❓ Mr. Buswell questions Treasurer Ripper about the delayed issuing of land tax assessments, alleging manipulation of financial results. Ripper denies the accusation, stating the delay was for review and the information was publicly disclosed.
AnsweredQoN 930Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
LAND TAX AND METROPOLITAN REGIONAL IMPROVEMENT TAX ASSESSMENTS
I refer to the September 2006 quarterly financial results that the Treasurer tabled yesterday. Several members interjected The SPEAKER : Order! I accept that members on my right have witnessed the performance of serial interjectors for a number of years. However, that is not the way to do things. Serial interjections stop members from speaking, and that is unacceptable. Mr T. BUSWELL : Thank you, Mr Speaker. Why has the Treasurer cooked the books by delaying the issuing of land tax and metropolitan regional improvement tax assessments, thereby effectively distorting the true extent of the government’s massive tax grab to the tune of $300 million? Several members interjected. Withdrawal of Remark The SPEAKER : Order! To imply that the Treasurer has cooked the books is unparliamentary and the member for Vasse should withdraw that comment. Mr T. BUSWELL : I withdraw; thank you, Mr Speaker. Questions Without Notice Resumed Mr E.S. RIPPER
I refer to the September 2006 quarterly financial results that the Treasurer tabled yesterday. Several members interjected The SPEAKER : Order! I accept that members on my right have witnessed the performance of serial interjectors for a number of years. However, that is not the way to do things. Serial interjections stop members from speaking, and that is unacceptable. Mr T. BUSWELL : Thank you, Mr Speaker. Why has the Treasurer cooked the books by delaying the issuing of land tax and metropolitan regional improvement tax assessments, thereby effectively distorting the true extent of the government’s massive tax grab to the tune of $300 million? Several members interjected. Withdrawal of Remark The SPEAKER : Order! To imply that the Treasurer has cooked the books is unparliamentary and the member for Vasse should withdraw that comment. Mr T. BUSWELL : I withdraw; thank you, Mr Speaker. Questions Without Notice Resumed Mr E.S. RIPPER
AnswerView source ↗
In a way, I am pleased to be asked a question by the temporary Deputy Leader of the Opposition because I do not think there will be many other opportunities for him to ask me questions in his current capacity. It is remarkable that he has made that allegation because, of course, he can get the information on which he bases his question from the very document that the government has made public. We have highlighted the fact that the figures are different because land tax assessments are being issued later this year than in previous years. There is no question of us hiding any information from the public. We have highlighted that very piece of information in the document that we released. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked why land tax assessments were being issued later this year. The government wanted an opportunity to examine the increase in property values on the land tax scales so that the government - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order the member for Murdoch and the member for Roe and suggest that other members may wish to curtail their level of interjection. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The government adjusted the land tax scales in the budget, of course, to take account of property value increases. The government also took the opportunity to once again examine the rate of actual property value increases and compare that to the new land tax scales. In the final analysis, the government decided that practical action was not feasible at this time and the issue should be addressed during consideration of the outcome of the state tax review. It is very clear to me that the impact on land tax of rising property values will have to be considered by the government in the next budget process, just as it was considered by the government in the last budget process. I do not think there is anything unusual about producing a report in which the whole question of land tax is actually highlighted. I quote from page 5 of the report - Lower land tax (down $267 million) . . . reflecting later collection of these items in 2006-07 relative to 2005-06; There it is in black and white for the public to see. There is no question whatsoever of the sort of allegation made by the temporary Deputy Leader of the Opposition.
Several members interjected The SPEAKER : Order! I accept that members on my right have witnessed the performance of serial interjectors for a number of years. However, that is not the way to do things. Serial interjections stop members from speaking, and that is unacceptable. Mr T. BUSWELL : Thank you, Mr Speaker. Why has the Treasurer cooked the books by delaying the issuing of land tax and metropolitan regional improvement tax assessments, thereby effectively distorting the true extent of the government’s massive tax grab to the tune of $300 million? Several members interjected. Withdrawal of Remark The SPEAKER : Order! To imply that the Treasurer has cooked the books is unparliamentary and the member for Vasse should withdraw that comment. Mr T. BUSWELL : I withdraw; thank you, Mr Speaker. Questions Without Notice Resumed Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: In a way, I am pleased to be asked a question by the temporary Deputy Leader of the Opposition because I do not think there will be many other opportunities for him to ask me questions in his current capacity. It is remarkable that he has made that allegation because, of course, he can get the information on which he bases his question from the very document that the government has made public. We have highlighted the fact that the figures are different because land tax assessments are being issued later this year than in previous years. There is no question of us hiding any information from the public. We have highlighted that very piece of information in the document that we released. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked why land tax assessments were being issued later this year. The government wanted an opportunity to examine the increase in property values on the land tax scales so that the government - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order the member for Murdoch and the member for Roe and suggest that other members may wish to curtail their level of interjection. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The government adjusted the land tax scales in the budget, of course, to take account of property value increases. The government also took the opportunity to once again examine the rate of actual property value increases and compare that to the new land tax scales. In the final analysis, the government decided that practical action was not feasible at this time and the issue should be addressed during consideration of the outcome of the state tax review. It is very clear to me that the impact on land tax of rising property values will have to be considered by the government in the next budget process, just as it was considered by the government in the last budget process. I do not think there is anything unusual about producing a report in which the whole question of land tax is actually highlighted. I quote from page 5 of the report - Lower land tax (down $267 million) . . . reflecting later collection of these items in 2006-07 relative to 2005-06; There it is in black and white for the public to see. There is no question whatsoever of the sort of allegation made by the temporary Deputy Leader of the Opposition.
