporate culture of SECWA remained. Colin Barnett, seemed to have been “captured” by the two new utilities, echoing the sentiments that competition should not come at any cost, despite the CoAG agreements . . . The introduction of competition into the energy sector gathered a considerable degree of momentum during the early 1990s and yet it virtually stopped dead at Colin Barnett’s feet. Barnett was widely regarded as a moderate and reasonable man, with leadership ambitions. By “toeing” the SECWA line, Barnett had access to the privileges of a high profile portfolio, without the political damage associated with extensive reform. Barnett’s “capture” is probably also a symptom of the confusion associated with the goals of the Court government in the energy sector. Those opposite have not learnt anything. They are not committed to reform. The Leader of the Opposition was captured. Mr C.J. Barnett: Is this it? This is fascinating. You are listening to two academics, but you will not listen to the one million people who did not have electricity a month ago. Dr G.I. GALLOP: In the media this morning the Leader of the Opposition said that no change should be introduced if there was divided opinion about it. That comment was made by a person who wants to lead Western Australia! He says there should be no change if there is divided opinion. That is not leadership; that is weakness. On the issues of electricity reform, liquor licensing reform and trading hours reform, the Liberal Party in this State can be described only as negative and backward looking. The people of Western Australia want to go forward. We want to take them forward. However, yet again, the Legislative Council is acting as an obstacle to sensible reform. These reforms will come, but only if a Labor Government is in place. Point of Order Mr B.K. MASTERS: Is it possible for the Premier to lay on the Table the academic document he quoted from? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I am very, very happy to table the article from the journal Policy and Society. This journal is No 2 of volume 22 and was published in December 2003. The article is written by Stephen Barton and Peter van Onselen. [See paper No 2170.]
Dr G.I. GALLOP: They do not like hearing an opinion, do they? The article states - The reform agenda introduced by the Court government contrasts sharply with the urgency that marked the Industries Commission, Hilmer and Carnegie Reports. I am quoting, so the Leader of the Opposition will be named. Is that okay, Mr Speaker? I continue - It seems that the corporate culture of SECWA remained. Colin Barnett, seemed to have been “captured” by the two new utilities, echoing the sentiments that competition should not come at any cost, despite the CoAG agreements . . . The introduction of competition into the energy sector gathered a considerable degree of momentum during the early 1990s and yet it virtually stopped dead at Colin Barnett’s feet. Barnett was widely regarded as a moderate and reasonable man, with leadership ambitions. By “toeing” the SECWA line, Barnett had access to the privileges of a high profile portfolio, without the political damage associated with extensive reform. Barnett’s “capture” is probably also a symptom of the confusion associated with the goals of the Court government in the energy sector. Those opposite have not learnt anything. They are not committed to reform. The Leader of the Opposition was captured. Mr C.J. Barnett: Is this it? This is fascinating. You are listening to two academics, but you will not listen to the one million people who did not have electricity a month ago. Dr G.I. GALLOP: In the media this morning the Leader of the Opposition said that no change should be introduced if there was divided opinion about it. That comment was made by a person who wants to lead Western Australia! He says there should be no change if there is divided opinion. That is not leadership; that is weakness. On the issues of electricity reform, liquor licensing reform and trading hours reform, the Liberal Party in this State can be described only as negative and backward looking. The people of Western Australia want to go forward. We want to take them forward. However, yet again, the Legislative Council is acting as an obstacle to sensible reform. These reforms will come, but only if a Labor Government is in place. Point of Order Mr B.K. MASTERS: Is it possible for the Premier to lay on the Table the academic document he quoted from? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I am very, very happy to table the article from the journal Policy and Society. This journal is No 2 of volume 22 and was published in December 2003. The article is written by Stephen Barton and Peter van Onselen. [See paper No 2170.]
Mr C.J. Barnett: Is this it? This is fascinating. You are listening to two academics, but you will not listen to the one million people who did not have electricity a month ago. Dr G.I. GALLOP: In the media this morning the Leader of the Opposition said that no change should be introduced if there was divided opinion about it. That comment was made by a person who wants to lead Western Australia! He says there should be no change if there is divided opinion. That is not leadership; that is weakness. On the issues of electricity reform, liquor licensing reform and trading hours reform, the Liberal Party in this State can be described only as negative and backward looking. The people of Western Australia want to go forward. We want to take them forward. However, yet again, the Legislative Council is acting as an obstacle to sensible reform. These reforms will come, but only if a Labor Government is in place. Point of Order Mr B.K. MASTERS: Is it possible for the Premier to lay on the Table the academic document he quoted from? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I am very, very happy to table the article from the journal Policy and Society. This journal is No 2 of volume 22 and was published in December 2003. The article is written by Stephen Barton and Peter van Onselen. [See paper No 2170.]
Dr G.I. GALLOP: In the media this morning the Leader of the Opposition said that no change should be introduced if there was divided opinion about it. That comment was made by a person who wants to lead Western Australia! He says there should be no change if there is divided opinion. That is not leadership; that is weakness. On the issues of electricity reform, liquor licensing reform and trading hours reform, the Liberal Party in this State can be described only as negative and backward looking. The people of Western Australia want to go forward. We want to take them forward. However, yet again, the Legislative Council is acting as an obstacle to sensible reform. These reforms will come, but only if a Labor Government is in place. Point of Order Mr B.K. MASTERS: Is it possible for the Premier to lay on the Table the academic document he quoted from? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I am very, very happy to table the article from the journal Policy and Society. This journal is No 2 of volume 22 and was published in December 2003. The article is written by Stephen Barton and Peter van Onselen. [See paper No 2170.]
Dr G.I. GALLOP: I am very, very happy to table the article from the journal Policy and Society. This journal is No 2 of volume 22 and was published in December 2003. The article is written by Stephen Barton and Peter van Onselen. [See paper No 2170.]
[See paper No 2170.]
(1) As the Liberal Party, Greens (WA), the National Party and One Nation also oppose the Premier’s plan to extend weeknight retail trading hours, can we expect another backflip soon? (2) If not, how does he explain Labor’s blatant hypocrisy? Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: (1)-(2) The Australian Labor Party has not abandoned - to use the member’s expression - plans to reform - Mr C.J. Barnett: How is your ticker? Tick, tick, tock, clunk! Dr G.I. GALLOP: It has not abandoned its plans to - Mr C.J. Barnett: You keep talking about tickers. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I will start again, Mr Speaker. We have not abandoned our plans for our electricity industry. We still look forward to the day when some commonsense prevails in the Liberal Party and we can get on with the job of electricity reform. We also have not abandoned our plans to bring about a more sensible liquor licensing regime for our State. However, given the obstinacy and negativity of the opposition parties, we cannot get our plans for those two issues through the Parliament. The issues of electricity and liquor licensing reform will not go away; nor will the issue of trading hours. We look forward to the vote on trading hours in the Legislative Council, as everyone in Western Australia will see who stands for a commonsense approach to reform of our trading hours that gives Western Australian citizens a choice. We will be very interested when that vote is taken. We will inform everyone in Western Australia - Mr C.J. Barnett: So will your backbenchers. Dr G.I. GALLOP: That is because they are 100 per cent behind what we do with trading hours reform. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The issue of economic reform is fascinating. A journal article on the electricity reform question was recently published. The article deals with the issue of hypocrisy and is fascinating. It also deals with the energy reform processes that occurred under the previous Government. As part of the Council of Australian Governments, the Premier of the previous Government signed up to the competition reform process, which included changes in our electricity industry based upon disaggregation. That was of course recommended by the Carnegie review and McCarrey. The then Premier agreed to it at a COAG meeting. Of course, the changes did not happen under the previous Government. I wonder why they did not happen. I read to the House the conclusions of this academic article. Mr C.J. Barnett: Which academics? Dr G.I. GALLOP: Stephen Barton and Peter van Onselen. Mr C.J. Barnett: Who are they? Dr G.I. GALLOP: One works with the federal Government and the other is an academic in New South Wales. Mr C.J. Barnett: You’re right on the ball here! Please read on. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They do not like hearing an opinion, do they? The article states - The reform agenda introduced by the Court government contrasts sharply with the urgency that marked the Industries Commission, Hilmer and Carnegie Reports. I am quoting, so the Leader of the Opposition will be named. Is that okay, Mr Speaker? I continue - It seems that the corporate culture of SECWA remained. Colin Barnett, seemed to have been “captured” by the two new utilities, echoing the sentiments that competition should not come at any cost, despite the CoAG agreements . . . The introduction of competition into the energy sector gathered a considerable degree of momentum during the early 1990s and yet it virtually stopped dead at Colin Barnett’s feet. Barnett was widely regarded as a moderate and reasonable man, with leadership ambitions. By “toeing” the SECWA line, Barnett had access to the privileges of a high profile portfolio, without the political damage associated with extensive reform. Barnett’s “capture” is probably also a symptom of the confusion associated with the goals of the Court government in the energy sector. Those opposite have not learnt anything. They are not committed to reform. The Leader of the Opposition was captured. Mr C.J. Barnett: Is this it? This is fascinating. You are listening to two academics, but you will not listen to the one million people who did not have electricity a month ago. Dr G.I. GALLOP: In the media this morning the Leader of the Opposition said that no change should be introduced if there was divided opinion about it. That comment was made by a person who wants to lead Western Australia! He says there should be no change if there is divided opinion. That is not leadership; that is weakness. On the issues of electricity reform, liquor licensing reform and trading hours reform, the Liberal Party in this State can be described only as negative and backward looking. The people of Western Australia want to go forward. We want to take them forward. However, yet again, the Legislative Council is acting as an obstacle to sensible reform. These reforms will come, but only if a Labor Government is in place. Point of Order Mr B.K. MASTERS: Is it possible for the Premier to lay on the Table the academic document he quoted from? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I am very, very happy to table the article from the journal Policy and Society. This journal is No 2 of volume 22 and was published in December 2003. The article is written by Stephen Barton and Peter van Onselen. [See paper No 2170.]
