❓ Mr. Buswell questions the Treasurer's use of inflation forecasts for state government fees and charges, accusing him of misleading the public. The Treasurer defends the practice, citing a long-standing policy of using the previous year's inflation rate.
AnsweredQoN 175Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
STATE GOVERNMENT GOODS AND SERVICES CHARGES
At the time of handing down each of the last three budgets, when comparing the increase in the costs of the basket of state government goods and services with inflation, the Treasurer has used the consumer price index forecasts for the year ahead as the basis of comparison. (1) Why did the Treasurer’s press release yesterday mislead the people of Western Australia by claiming that the forecast rate of inflation was 4.8 per cent, when the Department of Treasury and Finance and the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia forecast a rate of inflation of between 2.5 and three per cent? (2) How does the Treasurer justify the fact that the increase in household fees and charges of 3.9 per cent is actually 30 per cent above the forecast rate of inflation? Mr E.S. RIPPER
At the time of handing down each of the last three budgets, when comparing the increase in the costs of the basket of state government goods and services with inflation, the Treasurer has used the consumer price index forecasts for the year ahead as the basis of comparison. (1) Why did the Treasurer’s press release yesterday mislead the people of Western Australia by claiming that the forecast rate of inflation was 4.8 per cent, when the Department of Treasury and Finance and the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia forecast a rate of inflation of between 2.5 and three per cent? (2) How does the Treasurer justify the fact that the increase in household fees and charges of 3.9 per cent is actually 30 per cent above the forecast rate of inflation? Mr E.S. RIPPER
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(2) Why would we charge people for costs that were only forecast? People would surely say to us that those costs had not yet occurred, and would ask why they were being charged for it. We are increasing prices by less than the rate of inflation to take into account the cost increases that have already occurred. The opposition has made a misleading set of statements. I will quote from a memo from the Under Treasurer, which I will table for the interest of the house. Mr Speaker, you might have to forgive me if I quote from it at some length, because the house does need this information. The memo states - The Department of Treasury and Finance administers the Government’s policy regarding increases in fees and charges. Fees and charges are aimed at ensuring where individuals chose to consume a good or service provided by government, they pay an amount commensurate with its cost - the principal of ‘user pays’. Members can read the full note. The briefing note states also - In order to implement this principle, where fees and charges already represent full recovery of the cost of the goods or services being provided, the budget allows for indexation of the fees and charges over time to reflect the increases in cost in providing those goods and services. The Consumer Price Index . . . is used as a proxy for these cost increases. From 1997 to May 2001, the CPI used as the basis for increases for existing fees and charges that already recover costs was the December-to-December Perth figure, normally released in January. This policy - Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Vasse to order for the first time. Mr T. Buswell : That’s what it says. Yoo-hoo! Mr E.S. RIPPER : Listen to the advice of the Under Treasurer; it is the policy that applied when the opposite lot were in power - This policy was introduced to provide greater certainty in the budget process and minimise any potential conflict of interest in CPI forecasting . . . The briefing note goes on - In May 2001, in order to accommodate a bringing forward of budget timelines, this policy was amended to use the year-on-year September-to-September Perth CPI figure . . . which is usually released in October. Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Vasse to order for the second time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Let me now give the summary of this briefing note signed by Timothy Marney, Under Treasurer. This is what it says - In short, it has been consistent policy over the past ten years, both under and prior to the current Government, to index fees and charges to the previous year’s inflation. “To the previous year’s inflation”; that is what the Under Treasurer said. He then goes on to provide me with some advice on what would happen if we had used the opposition’s preferred measure of forecasting inflation. The briefing note says - The alternative approach would be to use the forecast of inflation to index fees and charges. If this methodology had been applied over the past seven years, the fees and charges for the average household would have been increased by an additional 8.9% relative to the fees and charges announced yesterday, which would cost the average household an additional $314.80 per year. Mr P.D. Omodei : I don’t even believe the Treasurer! The SPEAKER : I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : A policy has been in place since 1997, when the Leader of the Opposition was in cabinet. He must have known about this policy, if he paid any attention to his cabinet papers. When the Leader of the Opposition was in cabinet, fees and charges were indexed to the previous year’s inflation rate. It makes sense because it is a known, actual figure. It is a figure representing costs, which have already been incurred. It is not a forecast. It is not something that has not yet happened. The difference is that when opposition members were in power, they did not care about the impact of their household fees and charges on the family budget, so they did not mind increasing fees and charges for households above any rate of inflation, let alone whether it was actual historical or forecast. We, on the other hand, have adopted a policy, again before the last election, when the Premier at the time said - . . . families would also benefit from Labor’s commitment to cap any annual increases in household charges to the consumer price index. That means any increases in the combined annual cost of electricity, water, sewerage and drainage, public transport, motor vehicle registration and drivers’ licence bills would not exceed the inflation rate. We have honoured that commitment. The historical year average inflation rate to the end of September was 4.8 per cent. The total increase in our fees and charges is 3.95 per cent. We have done this year after year after year, and the saving to families is now $413 a year from our policy to not increase household fees and charges to the annual average rate of increases in the economy in general. The private sector put up its prices. We have to put up our prices as well, but we put up our prices by less than the historical rate of inflation. We have not changed the policy. Moreover, it is the same policy that the Leader of the Opposition endorsed as a cabinet minister in the previous coalition government. Point of Order Mr M.W. TRENORDEN : As the Treasurer indicated, that was a briefing note. I ask that he table it. The SPEAKER : The paper has been tabled. [See paper 2665.]
(1) Why did the Treasurer’s press release yesterday mislead the people of Western Australia by claiming that the forecast rate of inflation was 4.8 per cent, when the Department of Treasury and Finance and the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia forecast a rate of inflation of between 2.5 and three per cent? (2) How does the Treasurer justify the fact that the increase in household fees and charges of 3.9 per cent is actually 30 per cent above the forecast rate of inflation? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) Why would we charge people for costs that were only forecast? People would surely say to us that those costs had not yet occurred, and would ask why they were being charged for it. We are increasing prices by less than the rate of inflation to take into account the cost increases that have already occurred. The opposition has made a misleading set of statements. I will quote from a memo from the Under Treasurer, which I will table for the interest of the house. Mr Speaker, you might have to forgive me if I quote from it at some length, because the house does need this information. The memo states - The Department of Treasury and Finance administers the Government’s policy regarding increases in fees and charges. Fees and charges are aimed at ensuring where individuals chose to consume a good or service provided by government, they pay an amount commensurate with its cost - the principal of ‘user pays’. Members can read the full note. The briefing note states also - In order to implement this principle, where fees and charges already represent full recovery of the cost of the goods or services being provided, the budget allows for indexation of the fees and charges over time to reflect the increases in cost in providing those goods and services. The Consumer Price Index . . . is used as a proxy for these cost increases. From 1997 to May 2001, the CPI used as the basis for increases for existing fees and charges that already recover costs was the December-to-December Perth figure, normally released in January. This policy - Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Vasse to order for the first time. Mr T. Buswell : That’s what it says. Yoo-hoo! Mr E.S. RIPPER : Listen to the advice of the Under Treasurer; it is the policy that applied when the opposite lot were in power - This policy was introduced to provide greater certainty in the budget process and minimise any potential conflict of interest in CPI forecasting . . . The briefing note goes on - In May 2001, in order to accommodate a bringing forward of budget timelines, this policy was amended to use the year-on-year September-to-September Perth CPI figure . . . which is usually released in October. Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Vasse to order for the second time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Let me now give the summary of this briefing note signed by Timothy Marney, Under Treasurer. This is what it says - In short, it has been consistent policy over the past ten years, both under and prior to the current Government, to index fees and charges to the previous year’s inflation. “To the previous year’s inflation”; that is what the Under Treasurer said. He then goes on to provide me with some advice on what would happen if we had used the opposition’s preferred measure of forecasting inflation. The briefing note says - The alternative approach would be to use the forecast of inflation to index fees and charges. If this methodology had been applied over the past seven years, the fees and charges for the average household would have been increased by an additional 8.9% relative to the fees and charges announced yesterday, which would cost the average household an additional $314.80 per year. Mr P.D. Omodei : I don’t even believe the Treasurer! The SPEAKER : I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : A policy has been in place since 1997, when the Leader of the Opposition was in cabinet. He must have known about this policy, if he paid any attention to his cabinet papers. When the Leader of the Opposition was in cabinet, fees and charges were indexed to the previous year’s inflation rate. It makes sense because it is a known, actual figure. It is a figure representing costs, which have already been incurred. It is not a forecast. It is not something that has not yet happened. The difference is that when opposition members were in power, they did not care about the impact of their household fees and charges on the family budget, so they did not mind increasing fees and charges for households above any rate of inflation, let alone whether it was actual historical or forecast. We, on the other hand, have adopted a policy, again before the last election, when the Premier at the time said - . . . families would also benefit from Labor’s commitment to cap any annual increases in household charges to the consumer price index. That means any increases in the combined annual cost of electricity, water, sewerage and drainage, public transport, motor vehicle registration and drivers’ licence bills would not exceed the inflation rate. We have honoured that commitment. The historical year average inflation rate to the end of September was 4.8 per cent. The total increase in our fees and charges is 3.95 per cent. We have done this year after year after year, and the saving to families is now $413 a year from our policy to not increase household fees and charges to the annual average rate of increases in the economy in general. The private sector put up its prices. We have to put up our prices as well, but we put up our prices by less than the historical rate of inflation. We have not changed the policy. Moreover, it is the same policy that the Leader of the Opposition endorsed as a cabinet minister in the previous coalition government. Point of Order Mr M.W. TRENORDEN : As the Treasurer indicated, that was a briefing note. I ask that he table it. The SPEAKER : The paper has been tabled. [See paper 2665.]