The SPEAKER : Order! I accept that members on my right have witnessed the performance of serial interjectors for a number of years. However, that is not the way to do things. Serial interjections stop members from speaking, and that is unacceptable. Mr T. BUSWELL : Thank you, Mr Speaker. Why has the Treasurer cooked the books by delaying the issuing of land tax and metropolitan regional improvement tax assessments, thereby effectively distorting the true extent of the government’s massive tax grab to the tune of $300 million? Several members interjected. Withdrawal of Remark The SPEAKER : Order! To imply that the Treasurer has cooked the books is unparliamentary and the member for Vasse should withdraw that comment. Mr T. BUSWELL : I withdraw; thank you, Mr Speaker. Questions Without Notice Resumed Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: In a way, I am pleased to be asked a question by the temporary Deputy Leader of the Opposition because I do not think there will be many other opportunities for him to ask me questions in his current capacity. It is remarkable that he has made that allegation because, of course, he can get the information on which he bases his question from the very document that the government has made public. We have highlighted the fact that the figures are different because land tax assessments are being issued later this year than in previous years. There is no question of us hiding any information from the public. We have highlighted that very piece of information in the document that we released. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked why land tax assessments were being issued later this year. The government wanted an opportunity to examine the increase in property values on the land tax scales so that the government - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order the member for Murdoch and the member for Roe and suggest that other members may wish to curtail their level of interjection. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The government adjusted the land tax scales in the budget, of course, to take account of property value increases. The government also took the opportunity to once again examine the rate of actual property value increases and compare that to the new land tax scales. In the final analysis, the government decided that practical action was not feasible at this time and the issue should be addressed during consideration of the outcome of the state tax review. It is very clear to me that the impact on land tax of rising property values will have to be considered by the government in the next budget process, just as it was considered by the government in the last budget process. I do not think there is anything unusual about producing a report in which the whole question of land tax is actually highlighted. I quote from page 5 of the report - Lower land tax (down $267 million) . . . reflecting later collection of these items in 2006-07 relative to 2005-06; There it is in black and white for the public to see. There is no question whatsoever of the sort of allegation made by the temporary Deputy Leader of the Opposition.
Mr T. BUSWELL : Thank you, Mr Speaker. Why has the Treasurer cooked the books by delaying the issuing of land tax and metropolitan regional improvement tax assessments, thereby effectively distorting the true extent of the government’s massive tax grab to the tune of $300 million? Several members interjected. Withdrawal of Remark The SPEAKER : Order! To imply that the Treasurer has cooked the books is unparliamentary and the member for Vasse should withdraw that comment. Mr T. BUSWELL : I withdraw; thank you, Mr Speaker. Questions Without Notice Resumed Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: In a way, I am pleased to be asked a question by the temporary Deputy Leader of the Opposition because I do not think there will be many other opportunities for him to ask me questions in his current capacity. It is remarkable that he has made that allegation because, of course, he can get the information on which he bases his question from the very document that the government has made public. We have highlighted the fact that the figures are different because land tax assessments are being issued later this year than in previous years. There is no question of us hiding any information from the public. We have highlighted that very piece of information in the document that we released. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked why land tax assessments were being issued later this year. The government wanted an opportunity to examine the increase in property values on the land tax scales so that the government - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order the member for Murdoch and the member for Roe and suggest that other members may wish to curtail their level of interjection. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The government adjusted the land tax scales in the budget, of course, to take account of property value increases. The government also took the opportunity to once again examine the rate of actual property value increases and compare that to the new land tax scales. In the final analysis, the government decided that practical action was not feasible at this time and the issue should be addressed during consideration of the outcome of the state tax review. It is very clear to me that the impact on land tax of rising property values will have to be considered by the government in the next budget process, just as it was considered by the government in the last budget process. I do not think there is anything unusual about producing a report in which the whole question of land tax is actually highlighted. I quote from page 5 of the report - Lower land tax (down $267 million) . . . reflecting later collection of these items in 2006-07 relative to 2005-06; There it is in black and white for the public to see. There is no question whatsoever of the sort of allegation made by the temporary Deputy Leader of the Opposition.