(2) If not, how does he explain Labor’s blatant hypocrisy? Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: (1)-(2) The Australian Labor Party has not abandoned - to use the member’s expression - plans to reform - Mr C.J. Barnett: How is your ticker? Tick, tick, tock, clunk! Dr G.I. GALLOP: It has not abandoned its plans to - Mr C.J. Barnett: You keep talking about tickers. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I will start again, Mr Speaker. We have not abandoned our plans for our electricity industry. We still look forward to the day when some commonsense prevails in the Liberal Party and we can get on with the job of electricity reform. We also have not abandoned our plans to bring about a more sensible liquor licensing regime for our State. However, given the obstinacy and negativity of the opposition parties, we cannot get our plans for those two issues through the Parliament. The issues of electricity and liquor licensing reform will not go away; nor will the issue of trading hours. We look forward to the vote on trading hours in the Legislative Council, as everyone in Western Australia will see who stands for a commonsense approach to reform of our trading hours that gives Western Australian citizens a choice. We will be very interested when that vote is taken. We will inform everyone in Western Australia - Mr C.J. Barnett: So will your backbenchers. Dr G.I. GALLOP: That is because they are 100 per cent behind what we do with trading hours reform. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The issue of economic reform is fascinating. A journal article on the electricity reform question was recently published. The article deals with the issue of hypocrisy and is fascinating. It also deals with the energy reform processes that occurred under the previous Government. As part of the Council of Australian Governments, the Premier of the previous Government signed up to the competition reform process, which included changes in our electricity industry based upon disaggregation. That was of course recommended by the Carnegie review and McCarrey. The then Premier agreed to it at a COAG meeting. Of course, the changes did not happen under the previous Government. I wonder why they did not happen. I read to the House the conclusions of this academic article. Mr C.J. Barnett: Which academics? Dr G.I. GALLOP: Stephen Barton and Peter van Onselen. Mr C.J. Barnett: Who are they? Dr G.I. GALLOP: One works with the federal Government and the other is an academic in New South Wales. Mr C.J. Barnett: You’re right on the ball here! Please read on. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They do not like hearing an opinion, do they? The article states - The reform agenda introduced by the Court government contrasts sharply with the urgency that marked the Industries Commission, Hilmer and Carnegie Reports. I am quoting, so the Leader of the Opposition will be named. Is that okay, Mr Speaker? I continue - It seems that the corporate culture of SECWA remained. Colin Barnett, seemed to have been “captured” by the two new utilities, echoing the sentiments that competition should not come at any cost, despite the CoAG agreements . . . The introduction of competition into the energy sector gathered a considerable degree of momentum during the early 1990s and yet it virtually stopped dead at Colin Barnett’s feet. Barnett was widely regarded as a moderate and reasonable man, with leadership ambitions. By “toeing” the SECWA line, Barnett had access to the privileges of a high profile portfolio, without the political damage associated with extensive reform. Barnett’s “capture” is probably also a symptom of the confusion associated with the goals of the Court government in the energy sector. Those opposite have not learnt anything. They are not committed to reform. The Leader of the Opposition was captured. Mr C.J. Barnett: Is this it? This is fascinating. You are listening to two academics, but you will not listen to the one million people who did not have electricity a month ago. Dr G.I. GALLOP: In the media this morning the Leader of the Opposition said that no change should be introduced if there was divided opinion about it. That comment was made by a person who wants to lead Western Australia! He says there should be no change if there is divided opinion. That is not leadership; that is weakness. On the issues of electricity reform, liquor licensing reform and trading hours reform, the Liberal Party in this State can be described only as negative and backward looking. The people of Western Australia want to go forward. We want to take them forward. However, yet again, the Legislative Council is acting as an obstacle to sensible reform. These reforms will come, but only if a Labor Government is in place. Point of Order Mr B.K. MASTERS: Is it possible for the Premier to lay on the Table the academic document he quoted from? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I am very, very happy to table the article from the journal Policy and Society. This journal is No 2 of volume 22 and was published in December 2003. The article is written by Stephen Barton and Peter van Onselen. [See paper No 2170.]
Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: (1)-(2) The Australian Labor Party has not abandoned - to use the member’s expression - plans to reform - Mr C.J. Barnett: How is your ticker? Tick, tick, tock, clunk! Dr G.I. GALLOP: It has not abandoned its plans to - Mr C.J. Barnett: You keep talking about tickers. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I will start again, Mr Speaker. We have not abandoned our plans for our electricity industry. We still look forward to the day when some commonsense prevails in the Liberal Party and we can get on with the job of electricity reform. We also have not abandoned our plans to bring about a more sensible liquor licensing regime for our State. However, given the obstinacy and negativity of the opposition parties, we cannot get our plans for those two issues through the Parliament. The issues of electricity and liquor licensing reform will not go away; nor will the issue of trading hours. We look forward to the vote on trading hours in the Legislative Council, as everyone in Western Australia will see who stands for a commonsense approach to reform of our trading hours that gives Western Australian citizens a choice. We will be very interested when that vote is taken. We will inform everyone in Western Australia - Mr C.J. Barnett: So will your backbenchers. Dr G.I. GALLOP: That is because they are 100 per cent behind what we do with trading hours reform. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The issue of economic reform is fascinating. A journal article on the electricity reform question was recently published. The article deals with the issue of hypocrisy and is fascinating. It also deals with the energy reform processes that occurred under the previous Government. As part of the Council of Australian Governments, the Premier of the previous Government signed up to the competition reform process, which included changes in our electricity industry based upon disaggregation. That was of course recommended by the Carnegie review and McCarrey. The then Premier agreed to it at a COAG meeting. Of course, the changes did not happen under the previous Government. I wonder why they did not happen. I read to the House the conclusions of this academic article. Mr C.J. Barnett: Which academics? Dr G.I. GALLOP: Stephen Barton and Peter van Onselen. Mr C.J. Barnett: Who are they? Dr G.I. GALLOP: One works with the federal Government and the other is an academic in New South Wales. Mr C.J. Barnett: You’re right on the ball here! Please read on. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They do not like hearing an opinion, do they? The article states - The reform agenda introduced by the Court government contrasts sharply with the urgency that marked the Industries Commission, Hilmer and Carnegie Reports. I am quoting, so the Leader of the Opposition will be named. Is that okay, Mr Speaker? I continue - It seems that the corporate culture of SECWA remained. Colin Barnett, seemed to have been “captured” by the two new utilities, echoing the sentiments that competition should not come at any cost, despite the CoAG agreements . . . The introduction of competition into the energy sector gathered a considerable degree of momentum during the early 1990s and yet it virtually stopped dead at Colin Barnett’s feet. Barnett was widely regarded as a moderate and reasonable man, with leadership ambitions. By “toeing” the SECWA line, Barnett had access to the privileges of a high profile portfolio, without the political damage associated with extensive reform. Barnett’s “capture” is probably also a symptom of the confusion associated with the goals of the Court government in the energy sector. Those opposite have not learnt anything. They are not committed to reform. The Leader of the Opposition was captured. Mr C.J. Barnett: Is this it? This is fascinating. You are listening to two academics, but you will not listen to the one million people who did not have electricity a month ago. Dr G.I. GALLOP: In the media this morning the Leader of the Opposition said that no change should be introduced if there was divided opinion about it. That comment was made by a person who wants to lead Western Australia! He says there should be no change if there is divided opinion. That is not leadership; that is weakness. On the issues of electricity reform, liquor licensing reform and trading hours reform, the Liberal Party in this State can be described only as negative and backward looking. The people of Western Australia want to go forward. We want to take them forward. However, yet again, the Legislative Council is acting as an obstacle to sensible reform. These reforms will come, but only if a Labor Government is in place. Point of Order Mr B.K. MASTERS: Is it possible for the Premier to lay on the Table the academic document he quoted from? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I am very, very happy to table the article from the journal Policy and Society. This journal is No 2 of volume 22 and was published in December 2003. The article is written by Stephen Barton and Peter van Onselen. [See paper No 2170.]
(1)-(2) The Australian Labor Party has not abandoned - to use the member’s expression - plans to reform - Mr C.J. Barnett: How is your ticker? Tick, tick, tock, clunk! Dr G.I. GALLOP: It has not abandoned its plans to - Mr C.J. Barnett: You keep talking about tickers. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I will start again, Mr Speaker. We have not abandoned our plans for our electricity industry. We still look forward to the day when some commonsense prevails in the Liberal Party and we can get on with the job of electricity reform. We also have not abandoned our plans to bring about a more sensible liquor licensing regime for our State. However, given the obstinacy and negativity of the opposition parties, we cannot get our plans for those two issues through the Parliament. The issues of electricity and liquor licensing reform will not go away; nor will the issue of trading hours. We look forward to the vote on trading hours in the Legislative Council, as everyone in Western Australia will see who stands for a commonsense approach to reform of our trading hours that gives Western Australian citizens a choice. We will be very interested when that vote is taken. We will inform everyone in Western Australia - Mr C.J. Barnett: So will your backbenchers. Dr G.I. GALLOP: That is because they are 100 per cent behind what we do with trading hours reform. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The issue of economic reform is fascinating. A journal article on the electricity reform question was recently published. The article deals with the issue of hypocrisy and is fascinating. It also deals with the energy reform processes that occurred under the previous Government. As part of the Council of Australian Governments, the Premier of the previous Government signed up to the competition reform process, which included changes in our electricity industry based upon disaggregation. That was of course recommended by the Carnegie review and McCarrey. The then Premier agreed to it at a COAG meeting. Of course, the changes did not happen under the previous Government. I wonder why they did not happen. I read to the House the conclusions of this academic article. Mr C.J. Barnett: Which academics? Dr G.I. GALLOP: Stephen Barton and Peter van Onselen. Mr C.J. Barnett: Who are they? Dr G.I. GALLOP: One works with the federal Government and the other is an academic in New South Wales. Mr C.J. Barnett: You’re right on the ball here! Please read on. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They do not like hearing an opinion, do they? The article states - The reform agenda introduced by the Court government contrasts sharply with the urgency that marked the Industries Commission, Hilmer and Carnegie Reports. I am quoting, so the Leader of the Opposition will be named. Is that okay, Mr Speaker? I continue - It seems that the corporate culture of SECWA remained. Colin Barnett, seemed to have been “captured” by the two new utilities, echoing the sentiments that competition should not come at any cost, despite the CoAG agreements . . . The introduction of competition into the energy sector gathered a considerable degree of momentum during the early 1990s and yet it virtually stopped dead at Colin Barnett’s feet. Barnett was widely regarded as a moderate and reasonable man, with leadership ambitions. By “toeing” the SECWA line, Barnett had access to the privileges of a high profile portfolio, without the political damage associated with extensive reform. Barnett’s “capture” is probably also a symptom of the confusion associated with the goals of the Court government in the energy sector. Those opposite have not learnt anything. They are not committed to reform. The Leader of the Opposition was captured. Mr C.J. Barnett: Is this it? This is fascinating. You are listening to two academics, but you will not listen to the one million people who did not have electricity a month ago. Dr G.I. GALLOP: In the media this morning the Leader of the Opposition said that no change should be introduced if there was divided opinion about it. That comment was made by a person who wants to lead Western Australia! He says there should be no change if there is divided opinion. That is not leadership; that is weakness. On the issues of electricity reform, liquor licensing reform and trading hours reform, the Liberal Party in this State can be described only as negative and backward looking. The people of Western Australia want to go forward. We want to take them forward. However, yet again, the Legislative Council is acting as an obstacle to sensible reform. These reforms will come, but only if a Labor Government is in place. Point of Order Mr B.K. MASTERS: Is it possible for the Premier to lay on the Table the academic document he quoted from? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I am very, very happy to table the article from the journal Policy and Society. This journal is No 2 of volume 22 and was published in December 2003. The article is written by Stephen Barton and Peter van Onselen. [See paper No 2170.]
Mr C.J. Barnett: How is your ticker? Tick, tick, tock, clunk! Dr G.I. GALLOP: It has not abandoned its plans to - Mr C.J. Barnett: You keep talking about tickers. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I will start again, Mr Speaker. We have not abandoned our plans for our electricity industry. We still look forward to the day when some commonsense prevails in the Liberal Party and we can get on with the job of electricity reform. We also have not abandoned our plans to bring about a more sensible liquor licensing regime for our State. However, given the obstinacy and negativity of the opposition parties, we cannot get our plans for those two issues through the Parliament. The issues of electricity and liquor licensing reform will not go away; nor will the issue of trading hours. We look forward to the vote on trading hours in the Legislative Council, as everyone in Western Australia will see who stands for a commonsense approach to reform of our trading hours that gives Western Australian citizens a choice. We will be very interested when that vote is taken. We will inform everyone in Western Australia - Mr C.J. Barnett: So will your backbenchers. Dr G.I. GALLOP: That is because they are 100 per cent behind what we do with trading hours reform. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The issue of economic reform is fascinating. A journal article on the electricity reform question was recently published. The article deals with the issue of hypocrisy and is fascinating. It also deals with the energy reform processes that occurred under the previous Government. As part of the Council of Australian Governments, the Premier of the previous Government signed up to the competition reform process, which included changes in our electricity industry based upon disaggregation. That was of course recommended by the Carnegie review and McCarrey. The then Premier agreed to it at a COAG meeting. Of course, the changes did not happen under the previous Government. I wonder why they did not happen. I read to the House the conclusions of this academic article. Mr C.J. Barnett: Which academics? Dr G.I. GALLOP: Stephen Barton and Peter van Onselen. Mr C.J. Barnett: Who are they? Dr G.I. GALLOP: One works with the federal Government and the other is an academic in New South Wales. Mr C.J. Barnett: You’re right on the ball here! Please read on. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They do not like hearing an opinion, do they? The article states - The reform agenda introduced by the Court government contrasts sharply with the urgency that marked the Industries Commission, Hilmer and Carnegie Reports. I am quoting, so the Leader of the Opposition will be named. Is that okay, Mr Speaker? I continue - It seems that the corporate culture of SECWA remained. Colin Barnett, seemed to have been “captured” by the two new utilities, echoing the sentiments that competition should not come at any cost, despite the CoAG agreements . . . The introduction of competition into the energy sector gathered a considerable degree of momentum during the early 1990s and yet it virtually stopped dead at Colin Barnett’s feet. Barnett was widely regarded as a moderate and reasonable man, with leadership ambitions. By “toeing” the SECWA line, Barnett had access to the privileges of a high profile portfolio, without the political damage associated with extensive reform. Barnett’s “capture” is probably also a symptom of the confusion associated with the goals of the Court government in the energy sector. Those opposite have not learnt anything. They are not committed to reform. The Leader of the Opposition was captured. Mr C.J. Barnett: Is this it? This is fascinating. You are listening to two academics, but you will not listen to the one million people who did not have electricity a month ago. Dr G.I. GALLOP: In the media this morning the Leader of the Opposition said that no change should be introduced if there was divided opinion about it. That comment was made by a person who wants to lead Western Australia! He says there should be no change if there is divided opinion. That is not leadership; that is weakness. On the issues of electricity reform, liquor licensing reform and trading hours reform, the Liberal Party in this State can be described only as negative and backward looking. The people of Western Australia want to go forward. We want to take them forward. However, yet again, the Legislative Council is acting as an obstacle to sensible reform. These reforms will come, but only if a Labor Government is in place. Point of Order Mr B.K. MASTERS: Is it possible for the Premier to lay on the Table the academic document he quoted from? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I am very, very happy to table the article from the journal Policy and Society. This journal is No 2 of volume 22 and was published in December 2003. The article is written by Stephen Barton and Peter van Onselen. [See paper No 2170.]