(2) How does the Treasurer justify the fact that the increase in household fees and charges of 3.9 per cent is actually 30 per cent above the forecast rate of inflation? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) Why would we charge people for costs that were only forecast? People would surely say to us that those costs had not yet occurred, and would ask why they were being charged for it. We are increasing prices by less than the rate of inflation to take into account the cost increases that have already occurred. The opposition has made a misleading set of statements. I will quote from a memo from the Under Treasurer, which I will table for the interest of the house. Mr Speaker, you might have to forgive me if I quote from it at some length, because the house does need this information. The memo states - The Department of Treasury and Finance administers the Government’s policy regarding increases in fees and charges. Fees and charges are aimed at ensuring where individuals chose to consume a good or service provided by government, they pay an amount commensurate with its cost - the principal of ‘user pays’. Members can read the full note. The briefing note states also - In order to implement this principle, where fees and charges already represent full recovery of the cost of the goods or services being provided, the budget allows for indexation of the fees and charges over time to reflect the increases in cost in providing those goods and services. The Consumer Price Index . . . is used as a proxy for these cost increases. From 1997 to May 2001, the CPI used as the basis for increases for existing fees and charges that already recover costs was the December-to-December Perth figure, normally released in January. This policy - Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Vasse to order for the first time. Mr T. Buswell : That’s what it says. Yoo-hoo! Mr E.S. RIPPER : Listen to the advice of the Under Treasurer; it is the policy that applied when the opposite lot were in power - This policy was introduced to provide greater certainty in the budget process and minimise any potential conflict of interest in CPI forecasting . . . The briefing note goes on - In May 2001, in order to accommodate a bringing forward of budget timelines, this policy was amended to use the year-on-year September-to-September Perth CPI figure . . . which is usually released in October. Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Vasse to order for the second time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Let me now give the summary of this briefing note signed by Timothy Marney, Under Treasurer. This is what it says - In short, it has been consistent policy over the past ten years, both under and prior to the current Government, to index fees and charges to the previous year’s inflation. “To the previous year’s inflation”; that is what the Under Treasurer said. He then goes on to provide me with some advice on what would happen if we had used the opposition’s preferred measure of forecasting inflation. The briefing note says - The alternative approach would be to use the forecast of inflation to index fees and charges. If this methodology had been applied over the past seven years, the fees and charges for the average household would have been increased by an additional 8.9% relative to the fees and charges announced yesterday, which would cost the average household an additional $314.80 per year. Mr P.D. Omodei : I don’t even believe the Treasurer! The SPEAKER : I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : A policy has been in place since 1997, when the Leader of the Opposition was in cabinet. He must have known about this policy, if he paid any attention to his cabinet papers. When the Leader of the Opposition was in cabinet, fees and charges were indexed to the previous year’s inflation rate. It makes sense because it is a known, actual figure. It is a figure representing costs, which have already been incurred. It is not a forecast. It is not something that has not yet happened. The difference is that when opposition members were in power, they did not care about the impact of their household fees and charges on the family budget, so they did not mind increasing fees and charges for households above any rate of inflation, let alone whether it was actual historical or forecast. We, on the other hand, have adopted a policy, again before the last election, when the Premier at the time said - . . . families would also benefit from Labor’s commitment to cap any annual increases in household charges to the consumer price index. That means any increases in the combined annual cost of electricity, water, sewerage and drainage, public transport, motor vehicle registration and drivers’ licence bills would not exceed the inflation rate. We have honoured that commitment. The historical year average inflation rate to the end of September was 4.8 per cent. The total increase in our fees and charges is 3.95 per cent. We have done this year after year after year, and the saving to families is now $413 a year from our policy to not increase household fees and charges to the annual average rate of increases in the economy in general. The private sector put up its prices. We have to put up our prices as well, but we put up our prices by less than the historical rate of inflation. We have not changed the policy. Moreover, it is the same policy that the Leader of the Opposition endorsed as a cabinet minister in the previous coalition government. Point of Order Mr M.W. TRENORDEN : As the Treasurer indicated, that was a briefing note. I ask that he table it. The SPEAKER : The paper has been tabled. [See paper 2665.]
Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) Why would we charge people for costs that were only forecast? People would surely say to us that those costs had not yet occurred, and would ask why they were being charged for it. We are increasing prices by less than the rate of inflation to take into account the cost increases that have already occurred. The opposition has made a misleading set of statements. I will quote from a memo from the Under Treasurer, which I will table for the interest of the house. Mr Speaker, you might have to forgive me if I quote from it at some length, because the house does need this information. The memo states - The Department of Treasury and Finance administers the Government’s policy regarding increases in fees and charges. Fees and charges are aimed at ensuring where individuals chose to consume a good or service provided by government, they pay an amount commensurate with its cost - the principal of ‘user pays’. Members can read the full note. The briefing note states also - In order to implement this principle, where fees and charges already represent full recovery of the cost of the goods or services being provided, the budget allows for indexation of the fees and charges over time to reflect the increases in cost in providing those goods and services. The Consumer Price Index . . . is used as a proxy for these cost increases. From 1997 to May 2001, the CPI used as the basis for increases for existing fees and charges that already recover costs was the December-to-December Perth figure, normally released in January. This policy - Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Vasse to order for the first time. Mr T. Buswell : That’s what it says. Yoo-hoo! Mr E.S. RIPPER : Listen to the advice of the Under Treasurer; it is the policy that applied when the opposite lot were in power - This policy was introduced to provide greater certainty in the budget process and minimise any potential conflict of interest in CPI forecasting . . . The briefing note goes on - In May 2001, in order to accommodate a bringing forward of budget timelines, this policy was amended to use the year-on-year September-to-September Perth CPI figure . . . which is usually released in October. Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Vasse to order for the second time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Let me now give the summary of this briefing note signed by Timothy Marney, Under Treasurer. This is what it says - In short, it has been consistent policy over the past ten years, both under and prior to the current Government, to index fees and charges to the previous year’s inflation. “To the previous year’s inflation”; that is what the Under Treasurer said. He then goes on to provide me with some advice on what would happen if we had used the opposition’s preferred measure of forecasting inflation. The briefing note says - The alternative approach would be to use the forecast of inflation to index fees and charges. If this methodology had been applied over the past seven years, the fees and charges for the average household would have been increased by an additional 8.9% relative to the fees and charges announced yesterday, which would cost the average household an additional $314.80 per year. Mr P.D. Omodei : I don’t even believe the Treasurer! The SPEAKER : I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : A policy has been in place since 1997, when the Leader of the Opposition was in cabinet. He must have known about this policy, if he paid any attention to his cabinet papers. When the Leader of the Opposition was in cabinet, fees and charges were indexed to the previous year’s inflation rate. It makes sense because it is a known, actual figure. It is a figure representing costs, which have already been incurred. It is not a forecast. It is not something that has not yet happened. The difference is that when opposition members were in power, they did not care about the impact of their household fees and charges on the family budget, so they did not mind increasing fees and charges for households above any rate of inflation, let alone whether it was actual historical or forecast. We, on the other hand, have adopted a policy, again before the last election, when the Premier at the time said - . . . families would also benefit from Labor’s commitment to cap any annual increases in household charges to the consumer price index. That means any increases in the combined annual cost of electricity, water, sewerage and drainage, public transport, motor vehicle registration and drivers’ licence bills would not exceed the inflation rate. We have honoured that commitment. The historical year average inflation rate to the end of September was 4.8 per cent. The total increase in our fees and charges is 3.95 per cent. We have done this year after year after year, and the saving to families is now $413 a year from our policy to not increase household fees and charges to the annual average rate of increases in the economy in general. The private sector put up its prices. We have to put up our prices as well, but we put up our prices by less than the historical rate of inflation. We have not changed the policy. Moreover, it is the same policy that the Leader of the Opposition endorsed as a cabinet minister in the previous coalition government. Point of Order Mr M.W. TRENORDEN : As the Treasurer indicated, that was a briefing note. I ask that he table it. The SPEAKER : The paper has been tabled. [See paper 2665.]
