❓ Opposition questions the government's infrastructure spending priorities, alleging cuts to essential services to fund 'pet projects'. Treasurer defends the government's record, highlighting increased infrastructure investment compared to the previous government.
AnsweredQoN 210Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT — STATE DEBT
Before I ask my question, I note the sad passing of John D’Orazio and extend to his wife, Ailsa, and his family and many friends our deepest sympathies. I note that at a suitable stage there will be a condolence motion. My question is to the Treasurer. I note our state’s many unfunded infrastructure needs, which include the $800 million backlog in road maintenance, the increasing gap in investment in our electricity networks and the necessary expansion of the southern seawater desalination plant. (1) How will the Treasurer meet these essential needs alongside projects such as the Perth Waterfront foreshore project, the sports stadium and the Premier’s palace? (2) Have any of these projects been cancelled or put on the backburner; and, if so, which ones? (3) Does the Treasurer commit to staying within the Premier’s debt limit of $20 billion that he set in September 2010? Mr C.C. PORTER
Before I ask my question, I note the sad passing of John D’Orazio and extend to his wife, Ailsa, and his family and many friends our deepest sympathies. I note that at a suitable stage there will be a condolence motion. My question is to the Treasurer. I note our state’s many unfunded infrastructure needs, which include the $800 million backlog in road maintenance, the increasing gap in investment in our electricity networks and the necessary expansion of the southern seawater desalination plant. (1) How will the Treasurer meet these essential needs alongside projects such as the Perth Waterfront foreshore project, the sports stadium and the Premier’s palace? (2) Have any of these projects been cancelled or put on the backburner; and, if so, which ones? (3) Does the Treasurer commit to staying within the Premier’s debt limit of $20 billion that he set in September 2010? Mr C.C. PORTER
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for the question. (1)–(3) I recall that the Premier said in effect that the objective of the government was to contain debt at around the $20 billion mark. That is a good rule of thumb for an economy the size of Western Australia and at this present time. I certainly agree with the Premier on that, and we are working very hard to contain debt. The Leader of the Opposition will have to wait until the actual budget to see precisely what the debt will be. Essentially, the Leader of the Opposition’s question is this: at any budget cycle are there very strong demands on the government to spend large amounts of money on infrastructure? Yes, of course there are. Mr E.S. Ripper : My point is that you are cutting back on core infrastructure to fund pet projects. Mr C.C. PORTER : Let me just show the house a bar graph on the asset investment program of this government compared with the program of the last government, keeping in mind that the Leader of the Opposition’s contention is that we are cutting back somehow an asset investment in infrastructure. The bar graph that I am holding up to show members represents the previous government’s program. Members will see a black line, and after that black line the bar graph represent the asset investment and infrastructure program of this government. Mr M. McGowan : Table the document. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am very happy to table it. Members will note that the average annual spend in the asset investment program under the previous government was $3.2 billion. Mr E.S. Ripper : What was the debt you inherited? Mr C.C. PORTER : The Leader of the Opposition is asking us whether we will meet the rapid increase in demand for infrastructure spending in this state. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s what I am asking you. Mr C.C. PORTER : Within reason, within parameters and with a keen eye to debt, yes, we will. The reason our debt is higher than the former government’s debt is that we are spending far more than the former government ever did on asset investment programs. The Leader of the Opposition gets up in this place and tries to put to us that we are not spending enough on the asset investment program and that debt is too high. Mr E.S. Ripper : No; wrong priorities is what I am putting to you—pet projects while you can’t provide lights in the Pilbara! Mr C.C. PORTER : The Leader of the Opposition then asks us what we are going to build and what we are not going to build. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.C. PORTER : The average annual spend under the previous government was $3.2 billion. The average annual spend under this government in the asset investment program is $6.6 billion. Mr B.J. Grylls : Double! Mr C.C. PORTER : Double what the previous government spent, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands in this place and asks a question with the clear inference that we are not spending enough on our asset investment program. How could that possibly be right? It is not right. We are obviously looking at debt with a very keen eye and managing that issue. But, yes, there are very strong demands. The total spend of this government that we envisage over the six years and out to 2013–14 in the asset investment program is $39.3 billion. The spend over the seven years of the previous government was $22.2 billion, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands and puts to us that we are not spending enough on the assets of the state. Ridiculous!