Dr G.I. GALLOP: It has not abandoned its plans to - Mr C.J. Barnett: You keep talking about tickers. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I will start again, Mr Speaker. We have not abandoned our plans for our electricity industry. We still look forward to the day when some commonsense prevails in the Liberal Party and we can get on with the job of electricity reform. We also have not abandoned our plans to bring about a more sensible liquor licensing regime for our State. However, given the obstinacy and negativity of the opposition parties, we cannot get our plans for those two issues through the Parliament. The issues of electricity and liquor licensing reform will not go away; nor will the issue of trading hours. We look forward to the vote on trading hours in the Legislative Council, as everyone in Western Australia will see who stands for a commonsense approach to reform of our trading hours that gives Western Australian citizens a choice. We will be very interested when that vote is taken. We will inform everyone in Western Australia - Mr C.J. Barnett: So will your backbenchers. Dr G.I. GALLOP: That is because they are 100 per cent behind what we do with trading hours reform. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The issue of economic reform is fascinating. A journal article on the electricity reform question was recently published. The article deals with the issue of hypocrisy and is fascinating. It also deals with the energy reform processes that occurred under the previous Government. As part of the Council of Australian Governments, the Premier of the previous Government signed up to the competition reform process, which included changes in our electricity industry based upon disaggregation. That was of course recommended by the Carnegie review and McCarrey. The then Premier agreed to it at a COAG meeting. Of course, the changes did not happen under the previous Government. I wonder why they did not happen. I read to the House the conclusions of this academic article. Mr C.J. Barnett: Which academics? Dr G.I. GALLOP: Stephen Barton and Peter van Onselen. Mr C.J. Barnett: Who are they? Dr G.I. GALLOP: One works with the federal Government and the other is an academic in New South Wales. Mr C.J. Barnett: You’re right on the ball here! Please read on. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They do not like hearing an opinion, do they? The article states - The reform agenda introduced by the Court government contrasts sharply with the urgency that marked the Industries Commission, Hilmer and Carnegie Reports. I am quoting, so the Leader of the Opposition will be named. Is that okay, Mr Speaker? I continue - It seems that the corporate culture of SECWA remained. Colin Barnett, seemed to have been “captured” by the two new utilities, echoing the sentiments that competition should not come at any cost, despite the CoAG agreements . . . The introduction of competition into the energy sector gathered a considerable degree of momentum during the early 1990s and yet it virtually stopped dead at Colin Barnett’s feet. Barnett was widely regarded as a moderate and reasonable man, with leadership ambitions. By “toeing” the SECWA line, Barnett had access to the privileges of a high profile portfolio, without the political damage associated with extensive reform. Barnett’s “capture” is probably also a symptom of the confusion associated with the goals of the Court government in the energy sector. Those opposite have not learnt anything. They are not committed to reform. The Leader of the Opposition was captured. Mr C.J. Barnett: Is this it? This is fascinating. You are listening to two academics, but you will not listen to the one million people who did not have electricity a month ago. Dr G.I. GALLOP: In the media this morning the Leader of the Opposition said that no change should be introduced if there was divided opinion about it. That comment was made by a person who wants to lead Western Australia! He says there should be no change if there is divided opinion. That is not leadership; that is weakness. On the issues of electricity reform, liquor licensing reform and trading hours reform, the Liberal Party in this State can be described only as negative and backward looking. The people of Western Australia want to go forward. We want to take them forward. However, yet again, the Legislative Council is acting as an obstacle to sensible reform. These reforms will come, but only if a Labor Government is in place. Point of Order Mr B.K. MASTERS: Is it possible for the Premier to lay on the Table the academic document he quoted from? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I am very, very happy to table the article from the journal Policy and Society. This journal is No 2 of volume 22 and was published in December 2003. The article is written by Stephen Barton and Peter van Onselen. [See paper No 2170.]
Mr C.J. Barnett: You keep talking about tickers. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I will start again, Mr Speaker. We have not abandoned our plans for our electricity industry. We still look forward to the day when some commonsense prevails in the Liberal Party and we can get on with the job of electricity reform. We also have not abandoned our plans to bring about a more sensible liquor licensing regime for our State. However, given the obstinacy and negativity of the opposition parties, we cannot get our plans for those two issues through the Parliament. The issues of electricity and liquor licensing reform will not go away; nor will the issue of trading hours. We look forward to the vote on trading hours in the Legislative Council, as everyone in Western Australia will see who stands for a commonsense approach to reform of our trading hours that gives Western Australian citizens a choice. We will be very interested when that vote is taken. We will inform everyone in Western Australia - Mr C.J. Barnett: So will your backbenchers. Dr G.I. GALLOP: That is because they are 100 per cent behind what we do with trading hours reform. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The issue of economic reform is fascinating. A journal article on the electricity reform question was recently published. The article deals with the issue of hypocrisy and is fascinating. It also deals with the energy reform processes that occurred under the previous Government. As part of the Council of Australian Governments, the Premier of the previous Government signed up to the competition reform process, which included changes in our electricity industry based upon disaggregation. That was of course recommended by the Carnegie review and McCarrey. The then Premier agreed to it at a COAG meeting. Of course, the changes did not happen under the previous Government. I wonder why they did not happen. I read to the House the conclusions of this academic article. Mr C.J. Barnett: Which academics? Dr G.I. GALLOP: Stephen Barton and Peter van Onselen. Mr C.J. Barnett: Who are they? Dr G.I. GALLOP: One works with the federal Government and the other is an academic in New South Wales. Mr C.J. Barnett: You’re right on the ball here! Please read on. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They do not like hearing an opinion, do they? The article states - The reform agenda introduced by the Court government contrasts sharply with the urgency that marked the Industries Commission, Hilmer and Carnegie Reports. I am quoting, so the Leader of the Opposition will be named. Is that okay, Mr Speaker? I continue - It seems that the corporate culture of SECWA remained. Colin Barnett, seemed to have been “captured” by the two new utilities, echoing the sentiments that competition should not come at any cost, despite the CoAG agreements . . . The introduction of competition into the energy sector gathered a considerable degree of momentum during the early 1990s and yet it virtually stopped dead at Colin Barnett’s feet. Barnett was widely regarded as a moderate and reasonable man, with leadership ambitions. By “toeing” the SECWA line, Barnett had access to the privileges of a high profile portfolio, without the political damage associated with extensive reform. Barnett’s “capture” is probably also a symptom of the confusion associated with the goals of the Court government in the energy sector. Those opposite have not learnt anything. They are not committed to reform. The Leader of the Opposition was captured. Mr C.J. Barnett: Is this it? This is fascinating. You are listening to two academics, but you will not listen to the one million people who did not have electricity a month ago. Dr G.I. GALLOP: In the media this morning the Leader of the Opposition said that no change should be introduced if there was divided opinion about it. That comment was made by a person who wants to lead Western Australia! He says there should be no change if there is divided opinion. That is not leadership; that is weakness. On the issues of electricity reform, liquor licensing reform and trading hours reform, the Liberal Party in this State can be described only as negative and backward looking. The people of Western Australia want to go forward. We want to take them forward. However, yet again, the Legislative Council is acting as an obstacle to sensible reform. These reforms will come, but only if a Labor Government is in place. Point of Order Mr B.K. MASTERS: Is it possible for the Premier to lay on the Table the academic document he quoted from? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I am very, very happy to table the article from the journal Policy and Society. This journal is No 2 of volume 22 and was published in December 2003. The article is written by Stephen Barton and Peter van Onselen. [See paper No 2170.]