(1)-(2) Why would we charge people for costs that were only forecast? People would surely say to us that those costs had not yet occurred, and would ask why they were being charged for it. We are increasing prices by less than the rate of inflation to take into account the cost increases that have already occurred. The opposition has made a misleading set of statements. I will quote from a memo from the Under Treasurer, which I will table for the interest of the house. Mr Speaker, you might have to forgive me if I quote from it at some length, because the house does need this information. The memo states - The Department of Treasury and Finance administers the Government’s policy regarding increases in fees and charges. Fees and charges are aimed at ensuring where individuals chose to consume a good or service provided by government, they pay an amount commensurate with its cost - the principal of ‘user pays’. Members can read the full note. The briefing note states also - In order to implement this principle, where fees and charges already represent full recovery of the cost of the goods or services being provided, the budget allows for indexation of the fees and charges over time to reflect the increases in cost in providing those goods and services. The Consumer Price Index . . . is used as a proxy for these cost increases. From 1997 to May 2001, the CPI used as the basis for increases for existing fees and charges that already recover costs was the December-to-December Perth figure, normally released in January. This policy - Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Vasse to order for the first time. Mr T. Buswell : That’s what it says. Yoo-hoo! Mr E.S. RIPPER : Listen to the advice of the Under Treasurer; it is the policy that applied when the opposite lot were in power - This policy was introduced to provide greater certainty in the budget process and minimise any potential conflict of interest in CPI forecasting . . . The briefing note goes on - In May 2001, in order to accommodate a bringing forward of budget timelines, this policy was amended to use the year-on-year September-to-September Perth CPI figure . . . which is usually released in October. Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Vasse to order for the second time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Let me now give the summary of this briefing note signed by Timothy Marney, Under Treasurer. This is what it says - In short, it has been consistent policy over the past ten years, both under and prior to the current Government, to index fees and charges to the previous year’s inflation. “To the previous year’s inflation”; that is what the Under Treasurer said. He then goes on to provide me with some advice on what would happen if we had used the opposition’s preferred measure of forecasting inflation. The briefing note says - The alternative approach would be to use the forecast of inflation to index fees and charges. If this methodology had been applied over the past seven years, the fees and charges for the average household would have been increased by an additional 8.9% relative to the fees and charges announced yesterday, which would cost the average household an additional $314.80 per year. Mr P.D. Omodei : I don’t even believe the Treasurer! The SPEAKER : I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : A policy has been in place since 1997, when the Leader of the Opposition was in cabinet. He must have known about this policy, if he paid any attention to his cabinet papers. When the Leader of the Opposition was in cabinet, fees and charges were indexed to the previous year’s inflation rate. It makes sense because it is a known, actual figure. It is a figure representing costs, which have already been incurred. It is not a forecast. It is not something that has not yet happened. The difference is that when opposition members were in power, they did not care about the impact of their household fees and charges on the family budget, so they did not mind increasing fees and charges for households above any rate of inflation, let alone whether it was actual historical or forecast. We, on the other hand, have adopted a policy, again before the last election, when the Premier at the time said - . . . families would also benefit from Labor’s commitment to cap any annual increases in household charges to the consumer price index. That means any increases in the combined annual cost of electricity, water, sewerage and drainage, public transport, motor vehicle registration and drivers’ licence bills would not exceed the inflation rate. We have honoured that commitment. The historical year average inflation rate to the end of September was 4.8 per cent. The total increase in our fees and charges is 3.95 per cent. We have done this year after year after year, and the saving to families is now $413 a year from our policy to not increase household fees and charges to the annual average rate of increases in the economy in general. The private sector put up its prices. We have to put up our prices as well, but we put up our prices by less than the historical rate of inflation. We have not changed the policy. Moreover, it is the same policy that the Leader of the Opposition endorsed as a cabinet minister in the previous coalition government. Point of Order Mr M.W. TRENORDEN : As the Treasurer indicated, that was a briefing note. I ask that he table it. The SPEAKER : The paper has been tabled. [See paper 2665.]
The Consumer Price Index . . . is used as a proxy for these cost increases. From 1997 to May 2001, the CPI used as the basis for increases for existing fees and charges that already recover costs was the December-to-December Perth figure, normally released in January. This policy -
The SPEAKER : I call the member for Vasse to order for the first time. Mr T. Buswell : That’s what it says. Yoo-hoo! Mr E.S. RIPPER : Listen to the advice of the Under Treasurer; it is the policy that applied when the opposite lot were in power - This policy was introduced to provide greater certainty in the budget process and minimise any potential conflict of interest in CPI forecasting . . . The briefing note goes on - In May 2001, in order to accommodate a bringing forward of budget timelines, this policy was amended to use the year-on-year September-to-September Perth CPI figure . . . which is usually released in October. Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Vasse to order for the second time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Let me now give the summary of this briefing note signed by Timothy Marney, Under Treasurer. This is what it says - In short, it has been consistent policy over the past ten years, both under and prior to the current Government, to index fees and charges to the previous year’s inflation. “To the previous year’s inflation”; that is what the Under Treasurer said. He then goes on to provide me with some advice on what would happen if we had used the opposition’s preferred measure of forecasting inflation. The briefing note says - The alternative approach would be to use the forecast of inflation to index fees and charges. If this methodology had been applied over the past seven years, the fees and charges for the average household would have been increased by an additional 8.9% relative to the fees and charges announced yesterday, which would cost the average household an additional $314.80 per year. Mr P.D. Omodei : I don’t even believe the Treasurer! The SPEAKER : I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : A policy has been in place since 1997, when the Leader of the Opposition was in cabinet. He must have known about this policy, if he paid any attention to his cabinet papers. When the Leader of the Opposition was in cabinet, fees and charges were indexed to the previous year’s inflation rate. It makes sense because it is a known, actual figure. It is a figure representing costs, which have already been incurred. It is not a forecast. It is not something that has not yet happened. The difference is that when opposition members were in power, they did not care about the impact of their household fees and charges on the family budget, so they did not mind increasing fees and charges for households above any rate of inflation, let alone whether it was actual historical or forecast. We, on the other hand, have adopted a policy, again before the last election, when the Premier at the time said - . . . families would also benefit from Labor’s commitment to cap any annual increases in household charges to the consumer price index. That means any increases in the combined annual cost of electricity, water, sewerage and drainage, public transport, motor vehicle registration and drivers’ licence bills would not exceed the inflation rate. We have honoured that commitment. The historical year average inflation rate to the end of September was 4.8 per cent. The total increase in our fees and charges is 3.95 per cent. We have done this year after year after year, and the saving to families is now $413 a year from our policy to not increase household fees and charges to the annual average rate of increases in the economy in general. The private sector put up its prices. We have to put up our prices as well, but we put up our prices by less than the historical rate of inflation. We have not changed the policy. Moreover, it is the same policy that the Leader of the Opposition endorsed as a cabinet minister in the previous coalition government. Point of Order Mr M.W. TRENORDEN : As the Treasurer indicated, that was a briefing note. I ask that he table it. The SPEAKER : The paper has been tabled. [See paper 2665.]
Mr T. Buswell : That’s what it says. Yoo-hoo! Mr E.S. RIPPER : Listen to the advice of the Under Treasurer; it is the policy that applied when the opposite lot were in power - This policy was introduced to provide greater certainty in the budget process and minimise any potential conflict of interest in CPI forecasting . . . The briefing note goes on - In May 2001, in order to accommodate a bringing forward of budget timelines, this policy was amended to use the year-on-year September-to-September Perth CPI figure . . . which is usually released in October. Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Vasse to order for the second time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Let me now give the summary of this briefing note signed by Timothy Marney, Under Treasurer. This is what it says - In short, it has been consistent policy over the past ten years, both under and prior to the current Government, to index fees and charges to the previous year’s inflation. “To the previous year’s inflation”; that is what the Under Treasurer said. He then goes on to provide me with some advice on what would happen if we had used the opposition’s preferred measure of forecasting inflation. The briefing note says - The alternative approach would be to use the forecast of inflation to index fees and charges. If this methodology had been applied over the past seven years, the fees and charges for the average household would have been increased by an additional 8.9% relative to the fees and charges announced yesterday, which would cost the average household an additional $314.80 per year. Mr P.D. Omodei : I don’t even believe the Treasurer! The SPEAKER : I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : A policy has been in place since 1997, when the Leader of the Opposition was in cabinet. He must have known about this policy, if he paid any attention to his cabinet papers. When the Leader of the Opposition was in cabinet, fees and charges were indexed to the previous year’s inflation rate. It makes sense because it is a known, actual figure. It is a figure representing costs, which have already been incurred. It is not a forecast. It is not something that has not yet happened. The difference is that when opposition members were in power, they did not care about the impact of their household fees and charges on the family budget, so they did not mind increasing fees and charges for households above any rate of inflation, let alone whether it was actual historical or forecast. We, on the other hand, have adopted a policy, again before the last election, when the Premier at the time said - . . . families would also benefit from Labor’s commitment to cap any annual increases in household charges to the consumer price index. That means any increases in the combined annual cost of electricity, water, sewerage and drainage, public transport, motor vehicle registration and drivers’ licence bills would not exceed the inflation rate. We have honoured that commitment. The historical year average inflation rate to the end of September was 4.8 per cent. The total increase in our fees and charges is 3.95 per cent. We have done this year after year after year, and the saving to families is now $413 a year from our policy to not increase household fees and charges to the annual average rate of increases in the economy in general. The private sector put up its prices. We have to put up our prices as well, but we put up our prices by less than the historical rate of inflation. We have not changed the policy. Moreover, it is the same policy that the Leader of the Opposition endorsed as a cabinet minister in the previous coalition government. Point of Order Mr M.W. TRENORDEN : As the Treasurer indicated, that was a briefing note. I ask that he table it. The SPEAKER : The paper has been tabled. [See paper 2665.]