Why has the Treasurer cooked the books by delaying the issuing of land tax and metropolitan regional improvement tax assessments, thereby effectively distorting the true extent of the government’s massive tax grab to the tune of $300 million? Several members interjected. Withdrawal of Remark The SPEAKER : Order! To imply that the Treasurer has cooked the books is unparliamentary and the member for Vasse should withdraw that comment. Mr T. BUSWELL : I withdraw; thank you, Mr Speaker. Questions Without Notice Resumed Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: In a way, I am pleased to be asked a question by the temporary Deputy Leader of the Opposition because I do not think there will be many other opportunities for him to ask me questions in his current capacity. It is remarkable that he has made that allegation because, of course, he can get the information on which he bases his question from the very document that the government has made public. We have highlighted the fact that the figures are different because land tax assessments are being issued later this year than in previous years. There is no question of us hiding any information from the public. We have highlighted that very piece of information in the document that we released. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked why land tax assessments were being issued later this year. The government wanted an opportunity to examine the increase in property values on the land tax scales so that the government - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order the member for Murdoch and the member for Roe and suggest that other members may wish to curtail their level of interjection. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The government adjusted the land tax scales in the budget, of course, to take account of property value increases. The government also took the opportunity to once again examine the rate of actual property value increases and compare that to the new land tax scales. In the final analysis, the government decided that practical action was not feasible at this time and the issue should be addressed during consideration of the outcome of the state tax review. It is very clear to me that the impact on land tax of rising property values will have to be considered by the government in the next budget process, just as it was considered by the government in the last budget process. I do not think there is anything unusual about producing a report in which the whole question of land tax is actually highlighted. I quote from page 5 of the report - Lower land tax (down $267 million) . . . reflecting later collection of these items in 2006-07 relative to 2005-06; There it is in black and white for the public to see. There is no question whatsoever of the sort of allegation made by the temporary Deputy Leader of the Opposition.
Several members interjected. Withdrawal of Remark The SPEAKER : Order! To imply that the Treasurer has cooked the books is unparliamentary and the member for Vasse should withdraw that comment. Mr T. BUSWELL : I withdraw; thank you, Mr Speaker. Questions Without Notice Resumed Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: In a way, I am pleased to be asked a question by the temporary Deputy Leader of the Opposition because I do not think there will be many other opportunities for him to ask me questions in his current capacity. It is remarkable that he has made that allegation because, of course, he can get the information on which he bases his question from the very document that the government has made public. We have highlighted the fact that the figures are different because land tax assessments are being issued later this year than in previous years. There is no question of us hiding any information from the public. We have highlighted that very piece of information in the document that we released. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked why land tax assessments were being issued later this year. The government wanted an opportunity to examine the increase in property values on the land tax scales so that the government - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order the member for Murdoch and the member for Roe and suggest that other members may wish to curtail their level of interjection. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The government adjusted the land tax scales in the budget, of course, to take account of property value increases. The government also took the opportunity to once again examine the rate of actual property value increases and compare that to the new land tax scales. In the final analysis, the government decided that practical action was not feasible at this time and the issue should be addressed during consideration of the outcome of the state tax review. It is very clear to me that the impact on land tax of rising property values will have to be considered by the government in the next budget process, just as it was considered by the government in the last budget process. I do not think there is anything unusual about producing a report in which the whole question of land tax is actually highlighted. I quote from page 5 of the report - Lower land tax (down $267 million) . . . reflecting later collection of these items in 2006-07 relative to 2005-06; There it is in black and white for the public to see. There is no question whatsoever of the sort of allegation made by the temporary Deputy Leader of the Opposition.