Dr G.I. GALLOP: I will start again, Mr Speaker. We have not abandoned our plans for our electricity industry. We still look forward to the day when some commonsense prevails in the Liberal Party and we can get on with the job of electricity reform. We also have not abandoned our plans to bring about a more sensible liquor licensing regime for our State. However, given the obstinacy and negativity of the opposition parties, we cannot get our plans for those two issues through the Parliament. The issues of electricity and liquor licensing reform will not go away; nor will the issue of trading hours. We look forward to the vote on trading hours in the Legislative Council, as everyone in Western Australia will see who stands for a commonsense approach to reform of our trading hours that gives Western Australian citizens a choice. We will be very interested when that vote is taken. We will inform everyone in Western Australia - Mr C.J. Barnett: So will your backbenchers. Dr G.I. GALLOP: That is because they are 100 per cent behind what we do with trading hours reform. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The issue of economic reform is fascinating. A journal article on the electricity reform question was recently published. The article deals with the issue of hypocrisy and is fascinating. It also deals with the energy reform processes that occurred under the previous Government. As part of the Council of Australian Governments, the Premier of the previous Government signed up to the competition reform process, which included changes in our electricity industry based upon disaggregation. That was of course recommended by the Carnegie review and McCarrey. The then Premier agreed to it at a COAG meeting. Of course, the changes did not happen under the previous Government. I wonder why they did not happen. I read to the House the conclusions of this academic article. Mr C.J. Barnett: Which academics? Dr G.I. GALLOP: Stephen Barton and Peter van Onselen. Mr C.J. Barnett: Who are they? Dr G.I. GALLOP: One works with the federal Government and the other is an academic in New South Wales. Mr C.J. Barnett: You’re right on the ball here! Please read on. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They do not like hearing an opinion, do they? The article states - The reform agenda introduced by the Court government contrasts sharply with the urgency that marked the Industries Commission, Hilmer and Carnegie Reports. I am quoting, so the Leader of the Opposition will be named. Is that okay, Mr Speaker? I continue - It seems that the corporate culture of SECWA remained. Colin Barnett, seemed to have been “captured” by the two new utilities, echoing the sentiments that competition should not come at any cost, despite the CoAG agreements . . . The introduction of competition into the energy sector gathered a considerable degree of momentum during the early 1990s and yet it virtually stopped dead at Colin Barnett’s feet. Barnett was widely regarded as a moderate and reasonable man, with leadership ambitions. By “toeing” the SECWA line, Barnett had access to the privileges of a high profile portfolio, without the political damage associated with extensive reform. Barnett’s “capture” is probably also a symptom of the confusion associated with the goals of the Court government in the energy sector. Those opposite have not learnt anything. They are not committed to reform. The Leader of the Opposition was captured. Mr C.J. Barnett: Is this it? This is fascinating. You are listening to two academics, but you will not listen to the one million people who did not have electricity a month ago. Dr G.I. GALLOP: In the media this morning the Leader of the Opposition said that no change should be introduced if there was divided opinion about it. That comment was made by a person who wants to lead Western Australia! He says there should be no change if there is divided opinion. That is not leadership; that is weakness. On the issues of electricity reform, liquor licensing reform and trading hours reform, the Liberal Party in this State can be described only as negative and backward looking. The people of Western Australia want to go forward. We want to take them forward. However, yet again, the Legislative Council is acting as an obstacle to sensible reform. These reforms will come, but only if a Labor Government is in place. Point of Order Mr B.K. MASTERS: Is it possible for the Premier to lay on the Table the academic document he quoted from? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I am very, very happy to table the article from the journal Policy and Society. This journal is No 2 of volume 22 and was published in December 2003. The article is written by Stephen Barton and Peter van Onselen. [See paper No 2170.]
Mr C.J. Barnett: So will your backbenchers. Dr G.I. GALLOP: That is because they are 100 per cent behind what we do with trading hours reform. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The issue of economic reform is fascinating. A journal article on the electricity reform question was recently published. The article deals with the issue of hypocrisy and is fascinating. It also deals with the energy reform processes that occurred under the previous Government. As part of the Council of Australian Governments, the Premier of the previous Government signed up to the competition reform process, which included changes in our electricity industry based upon disaggregation. That was of course recommended by the Carnegie review and McCarrey. The then Premier agreed to it at a COAG meeting. Of course, the changes did not happen under the previous Government. I wonder why they did not happen. I read to the House the conclusions of this academic article. Mr C.J. Barnett: Which academics? Dr G.I. GALLOP: Stephen Barton and Peter van Onselen. Mr C.J. Barnett: Who are they? Dr G.I. GALLOP: One works with the federal Government and the other is an academic in New South Wales. Mr C.J. Barnett: You’re right on the ball here! Please read on. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They do not like hearing an opinion, do they? The article states - The reform agenda introduced by the Court government contrasts sharply with the urgency that marked the Industries Commission, Hilmer and Carnegie Reports. I am quoting, so the Leader of the Opposition will be named. Is that okay, Mr Speaker? I continue - It seems that the corporate culture of SECWA remained. Colin Barnett, seemed to have been “captured” by the two new utilities, echoing the sentiments that competition should not come at any cost, despite the CoAG agreements . . . The introduction of competition into the energy sector gathered a considerable degree of momentum during the early 1990s and yet it virtually stopped dead at Colin Barnett’s feet. Barnett was widely regarded as a moderate and reasonable man, with leadership ambitions. By “toeing” the SECWA line, Barnett had access to the privileges of a high profile portfolio, without the political damage associated with extensive reform. Barnett’s “capture” is probably also a symptom of the confusion associated with the goals of the Court government in the energy sector. Those opposite have not learnt anything. They are not committed to reform. The Leader of the Opposition was captured. Mr C.J. Barnett: Is this it? This is fascinating. You are listening to two academics, but you will not listen to the one million people who did not have electricity a month ago. Dr G.I. GALLOP: In the media this morning the Leader of the Opposition said that no change should be introduced if there was divided opinion about it. That comment was made by a person who wants to lead Western Australia! He says there should be no change if there is divided opinion. That is not leadership; that is weakness. On the issues of electricity reform, liquor licensing reform and trading hours reform, the Liberal Party in this State can be described only as negative and backward looking. The people of Western Australia want to go forward. We want to take them forward. However, yet again, the Legislative Council is acting as an obstacle to sensible reform. These reforms will come, but only if a Labor Government is in place. Point of Order Mr B.K. MASTERS: Is it possible for the Premier to lay on the Table the academic document he quoted from? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I am very, very happy to table the article from the journal Policy and Society. This journal is No 2 of volume 22 and was published in December 2003. The article is written by Stephen Barton and Peter van Onselen. [See paper No 2170.]