Mr E.S. RIPPER : Listen to the advice of the Under Treasurer; it is the policy that applied when the opposite lot were in power - This policy was introduced to provide greater certainty in the budget process and minimise any potential conflict of interest in CPI forecasting . . . The briefing note goes on - In May 2001, in order to accommodate a bringing forward of budget timelines, this policy was amended to use the year-on-year September-to-September Perth CPI figure . . . which is usually released in October. Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Vasse to order for the second time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Let me now give the summary of this briefing note signed by Timothy Marney, Under Treasurer. This is what it says - In short, it has been consistent policy over the past ten years, both under and prior to the current Government, to index fees and charges to the previous year’s inflation. “To the previous year’s inflation”; that is what the Under Treasurer said. He then goes on to provide me with some advice on what would happen if we had used the opposition’s preferred measure of forecasting inflation. The briefing note says - The alternative approach would be to use the forecast of inflation to index fees and charges. If this methodology had been applied over the past seven years, the fees and charges for the average household would have been increased by an additional 8.9% relative to the fees and charges announced yesterday, which would cost the average household an additional $314.80 per year. Mr P.D. Omodei : I don’t even believe the Treasurer! The SPEAKER : I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : A policy has been in place since 1997, when the Leader of the Opposition was in cabinet. He must have known about this policy, if he paid any attention to his cabinet papers. When the Leader of the Opposition was in cabinet, fees and charges were indexed to the previous year’s inflation rate. It makes sense because it is a known, actual figure. It is a figure representing costs, which have already been incurred. It is not a forecast. It is not something that has not yet happened. The difference is that when opposition members were in power, they did not care about the impact of their household fees and charges on the family budget, so they did not mind increasing fees and charges for households above any rate of inflation, let alone whether it was actual historical or forecast. We, on the other hand, have adopted a policy, again before the last election, when the Premier at the time said - . . . families would also benefit from Labor’s commitment to cap any annual increases in household charges to the consumer price index. That means any increases in the combined annual cost of electricity, water, sewerage and drainage, public transport, motor vehicle registration and drivers’ licence bills would not exceed the inflation rate. We have honoured that commitment. The historical year average inflation rate to the end of September was 4.8 per cent. The total increase in our fees and charges is 3.95 per cent. We have done this year after year after year, and the saving to families is now $413 a year from our policy to not increase household fees and charges to the annual average rate of increases in the economy in general. The private sector put up its prices. We have to put up our prices as well, but we put up our prices by less than the historical rate of inflation. We have not changed the policy. Moreover, it is the same policy that the Leader of the Opposition endorsed as a cabinet minister in the previous coalition government. Point of Order Mr M.W. TRENORDEN : As the Treasurer indicated, that was a briefing note. I ask that he table it. The SPEAKER : The paper has been tabled. [See paper 2665.]
The SPEAKER : I call the member for Vasse to order for the second time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Let me now give the summary of this briefing note signed by Timothy Marney, Under Treasurer. This is what it says - In short, it has been consistent policy over the past ten years, both under and prior to the current Government, to index fees and charges to the previous year’s inflation. “To the previous year’s inflation”; that is what the Under Treasurer said. He then goes on to provide me with some advice on what would happen if we had used the opposition’s preferred measure of forecasting inflation. The briefing note says - The alternative approach would be to use the forecast of inflation to index fees and charges. If this methodology had been applied over the past seven years, the fees and charges for the average household would have been increased by an additional 8.9% relative to the fees and charges announced yesterday, which would cost the average household an additional $314.80 per year. Mr P.D. Omodei : I don’t even believe the Treasurer! The SPEAKER : I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : A policy has been in place since 1997, when the Leader of the Opposition was in cabinet. He must have known about this policy, if he paid any attention to his cabinet papers. When the Leader of the Opposition was in cabinet, fees and charges were indexed to the previous year’s inflation rate. It makes sense because it is a known, actual figure. It is a figure representing costs, which have already been incurred. It is not a forecast. It is not something that has not yet happened. The difference is that when opposition members were in power, they did not care about the impact of their household fees and charges on the family budget, so they did not mind increasing fees and charges for households above any rate of inflation, let alone whether it was actual historical or forecast. We, on the other hand, have adopted a policy, again before the last election, when the Premier at the time said - . . . families would also benefit from Labor’s commitment to cap any annual increases in household charges to the consumer price index. That means any increases in the combined annual cost of electricity, water, sewerage and drainage, public transport, motor vehicle registration and drivers’ licence bills would not exceed the inflation rate. We have honoured that commitment. The historical year average inflation rate to the end of September was 4.8 per cent. The total increase in our fees and charges is 3.95 per cent. We have done this year after year after year, and the saving to families is now $413 a year from our policy to not increase household fees and charges to the annual average rate of increases in the economy in general. The private sector put up its prices. We have to put up our prices as well, but we put up our prices by less than the historical rate of inflation. We have not changed the policy. Moreover, it is the same policy that the Leader of the Opposition endorsed as a cabinet minister in the previous coalition government. Point of Order Mr M.W. TRENORDEN : As the Treasurer indicated, that was a briefing note. I ask that he table it. The SPEAKER : The paper has been tabled. [See paper 2665.]
Mr E.S. RIPPER : Let me now give the summary of this briefing note signed by Timothy Marney, Under Treasurer. This is what it says - In short, it has been consistent policy over the past ten years, both under and prior to the current Government, to index fees and charges to the previous year’s inflation. “To the previous year’s inflation”; that is what the Under Treasurer said. He then goes on to provide me with some advice on what would happen if we had used the opposition’s preferred measure of forecasting inflation. The briefing note says - The alternative approach would be to use the forecast of inflation to index fees and charges. If this methodology had been applied over the past seven years, the fees and charges for the average household would have been increased by an additional 8.9% relative to the fees and charges announced yesterday, which would cost the average household an additional $314.80 per year. Mr P.D. Omodei : I don’t even believe the Treasurer! The SPEAKER : I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : A policy has been in place since 1997, when the Leader of the Opposition was in cabinet. He must have known about this policy, if he paid any attention to his cabinet papers. When the Leader of the Opposition was in cabinet, fees and charges were indexed to the previous year’s inflation rate. It makes sense because it is a known, actual figure. It is a figure representing costs, which have already been incurred. It is not a forecast. It is not something that has not yet happened. The difference is that when opposition members were in power, they did not care about the impact of their household fees and charges on the family budget, so they did not mind increasing fees and charges for households above any rate of inflation, let alone whether it was actual historical or forecast. We, on the other hand, have adopted a policy, again before the last election, when the Premier at the time said - . . . families would also benefit from Labor’s commitment to cap any annual increases in household charges to the consumer price index. That means any increases in the combined annual cost of electricity, water, sewerage and drainage, public transport, motor vehicle registration and drivers’ licence bills would not exceed the inflation rate. We have honoured that commitment. The historical year average inflation rate to the end of September was 4.8 per cent. The total increase in our fees and charges is 3.95 per cent. We have done this year after year after year, and the saving to families is now $413 a year from our policy to not increase household fees and charges to the annual average rate of increases in the economy in general. The private sector put up its prices. We have to put up our prices as well, but we put up our prices by less than the historical rate of inflation. We have not changed the policy. Moreover, it is the same policy that the Leader of the Opposition endorsed as a cabinet minister in the previous coalition government. Point of Order Mr M.W. TRENORDEN : As the Treasurer indicated, that was a briefing note. I ask that he table it. The SPEAKER : The paper has been tabled. [See paper 2665.]