My question is to the Treasurer. I note our state’s many unfunded infrastructure needs, which include the $800 million backlog in road maintenance, the increasing gap in investment in our electricity networks and the necessary expansion of the southern seawater desalination plant. (1) How will the Treasurer meet these essential needs alongside projects such as the Perth Waterfront foreshore project, the sports stadium and the Premier’s palace? (2) Have any of these projects been cancelled or put on the backburner; and, if so, which ones? (3) Does the Treasurer commit to staying within the Premier’s debt limit of $20 billion that he set in September 2010? Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the member for the question. (1)–(3) I recall that the Premier said in effect that the objective of the government was to contain debt at around the $20 billion mark. That is a good rule of thumb for an economy the size of Western Australia and at this present time. I certainly agree with the Premier on that, and we are working very hard to contain debt. The Leader of the Opposition will have to wait until the actual budget to see precisely what the debt will be. Essentially, the Leader of the Opposition’s question is this: at any budget cycle are there very strong demands on the government to spend large amounts of money on infrastructure? Yes, of course there are. Mr E.S. Ripper : My point is that you are cutting back on core infrastructure to fund pet projects. Mr C.C. PORTER : Let me just show the house a bar graph on the asset investment program of this government compared with the program of the last government, keeping in mind that the Leader of the Opposition’s contention is that we are cutting back somehow an asset investment in infrastructure. The bar graph that I am holding up to show members represents the previous government’s program. Members will see a black line, and after that black line the bar graph represent the asset investment and infrastructure program of this government. Mr M. McGowan : Table the document. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am very happy to table it. Members will note that the average annual spend in the asset investment program under the previous government was $3.2 billion. Mr E.S. Ripper : What was the debt you inherited? Mr C.C. PORTER : The Leader of the Opposition is asking us whether we will meet the rapid increase in demand for infrastructure spending in this state. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s what I am asking you. Mr C.C. PORTER : Within reason, within parameters and with a keen eye to debt, yes, we will. The reason our debt is higher than the former government’s debt is that we are spending far more than the former government ever did on asset investment programs. The Leader of the Opposition gets up in this place and tries to put to us that we are not spending enough on the asset investment program and that debt is too high. Mr E.S. Ripper : No; wrong priorities is what I am putting to you—pet projects while you can’t provide lights in the Pilbara! Mr C.C. PORTER : The Leader of the Opposition then asks us what we are going to build and what we are not going to build. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.C. PORTER : The average annual spend under the previous government was $3.2 billion. The average annual spend under this government in the asset investment program is $6.6 billion. Mr B.J. Grylls : Double! Mr C.C. PORTER : Double what the previous government spent, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands in this place and asks a question with the clear inference that we are not spending enough on our asset investment program. How could that possibly be right? It is not right. We are obviously looking at debt with a very keen eye and managing that issue. But, yes, there are very strong demands. The total spend of this government that we envisage over the six years and out to 2013–14 in the asset investment program is $39.3 billion. The spend over the seven years of the previous government was $22.2 billion, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands and puts to us that we are not spending enough on the assets of the state. Ridiculous!
(1) How will the Treasurer meet these essential needs alongside projects such as the Perth Waterfront foreshore project, the sports stadium and the Premier’s palace? (2) Have any of these projects been cancelled or put on the backburner; and, if so, which ones? (3) Does the Treasurer commit to staying within the Premier’s debt limit of $20 billion that he set in September 2010? Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the member for the question. (1)–(3) I recall that the Premier said in effect that the objective of the government was to contain debt at around the $20 billion mark. That is a good rule of thumb for an economy the size of Western Australia and at this present time. I certainly agree with the Premier on that, and we are working very hard to contain debt. The Leader of the Opposition will have to wait until the actual budget to see precisely what the debt will be. Essentially, the Leader of the Opposition’s question is this: at any budget cycle are there very strong demands on the government to spend large amounts of money on infrastructure? Yes, of course there are. Mr E.S. Ripper : My point is that you are cutting back on core infrastructure to fund pet projects. Mr C.C. PORTER : Let me just show the house a bar graph on the asset investment program of this government compared with the program of the last government, keeping in mind that the Leader of the Opposition’s contention is that we are cutting back somehow an asset investment in infrastructure. The bar graph that I am holding up to show members represents the previous government’s program. Members will see a black line, and after that black line the bar graph represent the asset investment and infrastructure program of this government. Mr M. McGowan : Table the document. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am very happy to table it. Members will note that the average annual spend in the asset investment program under the previous government was $3.2 billion. Mr E.S. Ripper : What was the debt you inherited? Mr C.C. PORTER : The Leader of the Opposition is asking us whether we will meet the rapid increase in demand for infrastructure spending in this state. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s what I am asking you. Mr C.C. PORTER : Within reason, within parameters and with a keen eye to debt, yes, we will. The reason our debt is higher than the former government’s debt is that we are spending far more than the former government ever did on asset investment programs. The Leader of the Opposition gets up in this place and tries to put to us that we are not spending enough on the asset investment program and that debt is too high. Mr E.S. Ripper : No; wrong priorities is what I am putting to you—pet projects while you can’t provide lights in the Pilbara! Mr C.C. PORTER : The Leader of the Opposition then asks us what we are going to build and what we are not going to build. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.C. PORTER : The average annual spend under the previous government was $3.2 billion. The average annual spend under this government in the asset investment program is $6.6 billion. Mr B.J. Grylls : Double! Mr C.C. PORTER : Double what the previous government spent, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands in this place and asks a question with the clear inference that we are not spending enough on our asset investment program. How could that possibly be right? It is not right. We are obviously looking at debt with a very keen eye and managing that issue. But, yes, there are very strong demands. The total spend of this government that we envisage over the six years and out to 2013–14 in the asset investment program is $39.3 billion. The spend over the seven years of the previous government was $22.2 billion, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands and puts to us that we are not spending enough on the assets of the state. Ridiculous!