Mr T. BUSWELL : I withdraw; thank you, Mr Speaker. Questions Without Notice Resumed Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: In a way, I am pleased to be asked a question by the temporary Deputy Leader of the Opposition because I do not think there will be many other opportunities for him to ask me questions in his current capacity. It is remarkable that he has made that allegation because, of course, he can get the information on which he bases his question from the very document that the government has made public. We have highlighted the fact that the figures are different because land tax assessments are being issued later this year than in previous years. There is no question of us hiding any information from the public. We have highlighted that very piece of information in the document that we released. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked why land tax assessments were being issued later this year. The government wanted an opportunity to examine the increase in property values on the land tax scales so that the government - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order the member for Murdoch and the member for Roe and suggest that other members may wish to curtail their level of interjection. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The government adjusted the land tax scales in the budget, of course, to take account of property value increases. The government also took the opportunity to once again examine the rate of actual property value increases and compare that to the new land tax scales. In the final analysis, the government decided that practical action was not feasible at this time and the issue should be addressed during consideration of the outcome of the state tax review. It is very clear to me that the impact on land tax of rising property values will have to be considered by the government in the next budget process, just as it was considered by the government in the last budget process. I do not think there is anything unusual about producing a report in which the whole question of land tax is actually highlighted. I quote from page 5 of the report - Lower land tax (down $267 million) . . . reflecting later collection of these items in 2006-07 relative to 2005-06; There it is in black and white for the public to see. There is no question whatsoever of the sort of allegation made by the temporary Deputy Leader of the Opposition.
In a way, I am pleased to be asked a question by the temporary Deputy Leader of the Opposition because I do not think there will be many other opportunities for him to ask me questions in his current capacity. It is remarkable that he has made that allegation because, of course, he can get the information on which he bases his question from the very document that the government has made public. We have highlighted the fact that the figures are different because land tax assessments are being issued later this year than in previous years. There is no question of us hiding any information from the public. We have highlighted that very piece of information in the document that we released. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked why land tax assessments were being issued later this year. The government wanted an opportunity to examine the increase in property values on the land tax scales so that the government - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order the member for Murdoch and the member for Roe and suggest that other members may wish to curtail their level of interjection. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The government adjusted the land tax scales in the budget, of course, to take account of property value increases. The government also took the opportunity to once again examine the rate of actual property value increases and compare that to the new land tax scales. In the final analysis, the government decided that practical action was not feasible at this time and the issue should be addressed during consideration of the outcome of the state tax review. It is very clear to me that the impact on land tax of rising property values will have to be considered by the government in the next budget process, just as it was considered by the government in the last budget process. I do not think there is anything unusual about producing a report in which the whole question of land tax is actually highlighted. I quote from page 5 of the report - Lower land tax (down $267 million) . . . reflecting later collection of these items in 2006-07 relative to 2005-06; There it is in black and white for the public to see. There is no question whatsoever of the sort of allegation made by the temporary Deputy Leader of the Opposition.
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked why land tax assessments were being issued later this year. The government wanted an opportunity to examine the increase in property values on the land tax scales so that the government - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order the member for Murdoch and the member for Roe and suggest that other members may wish to curtail their level of interjection. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The government adjusted the land tax scales in the budget, of course, to take account of property value increases. The government also took the opportunity to once again examine the rate of actual property value increases and compare that to the new land tax scales. In the final analysis, the government decided that practical action was not feasible at this time and the issue should be addressed during consideration of the outcome of the state tax review. It is very clear to me that the impact on land tax of rising property values will have to be considered by the government in the next budget process, just as it was considered by the government in the last budget process. I do not think there is anything unusual about producing a report in which the whole question of land tax is actually highlighted. I quote from page 5 of the report - Lower land tax (down $267 million) . . . reflecting later collection of these items in 2006-07 relative to 2005-06; There it is in black and white for the public to see. There is no question whatsoever of the sort of allegation made by the temporary Deputy Leader of the Opposition.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order the member for Murdoch and the member for Roe and suggest that other members may wish to curtail their level of interjection. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The government adjusted the land tax scales in the budget, of course, to take account of property value increases. The government also took the opportunity to once again examine the rate of actual property value increases and compare that to the new land tax scales. In the final analysis, the government decided that practical action was not feasible at this time and the issue should be addressed during consideration of the outcome of the state tax review. It is very clear to me that the impact on land tax of rising property values will have to be considered by the government in the next budget process, just as it was considered by the government in the last budget process. I do not think there is anything unusual about producing a report in which the whole question of land tax is actually highlighted. I quote from page 5 of the report - Lower land tax (down $267 million) . . . reflecting later collection of these items in 2006-07 relative to 2005-06; There it is in black and white for the public to see. There is no question whatsoever of the sort of allegation made by the temporary Deputy Leader of the Opposition.