The SPEAKER : I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : A policy has been in place since 1997, when the Leader of the Opposition was in cabinet. He must have known about this policy, if he paid any attention to his cabinet papers. When the Leader of the Opposition was in cabinet, fees and charges were indexed to the previous year’s inflation rate. It makes sense because it is a known, actual figure. It is a figure representing costs, which have already been incurred. It is not a forecast. It is not something that has not yet happened. The difference is that when opposition members were in power, they did not care about the impact of their household fees and charges on the family budget, so they did not mind increasing fees and charges for households above any rate of inflation, let alone whether it was actual historical or forecast. We, on the other hand, have adopted a policy, again before the last election, when the Premier at the time said - . . . families would also benefit from Labor’s commitment to cap any annual increases in household charges to the consumer price index. That means any increases in the combined annual cost of electricity, water, sewerage and drainage, public transport, motor vehicle registration and drivers’ licence bills would not exceed the inflation rate. We have honoured that commitment. The historical year average inflation rate to the end of September was 4.8 per cent. The total increase in our fees and charges is 3.95 per cent. We have done this year after year after year, and the saving to families is now $413 a year from our policy to not increase household fees and charges to the annual average rate of increases in the economy in general. The private sector put up its prices. We have to put up our prices as well, but we put up our prices by less than the historical rate of inflation. We have not changed the policy. Moreover, it is the same policy that the Leader of the Opposition endorsed as a cabinet minister in the previous coalition government. Point of Order Mr M.W. TRENORDEN : As the Treasurer indicated, that was a briefing note. I ask that he table it. The SPEAKER : The paper has been tabled. [See paper 2665.]
Mr E.S. RIPPER : A policy has been in place since 1997, when the Leader of the Opposition was in cabinet. He must have known about this policy, if he paid any attention to his cabinet papers. When the Leader of the Opposition was in cabinet, fees and charges were indexed to the previous year’s inflation rate. It makes sense because it is a known, actual figure. It is a figure representing costs, which have already been incurred. It is not a forecast. It is not something that has not yet happened. The difference is that when opposition members were in power, they did not care about the impact of their household fees and charges on the family budget, so they did not mind increasing fees and charges for households above any rate of inflation, let alone whether it was actual historical or forecast. We, on the other hand, have adopted a policy, again before the last election, when the Premier at the time said - . . . families would also benefit from Labor’s commitment to cap any annual increases in household charges to the consumer price index. That means any increases in the combined annual cost of electricity, water, sewerage and drainage, public transport, motor vehicle registration and drivers’ licence bills would not exceed the inflation rate. We have honoured that commitment. The historical year average inflation rate to the end of September was 4.8 per cent. The total increase in our fees and charges is 3.95 per cent. We have done this year after year after year, and the saving to families is now $413 a year from our policy to not increase household fees and charges to the annual average rate of increases in the economy in general. The private sector put up its prices. We have to put up our prices as well, but we put up our prices by less than the historical rate of inflation. We have not changed the policy. Moreover, it is the same policy that the Leader of the Opposition endorsed as a cabinet minister in the previous coalition government. Point of Order Mr M.W. TRENORDEN : As the Treasurer indicated, that was a briefing note. I ask that he table it. The SPEAKER : The paper has been tabled. [See paper 2665.]
That means any increases in the combined annual cost of electricity, water, sewerage and drainage, public transport, motor vehicle registration and drivers’ licence bills would not exceed the inflation rate.
The SPEAKER : The paper has been tabled. [See paper 2665.]
[See paper 2665.]
(1) Why did the Treasurer’s press release yesterday mislead the people of Western Australia by claiming that the forecast rate of inflation was 4.8 per cent, when the Department of Treasury and Finance and the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia forecast a rate of inflation of between 2.5 and three per cent? (2) How does the Treasurer justify the fact that the increase in household fees and charges of 3.9 per cent is actually 30 per cent above the forecast rate of inflation? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) Why would we charge people for costs that were only forecast? People would surely say to us that those costs had not yet occurred, and would ask why they were being charged for it. We are increasing prices by less than the rate of inflation to take into account the cost increases that have already occurred. The opposition has made a misleading set of statements. I will quote from a memo from the Under Treasurer, which I will table for the interest of the house. Mr Speaker, you might have to forgive me if I quote from it at some length, because the house does need this information. The memo states - The Department of Treasury and Finance administers the Government’s policy regarding increases in fees and charges. Fees and charges are aimed at ensuring where individuals chose to consume a good or service provided by government, they pay an amount commensurate with its cost - the principal of ‘user pays’. Members can read the full note. The briefing note states also - In order to implement this principle, where fees and charges already represent full recovery of the cost of the goods or services being provided, the budget allows for indexation of the fees and charges over time to reflect the increases in cost in providing those goods and services. The Consumer Price Index . . . is used as a proxy for these cost increases. From 1997 to May 2001, the CPI used as the basis for increases for existing fees and charges that already recover costs was the December-to-December Perth figure, normally released in January. This policy - Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Vasse to order for the first time. Mr T. Buswell : That’s what it says. Yoo-hoo! Mr E.S. RIPPER : Listen to the advice of the Under Treasurer; it is the policy that applied when the opposite lot were in power - This policy was introduced to provide greater certainty in the budget process and minimise any potential conflict of interest in CPI forecasting . . . The briefing note goes on - In May 2001, in order to accommodate a bringing forward of budget timelines, this policy was amended to use the year-on-year September-to-September Perth CPI figure . . . which is usually released in October. Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Vasse to order for the second time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Let me now give the summary of this briefing note signed by Timothy Marney, Under Treasurer. This is what it says - In short, it has been consistent policy over the past ten years, both under and prior to the current Government, to index fees and charges to the previous year’s inflation. “To the previous year’s inflation”; that is what the Under Treasurer said. He then goes on to provide me with some advice on what would happen if we had used the opposition’s preferred measure of forecasting inflation. The briefing note says - The alternative approach would be to use the forecast of inflation to index fees and charges. If this methodology had been applied over the past seven years, the fees and charges for the average household would have been increased by an additional 8.9% relative to the fees and charges announced yesterday, which would cost the average household an additional $314.80 per year. Mr P.D. Omodei : I don’t even believe the Treasurer! The SPEAKER : I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : A policy has been in place since 1997, when the Leader of the Opposition was in cabinet. He must have known about this policy, if he paid any attention to his cabinet papers. When the Leader of the Opposition was in cabinet, fees and charges were indexed to the previous year’s inflation rate. It makes sense because it is a known, actual figure. It is a figure representing costs, which have already been incurred. It is not a forecast. It is not something that has not yet happened. The difference is that when opposition members were in power, they did not care about the impact of their household fees and charges on the family budget, so they did not mind increasing fees and charges for households above any rate of inflation, let alone whether it was actual historical or forecast. We, on the other hand, have adopted a policy, again before the last election, when the Premier at the time said - . . . families would also benefit from Labor’s commitment to cap any annual increases in household charges to the consumer price index. That means any increases in the combined annual cost of electricity, water, sewerage and drainage, public transport, motor vehicle registration and drivers’ licence bills would not exceed the inflation rate. We have honoured that commitment. The historical year average inflation rate to the end of September was 4.8 per cent. The total increase in our fees and charges is 3.95 per cent. We have done this year after year after year, and the saving to families is now $413 a year from our policy to not increase household fees and charges to the annual average rate of increases in the economy in general. The private sector put up its prices. We have to put up our prices as well, but we put up our prices by less than the historical rate of inflation. We have not changed the policy. Moreover, it is the same policy that the Leader of the Opposition endorsed as a cabinet minister in the previous coalition government. Point of Order Mr M.W. TRENORDEN : As the Treasurer indicated, that was a briefing note. I ask that he table it. The SPEAKER : The paper has been tabled. [See paper 2665.]