Dr G.I. GALLOP: That is because they are 100 per cent behind what we do with trading hours reform. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The issue of economic reform is fascinating. A journal article on the electricity reform question was recently published. The article deals with the issue of hypocrisy and is fascinating. It also deals with the energy reform processes that occurred under the previous Government. As part of the Council of Australian Governments, the Premier of the previous Government signed up to the competition reform process, which included changes in our electricity industry based upon disaggregation. That was of course recommended by the Carnegie review and McCarrey. The then Premier agreed to it at a COAG meeting. Of course, the changes did not happen under the previous Government. I wonder why they did not happen. I read to the House the conclusions of this academic article. Mr C.J. Barnett: Which academics? Dr G.I. GALLOP: Stephen Barton and Peter van Onselen. Mr C.J. Barnett: Who are they? Dr G.I. GALLOP: One works with the federal Government and the other is an academic in New South Wales. Mr C.J. Barnett: You’re right on the ball here! Please read on. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They do not like hearing an opinion, do they? The article states - The reform agenda introduced by the Court government contrasts sharply with the urgency that marked the Industries Commission, Hilmer and Carnegie Reports. I am quoting, so the Leader of the Opposition will be named. Is that okay, Mr Speaker? I continue - It seems that the corporate culture of SECWA remained. Colin Barnett, seemed to have been “captured” by the two new utilities, echoing the sentiments that competition should not come at any cost, despite the CoAG agreements . . . The introduction of competition into the energy sector gathered a considerable degree of momentum during the early 1990s and yet it virtually stopped dead at Colin Barnett’s feet. Barnett was widely regarded as a moderate and reasonable man, with leadership ambitions. By “toeing” the SECWA line, Barnett had access to the privileges of a high profile portfolio, without the political damage associated with extensive reform. Barnett’s “capture” is probably also a symptom of the confusion associated with the goals of the Court government in the energy sector. Those opposite have not learnt anything. They are not committed to reform. The Leader of the Opposition was captured. Mr C.J. Barnett: Is this it? This is fascinating. You are listening to two academics, but you will not listen to the one million people who did not have electricity a month ago. Dr G.I. GALLOP: In the media this morning the Leader of the Opposition said that no change should be introduced if there was divided opinion about it. That comment was made by a person who wants to lead Western Australia! He says there should be no change if there is divided opinion. That is not leadership; that is weakness. On the issues of electricity reform, liquor licensing reform and trading hours reform, the Liberal Party in this State can be described only as negative and backward looking. The people of Western Australia want to go forward. We want to take them forward. However, yet again, the Legislative Council is acting as an obstacle to sensible reform. These reforms will come, but only if a Labor Government is in place. Point of Order Mr B.K. MASTERS: Is it possible for the Premier to lay on the Table the academic document he quoted from? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I am very, very happy to table the article from the journal Policy and Society. This journal is No 2 of volume 22 and was published in December 2003. The article is written by Stephen Barton and Peter van Onselen. [See paper No 2170.]
Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The issue of economic reform is fascinating. A journal article on the electricity reform question was recently published. The article deals with the issue of hypocrisy and is fascinating. It also deals with the energy reform processes that occurred under the previous Government. As part of the Council of Australian Governments, the Premier of the previous Government signed up to the competition reform process, which included changes in our electricity industry based upon disaggregation. That was of course recommended by the Carnegie review and McCarrey. The then Premier agreed to it at a COAG meeting. Of course, the changes did not happen under the previous Government. I wonder why they did not happen. I read to the House the conclusions of this academic article. Mr C.J. Barnett: Which academics? Dr G.I. GALLOP: Stephen Barton and Peter van Onselen. Mr C.J. Barnett: Who are they? Dr G.I. GALLOP: One works with the federal Government and the other is an academic in New South Wales. Mr C.J. Barnett: You’re right on the ball here! Please read on. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They do not like hearing an opinion, do they? The article states - The reform agenda introduced by the Court government contrasts sharply with the urgency that marked the Industries Commission, Hilmer and Carnegie Reports. I am quoting, so the Leader of the Opposition will be named. Is that okay, Mr Speaker? I continue - It seems that the corporate culture of SECWA remained. Colin Barnett, seemed to have been “captured” by the two new utilities, echoing the sentiments that competition should not come at any cost, despite the CoAG agreements . . . The introduction of competition into the energy sector gathered a considerable degree of momentum during the early 1990s and yet it virtually stopped dead at Colin Barnett’s feet. Barnett was widely regarded as a moderate and reasonable man, with leadership ambitions. By “toeing” the SECWA line, Barnett had access to the privileges of a high profile portfolio, without the political damage associated with extensive reform. Barnett’s “capture” is probably also a symptom of the confusion associated with the goals of the Court government in the energy sector. Those opposite have not learnt anything. They are not committed to reform. The Leader of the Opposition was captured. Mr C.J. Barnett: Is this it? This is fascinating. You are listening to two academics, but you will not listen to the one million people who did not have electricity a month ago. Dr G.I. GALLOP: In the media this morning the Leader of the Opposition said that no change should be introduced if there was divided opinion about it. That comment was made by a person who wants to lead Western Australia! He says there should be no change if there is divided opinion. That is not leadership; that is weakness. On the issues of electricity reform, liquor licensing reform and trading hours reform, the Liberal Party in this State can be described only as negative and backward looking. The people of Western Australia want to go forward. We want to take them forward. However, yet again, the Legislative Council is acting as an obstacle to sensible reform. These reforms will come, but only if a Labor Government is in place. Point of Order Mr B.K. MASTERS: Is it possible for the Premier to lay on the Table the academic document he quoted from? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I am very, very happy to table the article from the journal Policy and Society. This journal is No 2 of volume 22 and was published in December 2003. The article is written by Stephen Barton and Peter van Onselen. [See paper No 2170.]
Dr G.I. GALLOP: The issue of economic reform is fascinating. A journal article on the electricity reform question was recently published. The article deals with the issue of hypocrisy and is fascinating. It also deals with the energy reform processes that occurred under the previous Government. As part of the Council of Australian Governments, the Premier of the previous Government signed up to the competition reform process, which included changes in our electricity industry based upon disaggregation. That was of course recommended by the Carnegie review and McCarrey. The then Premier agreed to it at a COAG meeting. Of course, the changes did not happen under the previous Government. I wonder why they did not happen. I read to the House the conclusions of this academic article. Mr C.J. Barnett: Which academics? Dr G.I. GALLOP: Stephen Barton and Peter van Onselen. Mr C.J. Barnett: Who are they? Dr G.I. GALLOP: One works with the federal Government and the other is an academic in New South Wales. Mr C.J. Barnett: You’re right on the ball here! Please read on. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They do not like hearing an opinion, do they? The article states - The reform agenda introduced by the Court government contrasts sharply with the urgency that marked the Industries Commission, Hilmer and Carnegie Reports. I am quoting, so the Leader of the Opposition will be named. Is that okay, Mr Speaker? I continue - It seems that the corporate culture of SECWA remained. Colin Barnett, seemed to have been “captured” by the two new utilities, echoing the sentiments that competition should not come at any cost, despite the CoAG agreements . . . The introduction of competition into the energy sector gathered a considerable degree of momentum during the early 1990s and yet it virtually stopped dead at Colin Barnett’s feet. Barnett was widely regarded as a moderate and reasonable man, with leadership ambitions. By “toeing” the SECWA line, Barnett had access to the privileges of a high profile portfolio, without the political damage associated with extensive reform. Barnett’s “capture” is probably also a symptom of the confusion associated with the goals of the Court government in the energy sector. Those opposite have not learnt anything. They are not committed to reform. The Leader of the Opposition was captured. Mr C.J. Barnett: Is this it? This is fascinating. You are listening to two academics, but you will not listen to the one million people who did not have electricity a month ago. Dr G.I. GALLOP: In the media this morning the Leader of the Opposition said that no change should be introduced if there was divided opinion about it. That comment was made by a person who wants to lead Western Australia! He says there should be no change if there is divided opinion. That is not leadership; that is weakness. On the issues of electricity reform, liquor licensing reform and trading hours reform, the Liberal Party in this State can be described only as negative and backward looking. The people of Western Australia want to go forward. We want to take them forward. However, yet again, the Legislative Council is acting as an obstacle to sensible reform. These reforms will come, but only if a Labor Government is in place. Point of Order Mr B.K. MASTERS: Is it possible for the Premier to lay on the Table the academic document he quoted from? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I am very, very happy to table the article from the journal Policy and Society. This journal is No 2 of volume 22 and was published in December 2003. The article is written by Stephen Barton and Peter van Onselen. [See paper No 2170.]