The SPEAKER : I call to order the member for Murdoch and the member for Roe and suggest that other members may wish to curtail their level of interjection. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The government adjusted the land tax scales in the budget, of course, to take account of property value increases. The government also took the opportunity to once again examine the rate of actual property value increases and compare that to the new land tax scales. In the final analysis, the government decided that practical action was not feasible at this time and the issue should be addressed during consideration of the outcome of the state tax review. It is very clear to me that the impact on land tax of rising property values will have to be considered by the government in the next budget process, just as it was considered by the government in the last budget process. I do not think there is anything unusual about producing a report in which the whole question of land tax is actually highlighted. I quote from page 5 of the report - Lower land tax (down $267 million) . . . reflecting later collection of these items in 2006-07 relative to 2005-06; There it is in black and white for the public to see. There is no question whatsoever of the sort of allegation made by the temporary Deputy Leader of the Opposition.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : The government adjusted the land tax scales in the budget, of course, to take account of property value increases. The government also took the opportunity to once again examine the rate of actual property value increases and compare that to the new land tax scales. In the final analysis, the government decided that practical action was not feasible at this time and the issue should be addressed during consideration of the outcome of the state tax review. It is very clear to me that the impact on land tax of rising property values will have to be considered by the government in the next budget process, just as it was considered by the government in the last budget process. I do not think there is anything unusual about producing a report in which the whole question of land tax is actually highlighted. I quote from page 5 of the report - Lower land tax (down $267 million) . . . reflecting later collection of these items in 2006-07 relative to 2005-06; There it is in black and white for the public to see. There is no question whatsoever of the sort of allegation made by the temporary Deputy Leader of the Opposition.
I do not think there is anything unusual about producing a report in which the whole question of land tax is actually highlighted. I quote from page 5 of the report - Lower land tax (down $267 million) . . . reflecting later collection of these items in 2006-07 relative to 2005-06; There it is in black and white for the public to see. There is no question whatsoever of the sort of allegation made by the temporary Deputy Leader of the Opposition.
Several members interjected The SPEAKER : Order! I accept that members on my right have witnessed the performance of serial interjectors for a number of years. However, that is not the way to do things. Serial interjections stop members from speaking, and that is unacceptable. Mr T. BUSWELL : Thank you, Mr Speaker. Why has the Treasurer cooked the books by delaying the issuing of land tax and metropolitan regional improvement tax assessments, thereby effectively distorting the true extent of the government’s massive tax grab to the tune of $300 million? Several members interjected. Withdrawal of Remark The SPEAKER : Order! To imply that the Treasurer has cooked the books is unparliamentary and the member for Vasse should withdraw that comment. Mr T. BUSWELL : I withdraw; thank you, Mr Speaker. Questions Without Notice Resumed Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: In a way, I am pleased to be asked a question by the temporary Deputy Leader of the Opposition because I do not think there will be many other opportunities for him to ask me questions in his current capacity. It is remarkable that he has made that allegation because, of course, he can get the information on which he bases his question from the very document that the government has made public. We have highlighted the fact that the figures are different because land tax assessments are being issued later this year than in previous years. There is no question of us hiding any information from the public. We have highlighted that very piece of information in the document that we released. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked why land tax assessments were being issued later this year. The government wanted an opportunity to examine the increase in property values on the land tax scales so that the government - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order the member for Murdoch and the member for Roe and suggest that other members may wish to curtail their level of interjection. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The government adjusted the land tax scales in the budget, of course, to take account of property value increases. The government also took the opportunity to once again examine the rate of actual property value increases and compare that to the new land tax scales. In the final analysis, the government decided that practical action was not feasible at this time and the issue should be addressed during consideration of the outcome of the state tax review. It is very clear to me that the impact on land tax of rising property values will have to be considered by the government in the next budget process, just as it was considered by the government in the last budget process. I do not think there is anything unusual about producing a report in which the whole question of land tax is actually highlighted. I quote from page 5 of the report - Lower land tax (down $267 million) . . . reflecting later collection of these items in 2006-07 relative to 2005-06; There it is in black and white for the public to see. There is no question whatsoever of the sort of allegation made by the temporary Deputy Leader of the Opposition.