(2) Have any of these projects been cancelled or put on the backburner; and, if so, which ones? (3) Does the Treasurer commit to staying within the Premier’s debt limit of $20 billion that he set in September 2010? Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the member for the question. (1)–(3) I recall that the Premier said in effect that the objective of the government was to contain debt at around the $20 billion mark. That is a good rule of thumb for an economy the size of Western Australia and at this present time. I certainly agree with the Premier on that, and we are working very hard to contain debt. The Leader of the Opposition will have to wait until the actual budget to see precisely what the debt will be. Essentially, the Leader of the Opposition’s question is this: at any budget cycle are there very strong demands on the government to spend large amounts of money on infrastructure? Yes, of course there are. Mr E.S. Ripper : My point is that you are cutting back on core infrastructure to fund pet projects. Mr C.C. PORTER : Let me just show the house a bar graph on the asset investment program of this government compared with the program of the last government, keeping in mind that the Leader of the Opposition’s contention is that we are cutting back somehow an asset investment in infrastructure. The bar graph that I am holding up to show members represents the previous government’s program. Members will see a black line, and after that black line the bar graph represent the asset investment and infrastructure program of this government. Mr M. McGowan : Table the document. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am very happy to table it. Members will note that the average annual spend in the asset investment program under the previous government was $3.2 billion. Mr E.S. Ripper : What was the debt you inherited? Mr C.C. PORTER : The Leader of the Opposition is asking us whether we will meet the rapid increase in demand for infrastructure spending in this state. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s what I am asking you. Mr C.C. PORTER : Within reason, within parameters and with a keen eye to debt, yes, we will. The reason our debt is higher than the former government’s debt is that we are spending far more than the former government ever did on asset investment programs. The Leader of the Opposition gets up in this place and tries to put to us that we are not spending enough on the asset investment program and that debt is too high. Mr E.S. Ripper : No; wrong priorities is what I am putting to you—pet projects while you can’t provide lights in the Pilbara! Mr C.C. PORTER : The Leader of the Opposition then asks us what we are going to build and what we are not going to build. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.C. PORTER : The average annual spend under the previous government was $3.2 billion. The average annual spend under this government in the asset investment program is $6.6 billion. Mr B.J. Grylls : Double! Mr C.C. PORTER : Double what the previous government spent, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands in this place and asks a question with the clear inference that we are not spending enough on our asset investment program. How could that possibly be right? It is not right. We are obviously looking at debt with a very keen eye and managing that issue. But, yes, there are very strong demands. The total spend of this government that we envisage over the six years and out to 2013–14 in the asset investment program is $39.3 billion. The spend over the seven years of the previous government was $22.2 billion, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands and puts to us that we are not spending enough on the assets of the state. Ridiculous!