(2) How does the Treasurer justify the fact that the increase in household fees and charges of 3.9 per cent is actually 30 per cent above the forecast rate of inflation? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) Why would we charge people for costs that were only forecast? People would surely say to us that those costs had not yet occurred, and would ask why they were being charged for it. We are increasing prices by less than the rate of inflation to take into account the cost increases that have already occurred. The opposition has made a misleading set of statements. I will quote from a memo from the Under Treasurer, which I will table for the interest of the house. Mr Speaker, you might have to forgive me if I quote from it at some length, because the house does need this information. The memo states - The Department of Treasury and Finance administers the Government’s policy regarding increases in fees and charges. Fees and charges are aimed at ensuring where individuals chose to consume a good or service provided by government, they pay an amount commensurate with its cost - the principal of ‘user pays’. Members can read the full note. The briefing note states also - In order to implement this principle, where fees and charges already represent full recovery of the cost of the goods or services being provided, the budget allows for indexation of the fees and charges over time to reflect the increases in cost in providing those goods and services. The Consumer Price Index . . . is used as a proxy for these cost increases. From 1997 to May 2001, the CPI used as the basis for increases for existing fees and charges that already recover costs was the December-to-December Perth figure, normally released in January. This policy - Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Vasse to order for the first time. Mr T. Buswell : That’s what it says. Yoo-hoo! Mr E.S. RIPPER : Listen to the advice of the Under Treasurer; it is the policy that applied when the opposite lot were in power - This policy was introduced to provide greater certainty in the budget process and minimise any potential conflict of interest in CPI forecasting . . . The briefing note goes on - In May 2001, in order to accommodate a bringing forward of budget timelines, this policy was amended to use the year-on-year September-to-September Perth CPI figure . . . which is usually released in October. Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Vasse to order for the second time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Let me now give the summary of this briefing note signed by Timothy Marney, Under Treasurer. This is what it says - In short, it has been consistent policy over the past ten years, both under and prior to the current Government, to index fees and charges to the previous year’s inflation. “To the previous year’s inflation”; that is what the Under Treasurer said. He then goes on to provide me with some advice on what would happen if we had used the opposition’s preferred measure of forecasting inflation. The briefing note says - The alternative approach would be to use the forecast of inflation to index fees and charges. If this methodology had been applied over the past seven years, the fees and charges for the average household would have been increased by an additional 8.9% relative to the fees and charges announced yesterday, which would cost the average household an additional $314.80 per year. Mr P.D. Omodei : I don’t even believe the Treasurer! The SPEAKER : I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : A policy has been in place since 1997, when the Leader of the Opposition was in cabinet. He must have known about this policy, if he paid any attention to his cabinet papers. When the Leader of the Opposition was in cabinet, fees and charges were indexed to the previous year’s inflation rate. It makes sense because it is a known, actual figure. It is a figure representing costs, which have already been incurred. It is not a forecast. It is not something that has not yet happened. The difference is that when opposition members were in power, they did not care about the impact of their household fees and charges on the family budget, so they did not mind increasing fees and charges for households above any rate of inflation, let alone whether it was actual historical or forecast. We, on the other hand, have adopted a policy, again before the last election, when the Premier at the time said - . . . families would also benefit from Labor’s commitment to cap any annual increases in household charges to the consumer price index. That means any increases in the combined annual cost of electricity, water, sewerage and drainage, public transport, motor vehicle registration and drivers’ licence bills would not exceed the inflation rate. We have honoured that commitment. The historical year average inflation rate to the end of September was 4.8 per cent. The total increase in our fees and charges is 3.95 per cent. We have done this year after year after year, and the saving to families is now $413 a year from our policy to not increase household fees and charges to the annual average rate of increases in the economy in general. The private sector put up its prices. We have to put up our prices as well, but we put up our prices by less than the historical rate of inflation. We have not changed the policy. Moreover, it is the same policy that the Leader of the Opposition endorsed as a cabinet minister in the previous coalition government. Point of Order Mr M.W. TRENORDEN : As the Treasurer indicated, that was a briefing note. I ask that he table it. The SPEAKER : The paper has been tabled. [See paper 2665.]
Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) Why would we charge people for costs that were only forecast? People would surely say to us that those costs had not yet occurred, and would ask why they were being charged for it. We are increasing prices by less than the rate of inflation to take into account the cost increases that have already occurred. The opposition has made a misleading set of statements. I will quote from a memo from the Under Treasurer, which I will table for the interest of the house. Mr Speaker, you might have to forgive me if I quote from it at some length, because the house does need this information. The memo states - The Department of Treasury and Finance administers the Government’s policy regarding increases in fees and charges. Fees and charges are aimed at ensuring where individuals chose to consume a good or service provided by government, they pay an amount commensurate with its cost - the principal of ‘user pays’. Members can read the full note. The briefing note states also - In order to implement this principle, where fees and charges already represent full recovery of the cost of the goods or services being provided, the budget allows for indexation of the fees and charges over time to reflect the increases in cost in providing those goods and services. The Consumer Price Index . . . is used as a proxy for these cost increases. From 1997 to May 2001, the CPI used as the basis for increases for existing fees and charges that already recover costs was the December-to-December Perth figure, normally released in January. This policy - Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Vasse to order for the first time. Mr T. Buswell : That’s what it says. Yoo-hoo! Mr E.S. RIPPER : Listen to the advice of the Under Treasurer; it is the policy that applied when the opposite lot were in power - This policy was introduced to provide greater certainty in the budget process and minimise any potential conflict of interest in CPI forecasting . . . The briefing note goes on - In May 2001, in order to accommodate a bringing forward of budget timelines, this policy was amended to use the year-on-year September-to-September Perth CPI figure . . . which is usually released in October. Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Vasse to order for the second time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Let me now give the summary of this briefing note signed by Timothy Marney, Under Treasurer. This is what it says - In short, it has been consistent policy over the past ten years, both under and prior to the current Government, to index fees and charges to the previous year’s inflation. “To the previous year’s inflation”; that is what the Under Treasurer said. He then goes on to provide me with some advice on what would happen if we had used the opposition’s preferred measure of forecasting inflation. The briefing note says - The alternative approach would be to use the forecast of inflation to index fees and charges. If this methodology had been applied over the past seven years, the fees and charges for the average household would have been increased by an additional 8.9% relative to the fees and charges announced yesterday, which would cost the average household an additional $314.80 per year. Mr P.D. Omodei : I don’t even believe the Treasurer! The SPEAKER : I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : A policy has been in place since 1997, when the Leader of the Opposition was in cabinet. He must have known about this policy, if he paid any attention to his cabinet papers. When the Leader of the Opposition was in cabinet, fees and charges were indexed to the previous year’s inflation rate. It makes sense because it is a known, actual figure. It is a figure representing costs, which have already been incurred. It is not a forecast. It is not something that has not yet happened. The difference is that when opposition members were in power, they did not care about the impact of their household fees and charges on the family budget, so they did not mind increasing fees and charges for households above any rate of inflation, let alone whether it was actual historical or forecast. We, on the other hand, have adopted a policy, again before the last election, when the Premier at the time said - . . . families would also benefit from Labor’s commitment to cap any annual increases in household charges to the consumer price index. That means any increases in the combined annual cost of electricity, water, sewerage and drainage, public transport, motor vehicle registration and drivers’ licence bills would not exceed the inflation rate. We have honoured that commitment. The historical year average inflation rate to the end of September was 4.8 per cent. The total increase in our fees and charges is 3.95 per cent. We have done this year after year after year, and the saving to families is now $413 a year from our policy to not increase household fees and charges to the annual average rate of increases in the economy in general. The private sector put up its prices. We have to put up our prices as well, but we put up our prices by less than the historical rate of inflation. We have not changed the policy. Moreover, it is the same policy that the Leader of the Opposition endorsed as a cabinet minister in the previous coalition government. Point of Order Mr M.W. TRENORDEN : As the Treasurer indicated, that was a briefing note. I ask that he table it. The SPEAKER : The paper has been tabled. [See paper 2665.]
(1)-(2) Why would we charge people for costs that were only forecast? People would surely say to us that those costs had not yet occurred, and would ask why they were being charged for it. We are increasing prices by less than the rate of inflation to take into account the cost increases that have already occurred. The opposition has made a misleading set of statements. I will quote from a memo from the Under Treasurer, which I will table for the interest of the house. Mr Speaker, you might have to forgive me if I quote from it at some length, because the house does need this information. The memo states - The Department of Treasury and Finance administers the Government’s policy regarding increases in fees and charges. Fees and charges are aimed at ensuring where individuals chose to consume a good or service provided by government, they pay an amount commensurate with its cost - the principal of ‘user pays’. Members can read the full note. The briefing note states also - In order to implement this principle, where fees and charges already represent full recovery of the cost of the goods or services being provided, the budget allows for indexation of the fees and charges over time to reflect the increases in cost in providing those goods and services. The Consumer Price Index . . . is used as a proxy for these cost increases. From 1997 to May 2001, the CPI used as the basis for increases for existing fees and charges that already recover costs was the December-to-December Perth figure, normally released in January. This policy - Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Vasse to order for the first time. Mr T. Buswell : That’s what it says. Yoo-hoo! Mr E.S. RIPPER : Listen to the advice of the Under Treasurer; it is the policy that applied when the opposite lot were in power - This policy was introduced to provide greater certainty in the budget process and minimise any potential conflict of interest in CPI forecasting . . . The briefing note goes on - In May 2001, in order to accommodate a bringing forward of budget timelines, this policy was amended to use the year-on-year September-to-September Perth CPI figure . . . which is usually released in October. Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Vasse to order for the second time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Let me now give the summary of this briefing note signed by Timothy Marney, Under Treasurer. This is what it says - In short, it has been consistent policy over the past ten years, both under and prior to the current Government, to index fees and charges to the previous year’s inflation. “To the previous year’s inflation”; that is what the Under Treasurer said. He then goes on to provide me with some advice on what would happen if we had used the opposition’s preferred measure of forecasting inflation. The briefing note says - The alternative approach would be to use the forecast of inflation to index fees and charges. If this methodology had been applied over the past seven years, the fees and charges for the average household would have been increased by an additional 8.9% relative to the fees and charges announced yesterday, which would cost the average household an additional $314.80 per year. Mr P.D. Omodei : I don’t even believe the Treasurer! The SPEAKER : I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : A policy has been in place since 1997, when the Leader of the Opposition was in cabinet. He must have known about this policy, if he paid any attention to his cabinet papers. When the Leader of the Opposition was in cabinet, fees and charges were indexed to the previous year’s inflation rate. It makes sense because it is a known, actual figure. It is a figure representing costs, which have already been incurred. It is not a forecast. It is not something that has not yet happened. The difference is that when opposition members were in power, they did not care about the impact of their household fees and charges on the family budget, so they did not mind increasing fees and charges for households above any rate of inflation, let alone whether it was actual historical or forecast. We, on the other hand, have adopted a policy, again before the last election, when the Premier at the time said - . . . families would also benefit from Labor’s commitment to cap any annual increases in household charges to the consumer price index. That means any increases in the combined annual cost of electricity, water, sewerage and drainage, public transport, motor vehicle registration and drivers’ licence bills would not exceed the inflation rate. We have honoured that commitment. The historical year average inflation rate to the end of September was 4.8 per cent. The total increase in our fees and charges is 3.95 per cent. We have done this year after year after year, and the saving to families is now $413 a year from our policy to not increase household fees and charges to the annual average rate of increases in the economy in general. The private sector put up its prices. We have to put up our prices as well, but we put up our prices by less than the historical rate of inflation. We have not changed the policy. Moreover, it is the same policy that the Leader of the Opposition endorsed as a cabinet minister in the previous coalition government. Point of Order Mr M.W. TRENORDEN : As the Treasurer indicated, that was a briefing note. I ask that he table it. The SPEAKER : The paper has been tabled. [See paper 2665.]