Mr C.J. Barnett: Which academics? Dr G.I. GALLOP: Stephen Barton and Peter van Onselen. Mr C.J. Barnett: Who are they? Dr G.I. GALLOP: One works with the federal Government and the other is an academic in New South Wales. Mr C.J. Barnett: You’re right on the ball here! Please read on. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They do not like hearing an opinion, do they? The article states - The reform agenda introduced by the Court government contrasts sharply with the urgency that marked the Industries Commission, Hilmer and Carnegie Reports. I am quoting, so the Leader of the Opposition will be named. Is that okay, Mr Speaker? I continue - It seems that the corporate culture of SECWA remained. Colin Barnett, seemed to have been “captured” by the two new utilities, echoing the sentiments that competition should not come at any cost, despite the CoAG agreements . . . The introduction of competition into the energy sector gathered a considerable degree of momentum during the early 1990s and yet it virtually stopped dead at Colin Barnett’s feet. Barnett was widely regarded as a moderate and reasonable man, with leadership ambitions. By “toeing” the SECWA line, Barnett had access to the privileges of a high profile portfolio, without the political damage associated with extensive reform. Barnett’s “capture” is probably also a symptom of the confusion associated with the goals of the Court government in the energy sector. Those opposite have not learnt anything. They are not committed to reform. The Leader of the Opposition was captured. Mr C.J. Barnett: Is this it? This is fascinating. You are listening to two academics, but you will not listen to the one million people who did not have electricity a month ago. Dr G.I. GALLOP: In the media this morning the Leader of the Opposition said that no change should be introduced if there was divided opinion about it. That comment was made by a person who wants to lead Western Australia! He says there should be no change if there is divided opinion. That is not leadership; that is weakness. On the issues of electricity reform, liquor licensing reform and trading hours reform, the Liberal Party in this State can be described only as negative and backward looking. The people of Western Australia want to go forward. We want to take them forward. However, yet again, the Legislative Council is acting as an obstacle to sensible reform. These reforms will come, but only if a Labor Government is in place. Point of Order Mr B.K. MASTERS: Is it possible for the Premier to lay on the Table the academic document he quoted from? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I am very, very happy to table the article from the journal Policy and Society. This journal is No 2 of volume 22 and was published in December 2003. The article is written by Stephen Barton and Peter van Onselen. [See paper No 2170.]
Dr G.I. GALLOP: Stephen Barton and Peter van Onselen. Mr C.J. Barnett: Who are they? Dr G.I. GALLOP: One works with the federal Government and the other is an academic in New South Wales. Mr C.J. Barnett: You’re right on the ball here! Please read on. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They do not like hearing an opinion, do they? The article states - The reform agenda introduced by the Court government contrasts sharply with the urgency that marked the Industries Commission, Hilmer and Carnegie Reports. I am quoting, so the Leader of the Opposition will be named. Is that okay, Mr Speaker? I continue - It seems that the corporate culture of SECWA remained. Colin Barnett, seemed to have been “captured” by the two new utilities, echoing the sentiments that competition should not come at any cost, despite the CoAG agreements . . . The introduction of competition into the energy sector gathered a considerable degree of momentum during the early 1990s and yet it virtually stopped dead at Colin Barnett’s feet. Barnett was widely regarded as a moderate and reasonable man, with leadership ambitions. By “toeing” the SECWA line, Barnett had access to the privileges of a high profile portfolio, without the political damage associated with extensive reform. Barnett’s “capture” is probably also a symptom of the confusion associated with the goals of the Court government in the energy sector. Those opposite have not learnt anything. They are not committed to reform. The Leader of the Opposition was captured. Mr C.J. Barnett: Is this it? This is fascinating. You are listening to two academics, but you will not listen to the one million people who did not have electricity a month ago. Dr G.I. GALLOP: In the media this morning the Leader of the Opposition said that no change should be introduced if there was divided opinion about it. That comment was made by a person who wants to lead Western Australia! He says there should be no change if there is divided opinion. That is not leadership; that is weakness. On the issues of electricity reform, liquor licensing reform and trading hours reform, the Liberal Party in this State can be described only as negative and backward looking. The people of Western Australia want to go forward. We want to take them forward. However, yet again, the Legislative Council is acting as an obstacle to sensible reform. These reforms will come, but only if a Labor Government is in place. Point of Order Mr B.K. MASTERS: Is it possible for the Premier to lay on the Table the academic document he quoted from? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I am very, very happy to table the article from the journal Policy and Society. This journal is No 2 of volume 22 and was published in December 2003. The article is written by Stephen Barton and Peter van Onselen. [See paper No 2170.]
Mr C.J. Barnett: Who are they? Dr G.I. GALLOP: One works with the federal Government and the other is an academic in New South Wales. Mr C.J. Barnett: You’re right on the ball here! Please read on. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They do not like hearing an opinion, do they? The article states - The reform agenda introduced by the Court government contrasts sharply with the urgency that marked the Industries Commission, Hilmer and Carnegie Reports. I am quoting, so the Leader of the Opposition will be named. Is that okay, Mr Speaker? I continue - It seems that the corporate culture of SECWA remained. Colin Barnett, seemed to have been “captured” by the two new utilities, echoing the sentiments that competition should not come at any cost, despite the CoAG agreements . . . The introduction of competition into the energy sector gathered a considerable degree of momentum during the early 1990s and yet it virtually stopped dead at Colin Barnett’s feet. Barnett was widely regarded as a moderate and reasonable man, with leadership ambitions. By “toeing” the SECWA line, Barnett had access to the privileges of a high profile portfolio, without the political damage associated with extensive reform. Barnett’s “capture” is probably also a symptom of the confusion associated with the goals of the Court government in the energy sector. Those opposite have not learnt anything. They are not committed to reform. The Leader of the Opposition was captured. Mr C.J. Barnett: Is this it? This is fascinating. You are listening to two academics, but you will not listen to the one million people who did not have electricity a month ago. Dr G.I. GALLOP: In the media this morning the Leader of the Opposition said that no change should be introduced if there was divided opinion about it. That comment was made by a person who wants to lead Western Australia! He says there should be no change if there is divided opinion. That is not leadership; that is weakness. On the issues of electricity reform, liquor licensing reform and trading hours reform, the Liberal Party in this State can be described only as negative and backward looking. The people of Western Australia want to go forward. We want to take them forward. However, yet again, the Legislative Council is acting as an obstacle to sensible reform. These reforms will come, but only if a Labor Government is in place. Point of Order Mr B.K. MASTERS: Is it possible for the Premier to lay on the Table the academic document he quoted from? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I am very, very happy to table the article from the journal Policy and Society. This journal is No 2 of volume 22 and was published in December 2003. The article is written by Stephen Barton and Peter van Onselen. [See paper No 2170.]