(3) Does the Treasurer commit to staying within the Premier’s debt limit of $20 billion that he set in September 2010? Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the member for the question. (1)–(3) I recall that the Premier said in effect that the objective of the government was to contain debt at around the $20 billion mark. That is a good rule of thumb for an economy the size of Western Australia and at this present time. I certainly agree with the Premier on that, and we are working very hard to contain debt. The Leader of the Opposition will have to wait until the actual budget to see precisely what the debt will be. Essentially, the Leader of the Opposition’s question is this: at any budget cycle are there very strong demands on the government to spend large amounts of money on infrastructure? Yes, of course there are. Mr E.S. Ripper : My point is that you are cutting back on core infrastructure to fund pet projects. Mr C.C. PORTER : Let me just show the house a bar graph on the asset investment program of this government compared with the program of the last government, keeping in mind that the Leader of the Opposition’s contention is that we are cutting back somehow an asset investment in infrastructure. The bar graph that I am holding up to show members represents the previous government’s program. Members will see a black line, and after that black line the bar graph represent the asset investment and infrastructure program of this government. Mr M. McGowan : Table the document. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am very happy to table it. Members will note that the average annual spend in the asset investment program under the previous government was $3.2 billion. Mr E.S. Ripper : What was the debt you inherited? Mr C.C. PORTER : The Leader of the Opposition is asking us whether we will meet the rapid increase in demand for infrastructure spending in this state. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s what I am asking you. Mr C.C. PORTER : Within reason, within parameters and with a keen eye to debt, yes, we will. The reason our debt is higher than the former government’s debt is that we are spending far more than the former government ever did on asset investment programs. The Leader of the Opposition gets up in this place and tries to put to us that we are not spending enough on the asset investment program and that debt is too high. Mr E.S. Ripper : No; wrong priorities is what I am putting to you—pet projects while you can’t provide lights in the Pilbara! Mr C.C. PORTER : The Leader of the Opposition then asks us what we are going to build and what we are not going to build. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.C. PORTER : The average annual spend under the previous government was $3.2 billion. The average annual spend under this government in the asset investment program is $6.6 billion. Mr B.J. Grylls : Double! Mr C.C. PORTER : Double what the previous government spent, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands in this place and asks a question with the clear inference that we are not spending enough on our asset investment program. How could that possibly be right? It is not right. We are obviously looking at debt with a very keen eye and managing that issue. But, yes, there are very strong demands. The total spend of this government that we envisage over the six years and out to 2013–14 in the asset investment program is $39.3 billion. The spend over the seven years of the previous government was $22.2 billion, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands and puts to us that we are not spending enough on the assets of the state. Ridiculous!
Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the member for the question. (1)–(3) I recall that the Premier said in effect that the objective of the government was to contain debt at around the $20 billion mark. That is a good rule of thumb for an economy the size of Western Australia and at this present time. I certainly agree with the Premier on that, and we are working very hard to contain debt. The Leader of the Opposition will have to wait until the actual budget to see precisely what the debt will be. Essentially, the Leader of the Opposition’s question is this: at any budget cycle are there very strong demands on the government to spend large amounts of money on infrastructure? Yes, of course there are. Mr E.S. Ripper : My point is that you are cutting back on core infrastructure to fund pet projects. Mr C.C. PORTER : Let me just show the house a bar graph on the asset investment program of this government compared with the program of the last government, keeping in mind that the Leader of the Opposition’s contention is that we are cutting back somehow an asset investment in infrastructure. The bar graph that I am holding up to show members represents the previous government’s program. Members will see a black line, and after that black line the bar graph represent the asset investment and infrastructure program of this government. Mr M. McGowan : Table the document. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am very happy to table it. Members will note that the average annual spend in the asset investment program under the previous government was $3.2 billion. Mr E.S. Ripper : What was the debt you inherited? Mr C.C. PORTER : The Leader of the Opposition is asking us whether we will meet the rapid increase in demand for infrastructure spending in this state. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s what I am asking you. Mr C.C. PORTER : Within reason, within parameters and with a keen eye to debt, yes, we will. The reason our debt is higher than the former government’s debt is that we are spending far more than the former government ever did on asset investment programs. The Leader of the Opposition gets up in this place and tries to put to us that we are not spending enough on the asset investment program and that debt is too high. Mr E.S. Ripper : No; wrong priorities is what I am putting to you—pet projects while you can’t provide lights in the Pilbara! Mr C.C. PORTER : The Leader of the Opposition then asks us what we are going to build and what we are not going to build. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.C. PORTER : The average annual spend under the previous government was $3.2 billion. The average annual spend under this government in the asset investment program is $6.6 billion. Mr B.J. Grylls : Double! Mr C.C. PORTER : Double what the previous government spent, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands in this place and asks a question with the clear inference that we are not spending enough on our asset investment program. How could that possibly be right? It is not right. We are obviously looking at debt with a very keen eye and managing that issue. But, yes, there are very strong demands. The total spend of this government that we envisage over the six years and out to 2013–14 in the asset investment program is $39.3 billion. The spend over the seven years of the previous government was $22.2 billion, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands and puts to us that we are not spending enough on the assets of the state. Ridiculous!