The Consumer Price Index . . . is used as a proxy for these cost increases. From 1997 to May 2001, the CPI used as the basis for increases for existing fees and charges that already recover costs was the December-to-December Perth figure, normally released in January. This policy -
The SPEAKER : I call the member for Vasse to order for the first time. Mr T. Buswell : That’s what it says. Yoo-hoo! Mr E.S. RIPPER : Listen to the advice of the Under Treasurer; it is the policy that applied when the opposite lot were in power - This policy was introduced to provide greater certainty in the budget process and minimise any potential conflict of interest in CPI forecasting . . . The briefing note goes on - In May 2001, in order to accommodate a bringing forward of budget timelines, this policy was amended to use the year-on-year September-to-September Perth CPI figure . . . which is usually released in October. Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Vasse to order for the second time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Let me now give the summary of this briefing note signed by Timothy Marney, Under Treasurer. This is what it says - In short, it has been consistent policy over the past ten years, both under and prior to the current Government, to index fees and charges to the previous year’s inflation. “To the previous year’s inflation”; that is what the Under Treasurer said. He then goes on to provide me with some advice on what would happen if we had used the opposition’s preferred measure of forecasting inflation. The briefing note says - The alternative approach would be to use the forecast of inflation to index fees and charges. If this methodology had been applied over the past seven years, the fees and charges for the average household would have been increased by an additional 8.9% relative to the fees and charges announced yesterday, which would cost the average household an additional $314.80 per year. Mr P.D. Omodei : I don’t even believe the Treasurer! The SPEAKER : I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : A policy has been in place since 1997, when the Leader of the Opposition was in cabinet. He must have known about this policy, if he paid any attention to his cabinet papers. When the Leader of the Opposition was in cabinet, fees and charges were indexed to the previous year’s inflation rate. It makes sense because it is a known, actual figure. It is a figure representing costs, which have already been incurred. It is not a forecast. It is not something that has not yet happened. The difference is that when opposition members were in power, they did not care about the impact of their household fees and charges on the family budget, so they did not mind increasing fees and charges for households above any rate of inflation, let alone whether it was actual historical or forecast. We, on the other hand, have adopted a policy, again before the last election, when the Premier at the time said - . . . families would also benefit from Labor’s commitment to cap any annual increases in household charges to the consumer price index. That means any increases in the combined annual cost of electricity, water, sewerage and drainage, public transport, motor vehicle registration and drivers’ licence bills would not exceed the inflation rate. We have honoured that commitment. The historical year average inflation rate to the end of September was 4.8 per cent. The total increase in our fees and charges is 3.95 per cent. We have done this year after year after year, and the saving to families is now $413 a year from our policy to not increase household fees and charges to the annual average rate of increases in the economy in general. The private sector put up its prices. We have to put up our prices as well, but we put up our prices by less than the historical rate of inflation. We have not changed the policy. Moreover, it is the same policy that the Leader of the Opposition endorsed as a cabinet minister in the previous coalition government. Point of Order Mr M.W. TRENORDEN : As the Treasurer indicated, that was a briefing note. I ask that he table it. The SPEAKER : The paper has been tabled. [See paper 2665.]
Mr T. Buswell : That’s what it says. Yoo-hoo! Mr E.S. RIPPER : Listen to the advice of the Under Treasurer; it is the policy that applied when the opposite lot were in power - This policy was introduced to provide greater certainty in the budget process and minimise any potential conflict of interest in CPI forecasting . . . The briefing note goes on - In May 2001, in order to accommodate a bringing forward of budget timelines, this policy was amended to use the year-on-year September-to-September Perth CPI figure . . . which is usually released in October. Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Vasse to order for the second time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Let me now give the summary of this briefing note signed by Timothy Marney, Under Treasurer. This is what it says - In short, it has been consistent policy over the past ten years, both under and prior to the current Government, to index fees and charges to the previous year’s inflation. “To the previous year’s inflation”; that is what the Under Treasurer said. He then goes on to provide me with some advice on what would happen if we had used the opposition’s preferred measure of forecasting inflation. The briefing note says - The alternative approach would be to use the forecast of inflation to index fees and charges. If this methodology had been applied over the past seven years, the fees and charges for the average household would have been increased by an additional 8.9% relative to the fees and charges announced yesterday, which would cost the average household an additional $314.80 per year. Mr P.D. Omodei : I don’t even believe the Treasurer! The SPEAKER : I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : A policy has been in place since 1997, when the Leader of the Opposition was in cabinet. He must have known about this policy, if he paid any attention to his cabinet papers. When the Leader of the Opposition was in cabinet, fees and charges were indexed to the previous year’s inflation rate. It makes sense because it is a known, actual figure. It is a figure representing costs, which have already been incurred. It is not a forecast. It is not something that has not yet happened. The difference is that when opposition members were in power, they did not care about the impact of their household fees and charges on the family budget, so they did not mind increasing fees and charges for households above any rate of inflation, let alone whether it was actual historical or forecast. We, on the other hand, have adopted a policy, again before the last election, when the Premier at the time said - . . . families would also benefit from Labor’s commitment to cap any annual increases in household charges to the consumer price index. That means any increases in the combined annual cost of electricity, water, sewerage and drainage, public transport, motor vehicle registration and drivers’ licence bills would not exceed the inflation rate. We have honoured that commitment. The historical year average inflation rate to the end of September was 4.8 per cent. The total increase in our fees and charges is 3.95 per cent. We have done this year after year after year, and the saving to families is now $413 a year from our policy to not increase household fees and charges to the annual average rate of increases in the economy in general. The private sector put up its prices. We have to put up our prices as well, but we put up our prices by less than the historical rate of inflation. We have not changed the policy. Moreover, it is the same policy that the Leader of the Opposition endorsed as a cabinet minister in the previous coalition government. Point of Order Mr M.W. TRENORDEN : As the Treasurer indicated, that was a briefing note. I ask that he table it. The SPEAKER : The paper has been tabled. [See paper 2665.]
Mr E.S. RIPPER : Listen to the advice of the Under Treasurer; it is the policy that applied when the opposite lot were in power - This policy was introduced to provide greater certainty in the budget process and minimise any potential conflict of interest in CPI forecasting . . . The briefing note goes on - In May 2001, in order to accommodate a bringing forward of budget timelines, this policy was amended to use the year-on-year September-to-September Perth CPI figure . . . which is usually released in October. Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Vasse to order for the second time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Let me now give the summary of this briefing note signed by Timothy Marney, Under Treasurer. This is what it says - In short, it has been consistent policy over the past ten years, both under and prior to the current Government, to index fees and charges to the previous year’s inflation. “To the previous year’s inflation”; that is what the Under Treasurer said. He then goes on to provide me with some advice on what would happen if we had used the opposition’s preferred measure of forecasting inflation. The briefing note says - The alternative approach would be to use the forecast of inflation to index fees and charges. If this methodology had been applied over the past seven years, the fees and charges for the average household would have been increased by an additional 8.9% relative to the fees and charges announced yesterday, which would cost the average household an additional $314.80 per year. Mr P.D. Omodei : I don’t even believe the Treasurer! The SPEAKER : I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : A policy has been in place since 1997, when the Leader of the Opposition was in cabinet. He must have known about this policy, if he paid any attention to his cabinet papers. When the Leader of the Opposition was in cabinet, fees and charges were indexed to the previous year’s inflation rate. It makes sense because it is a known, actual figure. It is a figure representing costs, which have already been incurred. It is not a forecast. It is not something that has not yet happened. The difference is that when opposition members were in power, they did not care about the impact of their household fees and charges on the family budget, so they did not mind increasing fees and charges for households above any rate of inflation, let alone whether it was actual historical or forecast. We, on the other hand, have adopted a policy, again before the last election, when the Premier at the time said - . . . families would also benefit from Labor’s commitment to cap any annual increases in household charges to the consumer price index. That means any increases in the combined annual cost of electricity, water, sewerage and drainage, public transport, motor vehicle registration and drivers’ licence bills would not exceed the inflation rate. We have honoured that commitment. The historical year average inflation rate to the end of September was 4.8 per cent. The total increase in our fees and charges is 3.95 per cent. We have done this year after year after year, and the saving to families is now $413 a year from our policy to not increase household fees and charges to the annual average rate of increases in the economy in general. The private sector put up its prices. We have to put up our prices as well, but we put up our prices by less than the historical rate of inflation. We have not changed the policy. Moreover, it is the same policy that the Leader of the Opposition endorsed as a cabinet minister in the previous coalition government. Point of Order Mr M.W. TRENORDEN : As the Treasurer indicated, that was a briefing note. I ask that he table it. The SPEAKER : The paper has been tabled. [See paper 2665.]