The SPEAKER : Order! I accept that members on my right have witnessed the performance of serial interjectors for a number of years. However, that is not the way to do things. Serial interjections stop members from speaking, and that is unacceptable. Mr T. BUSWELL : Thank you, Mr Speaker. Why has the Treasurer cooked the books by delaying the issuing of land tax and metropolitan regional improvement tax assessments, thereby effectively distorting the true extent of the government’s massive tax grab to the tune of $300 million? Several members interjected. Withdrawal of Remark The SPEAKER : Order! To imply that the Treasurer has cooked the books is unparliamentary and the member for Vasse should withdraw that comment. Mr T. BUSWELL : I withdraw; thank you, Mr Speaker. Questions Without Notice Resumed Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: In a way, I am pleased to be asked a question by the temporary Deputy Leader of the Opposition because I do not think there will be many other opportunities for him to ask me questions in his current capacity. It is remarkable that he has made that allegation because, of course, he can get the information on which he bases his question from the very document that the government has made public. We have highlighted the fact that the figures are different because land tax assessments are being issued later this year than in previous years. There is no question of us hiding any information from the public. We have highlighted that very piece of information in the document that we released. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked why land tax assessments were being issued later this year. The government wanted an opportunity to examine the increase in property values on the land tax scales so that the government - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order the member for Murdoch and the member for Roe and suggest that other members may wish to curtail their level of interjection. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The government adjusted the land tax scales in the budget, of course, to take account of property value increases. The government also took the opportunity to once again examine the rate of actual property value increases and compare that to the new land tax scales. In the final analysis, the government decided that practical action was not feasible at this time and the issue should be addressed during consideration of the outcome of the state tax review. It is very clear to me that the impact on land tax of rising property values will have to be considered by the government in the next budget process, just as it was considered by the government in the last budget process. I do not think there is anything unusual about producing a report in which the whole question of land tax is actually highlighted. I quote from page 5 of the report - Lower land tax (down $267 million) . . . reflecting later collection of these items in 2006-07 relative to 2005-06; There it is in black and white for the public to see. There is no question whatsoever of the sort of allegation made by the temporary Deputy Leader of the Opposition.
Mr T. BUSWELL : Thank you, Mr Speaker. Why has the Treasurer cooked the books by delaying the issuing of land tax and metropolitan regional improvement tax assessments, thereby effectively distorting the true extent of the government’s massive tax grab to the tune of $300 million? Several members interjected. Withdrawal of Remark The SPEAKER : Order! To imply that the Treasurer has cooked the books is unparliamentary and the member for Vasse should withdraw that comment. Mr T. BUSWELL : I withdraw; thank you, Mr Speaker. Questions Without Notice Resumed Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: In a way, I am pleased to be asked a question by the temporary Deputy Leader of the Opposition because I do not think there will be many other opportunities for him to ask me questions in his current capacity. It is remarkable that he has made that allegation because, of course, he can get the information on which he bases his question from the very document that the government has made public. We have highlighted the fact that the figures are different because land tax assessments are being issued later this year than in previous years. There is no question of us hiding any information from the public. We have highlighted that very piece of information in the document that we released. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked why land tax assessments were being issued later this year. The government wanted an opportunity to examine the increase in property values on the land tax scales so that the government - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order the member for Murdoch and the member for Roe and suggest that other members may wish to curtail their level of interjection. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The government adjusted the land tax scales in the budget, of course, to take account of property value increases. The government also took the opportunity to once again examine the rate of actual property value increases and compare that to the new land tax scales. In the final analysis, the government decided that practical action was not feasible at this time and the issue should be addressed during consideration of the outcome of the state tax review. It is very clear to me that the impact on land tax of rising property values will have to be considered by the government in the next budget process, just as it was considered by the government in the last budget process. I do not think there is anything unusual about producing a report in which the whole question of land tax is actually highlighted. I quote from page 5 of the report - Lower land tax (down $267 million) . . . reflecting later collection of these items in 2006-07 relative to 2005-06; There it is in black and white for the public to see. There is no question whatsoever of the sort of allegation made by the temporary Deputy Leader of the Opposition.
Why has the Treasurer cooked the books by delaying the issuing of land tax and metropolitan regional improvement tax assessments, thereby effectively distorting the true extent of the government’s massive tax grab to the tune of $300 million? Several members interjected. Withdrawal of Remark The SPEAKER : Order! To imply that the Treasurer has cooked the books is unparliamentary and the member for Vasse should withdraw that comment. Mr T. BUSWELL : I withdraw; thank you, Mr Speaker. Questions Without Notice Resumed Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: In a way, I am pleased to be asked a question by the temporary Deputy Leader of the Opposition because I do not think there will be many other opportunities for him to ask me questions in his current capacity. It is remarkable that he has made that allegation because, of course, he can get the information on which he bases his question from the very document that the government has made public. We have highlighted the fact that the figures are different because land tax assessments are being issued later this year than in previous years. There is no question of us hiding any information from the public. We have highlighted that very piece of information in the document that we released. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked why land tax assessments were being issued later this year. The government wanted an opportunity to examine the increase in property values on the land tax scales so that the government - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order the member for Murdoch and the member for Roe and suggest that other members may wish to curtail their level of interjection. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The government adjusted the land tax scales in the budget, of course, to take account of property value increases. The government also took the opportunity to once again examine the rate of actual property value increases and compare that to the new land tax scales. In the final analysis, the government decided that practical action was not feasible at this time and the issue should be addressed during consideration of the outcome of the state tax review. It is very clear to me that the impact on land tax of rising property values will have to be considered by the government in the next budget process, just as it was considered by the government in the last budget process. I do not think there is anything unusual about producing a report in which the whole question of land tax is actually highlighted. I quote from page 5 of the report - Lower land tax (down $267 million) . . . reflecting later collection of these items in 2006-07 relative to 2005-06; There it is in black and white for the public to see. There is no question whatsoever of the sort of allegation made by the temporary Deputy Leader of the Opposition.