I thank the member for the question. (1)–(3) I recall that the Premier said in effect that the objective of the government was to contain debt at around the $20 billion mark. That is a good rule of thumb for an economy the size of Western Australia and at this present time. I certainly agree with the Premier on that, and we are working very hard to contain debt. The Leader of the Opposition will have to wait until the actual budget to see precisely what the debt will be. Essentially, the Leader of the Opposition’s question is this: at any budget cycle are there very strong demands on the government to spend large amounts of money on infrastructure? Yes, of course there are. Mr E.S. Ripper : My point is that you are cutting back on core infrastructure to fund pet projects. Mr C.C. PORTER : Let me just show the house a bar graph on the asset investment program of this government compared with the program of the last government, keeping in mind that the Leader of the Opposition’s contention is that we are cutting back somehow an asset investment in infrastructure. The bar graph that I am holding up to show members represents the previous government’s program. Members will see a black line, and after that black line the bar graph represent the asset investment and infrastructure program of this government. Mr M. McGowan : Table the document. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am very happy to table it. Members will note that the average annual spend in the asset investment program under the previous government was $3.2 billion. Mr E.S. Ripper : What was the debt you inherited? Mr C.C. PORTER : The Leader of the Opposition is asking us whether we will meet the rapid increase in demand for infrastructure spending in this state. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s what I am asking you. Mr C.C. PORTER : Within reason, within parameters and with a keen eye to debt, yes, we will. The reason our debt is higher than the former government’s debt is that we are spending far more than the former government ever did on asset investment programs. The Leader of the Opposition gets up in this place and tries to put to us that we are not spending enough on the asset investment program and that debt is too high. Mr E.S. Ripper : No; wrong priorities is what I am putting to you—pet projects while you can’t provide lights in the Pilbara! Mr C.C. PORTER : The Leader of the Opposition then asks us what we are going to build and what we are not going to build. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.C. PORTER : The average annual spend under the previous government was $3.2 billion. The average annual spend under this government in the asset investment program is $6.6 billion. Mr B.J. Grylls : Double! Mr C.C. PORTER : Double what the previous government spent, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands in this place and asks a question with the clear inference that we are not spending enough on our asset investment program. How could that possibly be right? It is not right. We are obviously looking at debt with a very keen eye and managing that issue. But, yes, there are very strong demands. The total spend of this government that we envisage over the six years and out to 2013–14 in the asset investment program is $39.3 billion. The spend over the seven years of the previous government was $22.2 billion, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands and puts to us that we are not spending enough on the assets of the state. Ridiculous!
(1)–(3) I recall that the Premier said in effect that the objective of the government was to contain debt at around the $20 billion mark. That is a good rule of thumb for an economy the size of Western Australia and at this present time. I certainly agree with the Premier on that, and we are working very hard to contain debt. The Leader of the Opposition will have to wait until the actual budget to see precisely what the debt will be. Essentially, the Leader of the Opposition’s question is this: at any budget cycle are there very strong demands on the government to spend large amounts of money on infrastructure? Yes, of course there are. Mr E.S. Ripper : My point is that you are cutting back on core infrastructure to fund pet projects. Mr C.C. PORTER : Let me just show the house a bar graph on the asset investment program of this government compared with the program of the last government, keeping in mind that the Leader of the Opposition’s contention is that we are cutting back somehow an asset investment in infrastructure. The bar graph that I am holding up to show members represents the previous government’s program. Members will see a black line, and after that black line the bar graph represent the asset investment and infrastructure program of this government. Mr M. McGowan : Table the document. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am very happy to table it. Members will note that the average annual spend in the asset investment program under the previous government was $3.2 billion. Mr E.S. Ripper : What was the debt you inherited? Mr C.C. PORTER : The Leader of the Opposition is asking us whether we will meet the rapid increase in demand for infrastructure spending in this state. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s what I am asking you. Mr C.C. PORTER : Within reason, within parameters and with a keen eye to debt, yes, we will. The reason our debt is higher than the former government’s debt is that we are spending far more than the former government ever did on asset investment programs. The Leader of the Opposition gets up in this place and tries to put to us that we are not spending enough on the asset investment program and that debt is too high. Mr E.S. Ripper : No; wrong priorities is what I am putting to you—pet projects while you can’t provide lights in the Pilbara! Mr C.C. PORTER : The Leader of the Opposition then asks us what we are going to build and what we are not going to build. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.C. PORTER : The average annual spend under the previous government was $3.2 billion. The average annual spend under this government in the asset investment program is $6.6 billion. Mr B.J. Grylls : Double! Mr C.C. PORTER : Double what the previous government spent, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands in this place and asks a question with the clear inference that we are not spending enough on our asset investment program. How could that possibly be right? It is not right. We are obviously looking at debt with a very keen eye and managing that issue. But, yes, there are very strong demands. The total spend of this government that we envisage over the six years and out to 2013–14 in the asset investment program is $39.3 billion. The spend over the seven years of the previous government was $22.2 billion, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands and puts to us that we are not spending enough on the assets of the state. Ridiculous!