Dr G.I. GALLOP: One works with the federal Government and the other is an academic in New South Wales. Mr C.J. Barnett: You’re right on the ball here! Please read on. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They do not like hearing an opinion, do they? The article states - The reform agenda introduced by the Court government contrasts sharply with the urgency that marked the Industries Commission, Hilmer and Carnegie Reports. I am quoting, so the Leader of the Opposition will be named. Is that okay, Mr Speaker? I continue - It seems that the corporate culture of SECWA remained. Colin Barnett, seemed to have been “captured” by the two new utilities, echoing the sentiments that competition should not come at any cost, despite the CoAG agreements . . . The introduction of competition into the energy sector gathered a considerable degree of momentum during the early 1990s and yet it virtually stopped dead at Colin Barnett’s feet. Barnett was widely regarded as a moderate and reasonable man, with leadership ambitions. By “toeing” the SECWA line, Barnett had access to the privileges of a high profile portfolio, without the political damage associated with extensive reform. Barnett’s “capture” is probably also a symptom of the confusion associated with the goals of the Court government in the energy sector. Those opposite have not learnt anything. They are not committed to reform. The Leader of the Opposition was captured. Mr C.J. Barnett: Is this it? This is fascinating. You are listening to two academics, but you will not listen to the one million people who did not have electricity a month ago. Dr G.I. GALLOP: In the media this morning the Leader of the Opposition said that no change should be introduced if there was divided opinion about it. That comment was made by a person who wants to lead Western Australia! He says there should be no change if there is divided opinion. That is not leadership; that is weakness. On the issues of electricity reform, liquor licensing reform and trading hours reform, the Liberal Party in this State can be described only as negative and backward looking. The people of Western Australia want to go forward. We want to take them forward. However, yet again, the Legislative Council is acting as an obstacle to sensible reform. These reforms will come, but only if a Labor Government is in place. Point of Order Mr B.K. MASTERS: Is it possible for the Premier to lay on the Table the academic document he quoted from? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I am very, very happy to table the article from the journal Policy and Society. This journal is No 2 of volume 22 and was published in December 2003. The article is written by Stephen Barton and Peter van Onselen. [See paper No 2170.]
Mr C.J. Barnett: You’re right on the ball here! Please read on. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They do not like hearing an opinion, do they? The article states - The reform agenda introduced by the Court government contrasts sharply with the urgency that marked the Industries Commission, Hilmer and Carnegie Reports. I am quoting, so the Leader of the Opposition will be named. Is that okay, Mr Speaker? I continue - It seems that the corporate culture of SECWA remained. Colin Barnett, seemed to have been “captured” by the two new utilities, echoing the sentiments that competition should not come at any cost, despite the CoAG agreements . . . The introduction of competition into the energy sector gathered a considerable degree of momentum during the early 1990s and yet it virtually stopped dead at Colin Barnett’s feet. Barnett was widely regarded as a moderate and reasonable man, with leadership ambitions. By “toeing” the SECWA line, Barnett had access to the privileges of a high profile portfolio, without the political damage associated with extensive reform. Barnett’s “capture” is probably also a symptom of the confusion associated with the goals of the Court government in the energy sector. Those opposite have not learnt anything. They are not committed to reform. The Leader of the Opposition was captured. Mr C.J. Barnett: Is this it? This is fascinating. You are listening to two academics, but you will not listen to the one million people who did not have electricity a month ago. Dr G.I. GALLOP: In the media this morning the Leader of the Opposition said that no change should be introduced if there was divided opinion about it. That comment was made by a person who wants to lead Western Australia! He says there should be no change if there is divided opinion. That is not leadership; that is weakness. On the issues of electricity reform, liquor licensing reform and trading hours reform, the Liberal Party in this State can be described only as negative and backward looking. The people of Western Australia want to go forward. We want to take them forward. However, yet again, the Legislative Council is acting as an obstacle to sensible reform. These reforms will come, but only if a Labor Government is in place. Point of Order Mr B.K. MASTERS: Is it possible for the Premier to lay on the Table the academic document he quoted from? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I am very, very happy to table the article from the journal Policy and Society. This journal is No 2 of volume 22 and was published in December 2003. The article is written by Stephen Barton and Peter van Onselen. [See paper No 2170.]
Dr G.I. GALLOP: They do not like hearing an opinion, do they? The article states - The reform agenda introduced by the Court government contrasts sharply with the urgency that marked the Industries Commission, Hilmer and Carnegie Reports. I am quoting, so the Leader of the Opposition will be named. Is that okay, Mr Speaker? I continue - It seems that the corporate culture of SECWA remained. Colin Barnett, seemed to have been “captured” by the two new utilities, echoing the sentiments that competition should not come at any cost, despite the CoAG agreements . . . The introduction of competition into the energy sector gathered a considerable degree of momentum during the early 1990s and yet it virtually stopped dead at Colin Barnett’s feet. Barnett was widely regarded as a moderate and reasonable man, with leadership ambitions. By “toeing” the SECWA line, Barnett had access to the privileges of a high profile portfolio, without the political damage associated with extensive reform. Barnett’s “capture” is probably also a symptom of the confusion associated with the goals of the Court government in the energy sector. Those opposite have not learnt anything. They are not committed to reform. The Leader of the Opposition was captured. Mr C.J. Barnett: Is this it? This is fascinating. You are listening to two academics, but you will not listen to the one million people who did not have electricity a month ago. Dr G.I. GALLOP: In the media this morning the Leader of the Opposition said that no change should be introduced if there was divided opinion about it. That comment was made by a person who wants to lead Western Australia! He says there should be no change if there is divided opinion. That is not leadership; that is weakness. On the issues of electricity reform, liquor licensing reform and trading hours reform, the Liberal Party in this State can be described only as negative and backward looking. The people of Western Australia want to go forward. We want to take them forward. However, yet again, the Legislative Council is acting as an obstacle to sensible reform. These reforms will come, but only if a Labor Government is in place. Point of Order Mr B.K. MASTERS: Is it possible for the Premier to lay on the Table the academic document he quoted from? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I am very, very happy to table the article from the journal Policy and Society. This journal is No 2 of volume 22 and was published in December 2003. The article is written by Stephen Barton and Peter van Onselen. [See paper No 2170.]
Mr C.J. Barnett: Is this it? This is fascinating. You are listening to two academics, but you will not listen to the one million people who did not have electricity a month ago. Dr G.I. GALLOP: In the media this morning the Leader of the Opposition said that no change should be introduced if there was divided opinion about it. That comment was made by a person who wants to lead Western Australia! He says there should be no change if there is divided opinion. That is not leadership; that is weakness. On the issues of electricity reform, liquor licensing reform and trading hours reform, the Liberal Party in this State can be described only as negative and backward looking. The people of Western Australia want to go forward. We want to take them forward. However, yet again, the Legislative Council is acting as an obstacle to sensible reform. These reforms will come, but only if a Labor Government is in place. Point of Order Mr B.K. MASTERS: Is it possible for the Premier to lay on the Table the academic document he quoted from? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I am very, very happy to table the article from the journal Policy and Society. This journal is No 2 of volume 22 and was published in December 2003. The article is written by Stephen Barton and Peter van Onselen. [See paper No 2170.]
Dr G.I. GALLOP: In the media this morning the Leader of the Opposition said that no change should be introduced if there was divided opinion about it. That comment was made by a person who wants to lead Western Australia! He says there should be no change if there is divided opinion. That is not leadership; that is weakness. On the issues of electricity reform, liquor licensing reform and trading hours reform, the Liberal Party in this State can be described only as negative and backward looking. The people of Western Australia want to go forward. We want to take them forward. However, yet again, the Legislative Council is acting as an obstacle to sensible reform. These reforms will come, but only if a Labor Government is in place. Point of Order Mr B.K. MASTERS: Is it possible for the Premier to lay on the Table the academic document he quoted from? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I am very, very happy to table the article from the journal Policy and Society. This journal is No 2 of volume 22 and was published in December 2003. The article is written by Stephen Barton and Peter van Onselen. [See paper No 2170.]
Dr G.I. GALLOP: I am very, very happy to table the article from the journal Policy and Society. This journal is No 2 of volume 22 and was published in December 2003. The article is written by Stephen Barton and Peter van Onselen. [See paper No 2170.]
[See paper No 2170.]
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.