Several members interjected. Withdrawal of Remark The SPEAKER : Order! To imply that the Treasurer has cooked the books is unparliamentary and the member for Vasse should withdraw that comment. Mr T. BUSWELL : I withdraw; thank you, Mr Speaker. Questions Without Notice Resumed Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: In a way, I am pleased to be asked a question by the temporary Deputy Leader of the Opposition because I do not think there will be many other opportunities for him to ask me questions in his current capacity. It is remarkable that he has made that allegation because, of course, he can get the information on which he bases his question from the very document that the government has made public. We have highlighted the fact that the figures are different because land tax assessments are being issued later this year than in previous years. There is no question of us hiding any information from the public. We have highlighted that very piece of information in the document that we released. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked why land tax assessments were being issued later this year. The government wanted an opportunity to examine the increase in property values on the land tax scales so that the government - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order the member for Murdoch and the member for Roe and suggest that other members may wish to curtail their level of interjection. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The government adjusted the land tax scales in the budget, of course, to take account of property value increases. The government also took the opportunity to once again examine the rate of actual property value increases and compare that to the new land tax scales. In the final analysis, the government decided that practical action was not feasible at this time and the issue should be addressed during consideration of the outcome of the state tax review. It is very clear to me that the impact on land tax of rising property values will have to be considered by the government in the next budget process, just as it was considered by the government in the last budget process. I do not think there is anything unusual about producing a report in which the whole question of land tax is actually highlighted. I quote from page 5 of the report - Lower land tax (down $267 million) . . . reflecting later collection of these items in 2006-07 relative to 2005-06; There it is in black and white for the public to see. There is no question whatsoever of the sort of allegation made by the temporary Deputy Leader of the Opposition.
Mr T. BUSWELL : I withdraw; thank you, Mr Speaker. Questions Without Notice Resumed Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: In a way, I am pleased to be asked a question by the temporary Deputy Leader of the Opposition because I do not think there will be many other opportunities for him to ask me questions in his current capacity. It is remarkable that he has made that allegation because, of course, he can get the information on which he bases his question from the very document that the government has made public. We have highlighted the fact that the figures are different because land tax assessments are being issued later this year than in previous years. There is no question of us hiding any information from the public. We have highlighted that very piece of information in the document that we released. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked why land tax assessments were being issued later this year. The government wanted an opportunity to examine the increase in property values on the land tax scales so that the government - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order the member for Murdoch and the member for Roe and suggest that other members may wish to curtail their level of interjection. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The government adjusted the land tax scales in the budget, of course, to take account of property value increases. The government also took the opportunity to once again examine the rate of actual property value increases and compare that to the new land tax scales. In the final analysis, the government decided that practical action was not feasible at this time and the issue should be addressed during consideration of the outcome of the state tax review. It is very clear to me that the impact on land tax of rising property values will have to be considered by the government in the next budget process, just as it was considered by the government in the last budget process. I do not think there is anything unusual about producing a report in which the whole question of land tax is actually highlighted. I quote from page 5 of the report - Lower land tax (down $267 million) . . . reflecting later collection of these items in 2006-07 relative to 2005-06; There it is in black and white for the public to see. There is no question whatsoever of the sort of allegation made by the temporary Deputy Leader of the Opposition.