Mr E.S. Ripper : My point is that you are cutting back on core infrastructure to fund pet projects. Mr C.C. PORTER : Let me just show the house a bar graph on the asset investment program of this government compared with the program of the last government, keeping in mind that the Leader of the Opposition’s contention is that we are cutting back somehow an asset investment in infrastructure. The bar graph that I am holding up to show members represents the previous government’s program. Members will see a black line, and after that black line the bar graph represent the asset investment and infrastructure program of this government. Mr M. McGowan : Table the document. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am very happy to table it. Members will note that the average annual spend in the asset investment program under the previous government was $3.2 billion. Mr E.S. Ripper : What was the debt you inherited? Mr C.C. PORTER : The Leader of the Opposition is asking us whether we will meet the rapid increase in demand for infrastructure spending in this state. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s what I am asking you. Mr C.C. PORTER : Within reason, within parameters and with a keen eye to debt, yes, we will. The reason our debt is higher than the former government’s debt is that we are spending far more than the former government ever did on asset investment programs. The Leader of the Opposition gets up in this place and tries to put to us that we are not spending enough on the asset investment program and that debt is too high. Mr E.S. Ripper : No; wrong priorities is what I am putting to you—pet projects while you can’t provide lights in the Pilbara! Mr C.C. PORTER : The Leader of the Opposition then asks us what we are going to build and what we are not going to build. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.C. PORTER : The average annual spend under the previous government was $3.2 billion. The average annual spend under this government in the asset investment program is $6.6 billion. Mr B.J. Grylls : Double! Mr C.C. PORTER : Double what the previous government spent, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands in this place and asks a question with the clear inference that we are not spending enough on our asset investment program. How could that possibly be right? It is not right. We are obviously looking at debt with a very keen eye and managing that issue. But, yes, there are very strong demands. The total spend of this government that we envisage over the six years and out to 2013–14 in the asset investment program is $39.3 billion. The spend over the seven years of the previous government was $22.2 billion, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands and puts to us that we are not spending enough on the assets of the state. Ridiculous!
Mr C.C. PORTER : Let me just show the house a bar graph on the asset investment program of this government compared with the program of the last government, keeping in mind that the Leader of the Opposition’s contention is that we are cutting back somehow an asset investment in infrastructure. The bar graph that I am holding up to show members represents the previous government’s program. Members will see a black line, and after that black line the bar graph represent the asset investment and infrastructure program of this government. Mr M. McGowan : Table the document. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am very happy to table it. Members will note that the average annual spend in the asset investment program under the previous government was $3.2 billion. Mr E.S. Ripper : What was the debt you inherited? Mr C.C. PORTER : The Leader of the Opposition is asking us whether we will meet the rapid increase in demand for infrastructure spending in this state. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s what I am asking you. Mr C.C. PORTER : Within reason, within parameters and with a keen eye to debt, yes, we will. The reason our debt is higher than the former government’s debt is that we are spending far more than the former government ever did on asset investment programs. The Leader of the Opposition gets up in this place and tries to put to us that we are not spending enough on the asset investment program and that debt is too high. Mr E.S. Ripper : No; wrong priorities is what I am putting to you—pet projects while you can’t provide lights in the Pilbara! Mr C.C. PORTER : The Leader of the Opposition then asks us what we are going to build and what we are not going to build. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.C. PORTER : The average annual spend under the previous government was $3.2 billion. The average annual spend under this government in the asset investment program is $6.6 billion. Mr B.J. Grylls : Double! Mr C.C. PORTER : Double what the previous government spent, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands in this place and asks a question with the clear inference that we are not spending enough on our asset investment program. How could that possibly be right? It is not right. We are obviously looking at debt with a very keen eye and managing that issue. But, yes, there are very strong demands. The total spend of this government that we envisage over the six years and out to 2013–14 in the asset investment program is $39.3 billion. The spend over the seven years of the previous government was $22.2 billion, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands and puts to us that we are not spending enough on the assets of the state. Ridiculous!