The SPEAKER : I call the member for Vasse to order for the second time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Let me now give the summary of this briefing note signed by Timothy Marney, Under Treasurer. This is what it says - In short, it has been consistent policy over the past ten years, both under and prior to the current Government, to index fees and charges to the previous year’s inflation. “To the previous year’s inflation”; that is what the Under Treasurer said. He then goes on to provide me with some advice on what would happen if we had used the opposition’s preferred measure of forecasting inflation. The briefing note says - The alternative approach would be to use the forecast of inflation to index fees and charges. If this methodology had been applied over the past seven years, the fees and charges for the average household would have been increased by an additional 8.9% relative to the fees and charges announced yesterday, which would cost the average household an additional $314.80 per year. Mr P.D. Omodei : I don’t even believe the Treasurer! The SPEAKER : I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : A policy has been in place since 1997, when the Leader of the Opposition was in cabinet. He must have known about this policy, if he paid any attention to his cabinet papers. When the Leader of the Opposition was in cabinet, fees and charges were indexed to the previous year’s inflation rate. It makes sense because it is a known, actual figure. It is a figure representing costs, which have already been incurred. It is not a forecast. It is not something that has not yet happened. The difference is that when opposition members were in power, they did not care about the impact of their household fees and charges on the family budget, so they did not mind increasing fees and charges for households above any rate of inflation, let alone whether it was actual historical or forecast. We, on the other hand, have adopted a policy, again before the last election, when the Premier at the time said - . . . families would also benefit from Labor’s commitment to cap any annual increases in household charges to the consumer price index. That means any increases in the combined annual cost of electricity, water, sewerage and drainage, public transport, motor vehicle registration and drivers’ licence bills would not exceed the inflation rate. We have honoured that commitment. The historical year average inflation rate to the end of September was 4.8 per cent. The total increase in our fees and charges is 3.95 per cent. We have done this year after year after year, and the saving to families is now $413 a year from our policy to not increase household fees and charges to the annual average rate of increases in the economy in general. The private sector put up its prices. We have to put up our prices as well, but we put up our prices by less than the historical rate of inflation. We have not changed the policy. Moreover, it is the same policy that the Leader of the Opposition endorsed as a cabinet minister in the previous coalition government. Point of Order Mr M.W. TRENORDEN : As the Treasurer indicated, that was a briefing note. I ask that he table it. The SPEAKER : The paper has been tabled. [See paper 2665.]
Mr E.S. RIPPER : Let me now give the summary of this briefing note signed by Timothy Marney, Under Treasurer. This is what it says - In short, it has been consistent policy over the past ten years, both under and prior to the current Government, to index fees and charges to the previous year’s inflation. “To the previous year’s inflation”; that is what the Under Treasurer said. He then goes on to provide me with some advice on what would happen if we had used the opposition’s preferred measure of forecasting inflation. The briefing note says - The alternative approach would be to use the forecast of inflation to index fees and charges. If this methodology had been applied over the past seven years, the fees and charges for the average household would have been increased by an additional 8.9% relative to the fees and charges announced yesterday, which would cost the average household an additional $314.80 per year. Mr P.D. Omodei : I don’t even believe the Treasurer! The SPEAKER : I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : A policy has been in place since 1997, when the Leader of the Opposition was in cabinet. He must have known about this policy, if he paid any attention to his cabinet papers. When the Leader of the Opposition was in cabinet, fees and charges were indexed to the previous year’s inflation rate. It makes sense because it is a known, actual figure. It is a figure representing costs, which have already been incurred. It is not a forecast. It is not something that has not yet happened. The difference is that when opposition members were in power, they did not care about the impact of their household fees and charges on the family budget, so they did not mind increasing fees and charges for households above any rate of inflation, let alone whether it was actual historical or forecast. We, on the other hand, have adopted a policy, again before the last election, when the Premier at the time said - . . . families would also benefit from Labor’s commitment to cap any annual increases in household charges to the consumer price index. That means any increases in the combined annual cost of electricity, water, sewerage and drainage, public transport, motor vehicle registration and drivers’ licence bills would not exceed the inflation rate. We have honoured that commitment. The historical year average inflation rate to the end of September was 4.8 per cent. The total increase in our fees and charges is 3.95 per cent. We have done this year after year after year, and the saving to families is now $413 a year from our policy to not increase household fees and charges to the annual average rate of increases in the economy in general. The private sector put up its prices. We have to put up our prices as well, but we put up our prices by less than the historical rate of inflation. We have not changed the policy. Moreover, it is the same policy that the Leader of the Opposition endorsed as a cabinet minister in the previous coalition government. Point of Order Mr M.W. TRENORDEN : As the Treasurer indicated, that was a briefing note. I ask that he table it. The SPEAKER : The paper has been tabled. [See paper 2665.]
The SPEAKER : I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : A policy has been in place since 1997, when the Leader of the Opposition was in cabinet. He must have known about this policy, if he paid any attention to his cabinet papers. When the Leader of the Opposition was in cabinet, fees and charges were indexed to the previous year’s inflation rate. It makes sense because it is a known, actual figure. It is a figure representing costs, which have already been incurred. It is not a forecast. It is not something that has not yet happened. The difference is that when opposition members were in power, they did not care about the impact of their household fees and charges on the family budget, so they did not mind increasing fees and charges for households above any rate of inflation, let alone whether it was actual historical or forecast. We, on the other hand, have adopted a policy, again before the last election, when the Premier at the time said - . . . families would also benefit from Labor’s commitment to cap any annual increases in household charges to the consumer price index. That means any increases in the combined annual cost of electricity, water, sewerage and drainage, public transport, motor vehicle registration and drivers’ licence bills would not exceed the inflation rate. We have honoured that commitment. The historical year average inflation rate to the end of September was 4.8 per cent. The total increase in our fees and charges is 3.95 per cent. We have done this year after year after year, and the saving to families is now $413 a year from our policy to not increase household fees and charges to the annual average rate of increases in the economy in general. The private sector put up its prices. We have to put up our prices as well, but we put up our prices by less than the historical rate of inflation. We have not changed the policy. Moreover, it is the same policy that the Leader of the Opposition endorsed as a cabinet minister in the previous coalition government. Point of Order Mr M.W. TRENORDEN : As the Treasurer indicated, that was a briefing note. I ask that he table it. The SPEAKER : The paper has been tabled. [See paper 2665.]
Mr E.S. RIPPER : A policy has been in place since 1997, when the Leader of the Opposition was in cabinet. He must have known about this policy, if he paid any attention to his cabinet papers. When the Leader of the Opposition was in cabinet, fees and charges were indexed to the previous year’s inflation rate. It makes sense because it is a known, actual figure. It is a figure representing costs, which have already been incurred. It is not a forecast. It is not something that has not yet happened. The difference is that when opposition members were in power, they did not care about the impact of their household fees and charges on the family budget, so they did not mind increasing fees and charges for households above any rate of inflation, let alone whether it was actual historical or forecast. We, on the other hand, have adopted a policy, again before the last election, when the Premier at the time said - . . . families would also benefit from Labor’s commitment to cap any annual increases in household charges to the consumer price index. That means any increases in the combined annual cost of electricity, water, sewerage and drainage, public transport, motor vehicle registration and drivers’ licence bills would not exceed the inflation rate. We have honoured that commitment. The historical year average inflation rate to the end of September was 4.8 per cent. The total increase in our fees and charges is 3.95 per cent. We have done this year after year after year, and the saving to families is now $413 a year from our policy to not increase household fees and charges to the annual average rate of increases in the economy in general. The private sector put up its prices. We have to put up our prices as well, but we put up our prices by less than the historical rate of inflation. We have not changed the policy. Moreover, it is the same policy that the Leader of the Opposition endorsed as a cabinet minister in the previous coalition government. Point of Order Mr M.W. TRENORDEN : As the Treasurer indicated, that was a briefing note. I ask that he table it. The SPEAKER : The paper has been tabled. [See paper 2665.]
That means any increases in the combined annual cost of electricity, water, sewerage and drainage, public transport, motor vehicle registration and drivers’ licence bills would not exceed the inflation rate.
The SPEAKER : The paper has been tabled. [See paper 2665.]
[See paper 2665.]
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.