In a way, I am pleased to be asked a question by the temporary Deputy Leader of the Opposition because I do not think there will be many other opportunities for him to ask me questions in his current capacity. It is remarkable that he has made that allegation because, of course, he can get the information on which he bases his question from the very document that the government has made public. We have highlighted the fact that the figures are different because land tax assessments are being issued later this year than in previous years. There is no question of us hiding any information from the public. We have highlighted that very piece of information in the document that we released. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked why land tax assessments were being issued later this year. The government wanted an opportunity to examine the increase in property values on the land tax scales so that the government - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order the member for Murdoch and the member for Roe and suggest that other members may wish to curtail their level of interjection. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The government adjusted the land tax scales in the budget, of course, to take account of property value increases. The government also took the opportunity to once again examine the rate of actual property value increases and compare that to the new land tax scales. In the final analysis, the government decided that practical action was not feasible at this time and the issue should be addressed during consideration of the outcome of the state tax review. It is very clear to me that the impact on land tax of rising property values will have to be considered by the government in the next budget process, just as it was considered by the government in the last budget process. I do not think there is anything unusual about producing a report in which the whole question of land tax is actually highlighted. I quote from page 5 of the report - Lower land tax (down $267 million) . . . reflecting later collection of these items in 2006-07 relative to 2005-06; There it is in black and white for the public to see. There is no question whatsoever of the sort of allegation made by the temporary Deputy Leader of the Opposition.
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked why land tax assessments were being issued later this year. The government wanted an opportunity to examine the increase in property values on the land tax scales so that the government - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order the member for Murdoch and the member for Roe and suggest that other members may wish to curtail their level of interjection. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The government adjusted the land tax scales in the budget, of course, to take account of property value increases. The government also took the opportunity to once again examine the rate of actual property value increases and compare that to the new land tax scales. In the final analysis, the government decided that practical action was not feasible at this time and the issue should be addressed during consideration of the outcome of the state tax review. It is very clear to me that the impact on land tax of rising property values will have to be considered by the government in the next budget process, just as it was considered by the government in the last budget process. I do not think there is anything unusual about producing a report in which the whole question of land tax is actually highlighted. I quote from page 5 of the report - Lower land tax (down $267 million) . . . reflecting later collection of these items in 2006-07 relative to 2005-06; There it is in black and white for the public to see. There is no question whatsoever of the sort of allegation made by the temporary Deputy Leader of the Opposition.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order the member for Murdoch and the member for Roe and suggest that other members may wish to curtail their level of interjection. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The government adjusted the land tax scales in the budget, of course, to take account of property value increases. The government also took the opportunity to once again examine the rate of actual property value increases and compare that to the new land tax scales. In the final analysis, the government decided that practical action was not feasible at this time and the issue should be addressed during consideration of the outcome of the state tax review. It is very clear to me that the impact on land tax of rising property values will have to be considered by the government in the next budget process, just as it was considered by the government in the last budget process. I do not think there is anything unusual about producing a report in which the whole question of land tax is actually highlighted. I quote from page 5 of the report - Lower land tax (down $267 million) . . . reflecting later collection of these items in 2006-07 relative to 2005-06; There it is in black and white for the public to see. There is no question whatsoever of the sort of allegation made by the temporary Deputy Leader of the Opposition.
The SPEAKER : I call to order the member for Murdoch and the member for Roe and suggest that other members may wish to curtail their level of interjection. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The government adjusted the land tax scales in the budget, of course, to take account of property value increases. The government also took the opportunity to once again examine the rate of actual property value increases and compare that to the new land tax scales. In the final analysis, the government decided that practical action was not feasible at this time and the issue should be addressed during consideration of the outcome of the state tax review. It is very clear to me that the impact on land tax of rising property values will have to be considered by the government in the next budget process, just as it was considered by the government in the last budget process. I do not think there is anything unusual about producing a report in which the whole question of land tax is actually highlighted. I quote from page 5 of the report - Lower land tax (down $267 million) . . . reflecting later collection of these items in 2006-07 relative to 2005-06; There it is in black and white for the public to see. There is no question whatsoever of the sort of allegation made by the temporary Deputy Leader of the Opposition.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : The government adjusted the land tax scales in the budget, of course, to take account of property value increases. The government also took the opportunity to once again examine the rate of actual property value increases and compare that to the new land tax scales. In the final analysis, the government decided that practical action was not feasible at this time and the issue should be addressed during consideration of the outcome of the state tax review. It is very clear to me that the impact on land tax of rising property values will have to be considered by the government in the next budget process, just as it was considered by the government in the last budget process. I do not think there is anything unusual about producing a report in which the whole question of land tax is actually highlighted. I quote from page 5 of the report - Lower land tax (down $267 million) . . . reflecting later collection of these items in 2006-07 relative to 2005-06; There it is in black and white for the public to see. There is no question whatsoever of the sort of allegation made by the temporary Deputy Leader of the Opposition.
I do not think there is anything unusual about producing a report in which the whole question of land tax is actually highlighted. I quote from page 5 of the report - Lower land tax (down $267 million) . . . reflecting later collection of these items in 2006-07 relative to 2005-06; There it is in black and white for the public to see. There is no question whatsoever of the sort of allegation made by the temporary Deputy Leader of the Opposition.
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.