Report 8: 2018-19

Opinions on Ministerial Notifications

Download

No opinion required as the information does not exist

On 9 July 2018, we received a notice from the Premier, the Hon Mark McGowan MLA, under section 82 of the Financial Management Act 2006. The notice related to modelling that shows significant economic benefit to regional economies.

We determined that an opinion was not required in relation to the Premier’s decision not to provide the information to Parliament. This is because no modelling of regional benefits had been done, and the information did not exist. Therefore, there could be no refusal to provide it.

In a question prior to the Estimates and Financial Operations Committee’s 2018-19 Budget Estimates Hearings of the Department of Jobs, Tourism, Science and Innovation (Department), the Hon Robin Chapple MLC, asked the Premier for the following information:

(2) I refer to the statement in Budget Paper 1, Page 11: ‘…the McGowan Government has invested heavily in tourism destination marketing and events, with $425 million over five years allocated to Tourism WA in last year’s Budget’; the government’s plan to create jobs, provide small business opportunities for Western Australians and strengthen and diversify the economy; and the Tourism WA Corporate Plan 2017-18, and ask:

(a)       what cost benefit evaluation has been undertaken in attracting direct flights from major centres in China, Japan and India to regional economies beyond hotel occupancy that will provide for small business economic opportunities;

(b)       will the department provide any modelling that shows significant economic benefit to regional economies beyond hotel occupancy for the international visitor sectors from China, Japan and India; and

(c)       if no modelling has been done, why not?

On 5 June 2018, the Premier declined to provide the information requested in part (b) on the grounds that:

The details of economic modelling are commercial in confidence and not available to the public given the level of confidential information contained within, which would potentially disadvantage the State if provided to competitors or made available publicly during the course of negotiations with an airline.

The Minister’s full response is included in Appendix 2.

The Premier properly sought advice from the Department before responding to the request. The Department recommended that the Premier decline to provide to Parliament the information requested in part (b) because the modelling was commercially sensitive. The Premier followed the Department’s advice.

We determined that an opinion was not required in relation to the Premier’s decision not to provide the information to Parliament. This is because the regional economic modelling requested in part (b) of the question did not exist at the time. Therefore, there could be no refusal to provide it. We found economic modelling that had been undertaken by the Department assessed the economic benefit to the State as a whole, and was not broken down by region.

The Department’s advice to the Minister did not specifically address all parts of the question. As a result, it was not clear from the advice that the regional modelling did not exist. We have reminded the agency that it is better practice to provide advice to Ministers which clearly relates to each specific part of the question.

Back to Top