Mr M. McGowan : Table the document. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am very happy to table it. Members will note that the average annual spend in the asset investment program under the previous government was $3.2 billion. Mr E.S. Ripper : What was the debt you inherited? Mr C.C. PORTER : The Leader of the Opposition is asking us whether we will meet the rapid increase in demand for infrastructure spending in this state. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s what I am asking you. Mr C.C. PORTER : Within reason, within parameters and with a keen eye to debt, yes, we will. The reason our debt is higher than the former government’s debt is that we are spending far more than the former government ever did on asset investment programs. The Leader of the Opposition gets up in this place and tries to put to us that we are not spending enough on the asset investment program and that debt is too high. Mr E.S. Ripper : No; wrong priorities is what I am putting to you—pet projects while you can’t provide lights in the Pilbara! Mr C.C. PORTER : The Leader of the Opposition then asks us what we are going to build and what we are not going to build. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.C. PORTER : The average annual spend under the previous government was $3.2 billion. The average annual spend under this government in the asset investment program is $6.6 billion. Mr B.J. Grylls : Double! Mr C.C. PORTER : Double what the previous government spent, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands in this place and asks a question with the clear inference that we are not spending enough on our asset investment program. How could that possibly be right? It is not right. We are obviously looking at debt with a very keen eye and managing that issue. But, yes, there are very strong demands. The total spend of this government that we envisage over the six years and out to 2013–14 in the asset investment program is $39.3 billion. The spend over the seven years of the previous government was $22.2 billion, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands and puts to us that we are not spending enough on the assets of the state. Ridiculous!
Mr C.C. PORTER : I am very happy to table it. Members will note that the average annual spend in the asset investment program under the previous government was $3.2 billion. Mr E.S. Ripper : What was the debt you inherited? Mr C.C. PORTER : The Leader of the Opposition is asking us whether we will meet the rapid increase in demand for infrastructure spending in this state. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s what I am asking you. Mr C.C. PORTER : Within reason, within parameters and with a keen eye to debt, yes, we will. The reason our debt is higher than the former government’s debt is that we are spending far more than the former government ever did on asset investment programs. The Leader of the Opposition gets up in this place and tries to put to us that we are not spending enough on the asset investment program and that debt is too high. Mr E.S. Ripper : No; wrong priorities is what I am putting to you—pet projects while you can’t provide lights in the Pilbara! Mr C.C. PORTER : The Leader of the Opposition then asks us what we are going to build and what we are not going to build. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.C. PORTER : The average annual spend under the previous government was $3.2 billion. The average annual spend under this government in the asset investment program is $6.6 billion. Mr B.J. Grylls : Double! Mr C.C. PORTER : Double what the previous government spent, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands in this place and asks a question with the clear inference that we are not spending enough on our asset investment program. How could that possibly be right? It is not right. We are obviously looking at debt with a very keen eye and managing that issue. But, yes, there are very strong demands. The total spend of this government that we envisage over the six years and out to 2013–14 in the asset investment program is $39.3 billion. The spend over the seven years of the previous government was $22.2 billion, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands and puts to us that we are not spending enough on the assets of the state. Ridiculous!
Mr E.S. Ripper : What was the debt you inherited? Mr C.C. PORTER : The Leader of the Opposition is asking us whether we will meet the rapid increase in demand for infrastructure spending in this state. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s what I am asking you. Mr C.C. PORTER : Within reason, within parameters and with a keen eye to debt, yes, we will. The reason our debt is higher than the former government’s debt is that we are spending far more than the former government ever did on asset investment programs. The Leader of the Opposition gets up in this place and tries to put to us that we are not spending enough on the asset investment program and that debt is too high. Mr E.S. Ripper : No; wrong priorities is what I am putting to you—pet projects while you can’t provide lights in the Pilbara! Mr C.C. PORTER : The Leader of the Opposition then asks us what we are going to build and what we are not going to build. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.C. PORTER : The average annual spend under the previous government was $3.2 billion. The average annual spend under this government in the asset investment program is $6.6 billion. Mr B.J. Grylls : Double! Mr C.C. PORTER : Double what the previous government spent, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands in this place and asks a question with the clear inference that we are not spending enough on our asset investment program. How could that possibly be right? It is not right. We are obviously looking at debt with a very keen eye and managing that issue. But, yes, there are very strong demands. The total spend of this government that we envisage over the six years and out to 2013–14 in the asset investment program is $39.3 billion. The spend over the seven years of the previous government was $22.2 billion, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands and puts to us that we are not spending enough on the assets of the state. Ridiculous!
Mr C.C. PORTER : The Leader of the Opposition is asking us whether we will meet the rapid increase in demand for infrastructure spending in this state. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s what I am asking you. Mr C.C. PORTER : Within reason, within parameters and with a keen eye to debt, yes, we will. The reason our debt is higher than the former government’s debt is that we are spending far more than the former government ever did on asset investment programs. The Leader of the Opposition gets up in this place and tries to put to us that we are not spending enough on the asset investment program and that debt is too high. Mr E.S. Ripper : No; wrong priorities is what I am putting to you—pet projects while you can’t provide lights in the Pilbara! Mr C.C. PORTER : The Leader of the Opposition then asks us what we are going to build and what we are not going to build. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.C. PORTER : The average annual spend under the previous government was $3.2 billion. The average annual spend under this government in the asset investment program is $6.6 billion. Mr B.J. Grylls : Double! Mr C.C. PORTER : Double what the previous government spent, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands in this place and asks a question with the clear inference that we are not spending enough on our asset investment program. How could that possibly be right? It is not right. We are obviously looking at debt with a very keen eye and managing that issue. But, yes, there are very strong demands. The total spend of this government that we envisage over the six years and out to 2013–14 in the asset investment program is $39.3 billion. The spend over the seven years of the previous government was $22.2 billion, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands and puts to us that we are not spending enough on the assets of the state. Ridiculous!
Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s what I am asking you. Mr C.C. PORTER : Within reason, within parameters and with a keen eye to debt, yes, we will. The reason our debt is higher than the former government’s debt is that we are spending far more than the former government ever did on asset investment programs. The Leader of the Opposition gets up in this place and tries to put to us that we are not spending enough on the asset investment program and that debt is too high. Mr E.S. Ripper : No; wrong priorities is what I am putting to you—pet projects while you can’t provide lights in the Pilbara! Mr C.C. PORTER : The Leader of the Opposition then asks us what we are going to build and what we are not going to build. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.C. PORTER : The average annual spend under the previous government was $3.2 billion. The average annual spend under this government in the asset investment program is $6.6 billion. Mr B.J. Grylls : Double! Mr C.C. PORTER : Double what the previous government spent, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands in this place and asks a question with the clear inference that we are not spending enough on our asset investment program. How could that possibly be right? It is not right. We are obviously looking at debt with a very keen eye and managing that issue. But, yes, there are very strong demands. The total spend of this government that we envisage over the six years and out to 2013–14 in the asset investment program is $39.3 billion. The spend over the seven years of the previous government was $22.2 billion, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands and puts to us that we are not spending enough on the assets of the state. Ridiculous!
Mr C.C. PORTER : Within reason, within parameters and with a keen eye to debt, yes, we will. The reason our debt is higher than the former government’s debt is that we are spending far more than the former government ever did on asset investment programs. The Leader of the Opposition gets up in this place and tries to put to us that we are not spending enough on the asset investment program and that debt is too high. Mr E.S. Ripper : No; wrong priorities is what I am putting to you—pet projects while you can’t provide lights in the Pilbara! Mr C.C. PORTER : The Leader of the Opposition then asks us what we are going to build and what we are not going to build. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.C. PORTER : The average annual spend under the previous government was $3.2 billion. The average annual spend under this government in the asset investment program is $6.6 billion. Mr B.J. Grylls : Double! Mr C.C. PORTER : Double what the previous government spent, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands in this place and asks a question with the clear inference that we are not spending enough on our asset investment program. How could that possibly be right? It is not right. We are obviously looking at debt with a very keen eye and managing that issue. But, yes, there are very strong demands. The total spend of this government that we envisage over the six years and out to 2013–14 in the asset investment program is $39.3 billion. The spend over the seven years of the previous government was $22.2 billion, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands and puts to us that we are not spending enough on the assets of the state. Ridiculous!
Mr E.S. Ripper : No; wrong priorities is what I am putting to you—pet projects while you can’t provide lights in the Pilbara! Mr C.C. PORTER : The Leader of the Opposition then asks us what we are going to build and what we are not going to build. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.C. PORTER : The average annual spend under the previous government was $3.2 billion. The average annual spend under this government in the asset investment program is $6.6 billion. Mr B.J. Grylls : Double! Mr C.C. PORTER : Double what the previous government spent, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands in this place and asks a question with the clear inference that we are not spending enough on our asset investment program. How could that possibly be right? It is not right. We are obviously looking at debt with a very keen eye and managing that issue. But, yes, there are very strong demands. The total spend of this government that we envisage over the six years and out to 2013–14 in the asset investment program is $39.3 billion. The spend over the seven years of the previous government was $22.2 billion, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands and puts to us that we are not spending enough on the assets of the state. Ridiculous!
Mr C.C. PORTER : The Leader of the Opposition then asks us what we are going to build and what we are not going to build. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.C. PORTER : The average annual spend under the previous government was $3.2 billion. The average annual spend under this government in the asset investment program is $6.6 billion. Mr B.J. Grylls : Double! Mr C.C. PORTER : Double what the previous government spent, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands in this place and asks a question with the clear inference that we are not spending enough on our asset investment program. How could that possibly be right? It is not right. We are obviously looking at debt with a very keen eye and managing that issue. But, yes, there are very strong demands. The total spend of this government that we envisage over the six years and out to 2013–14 in the asset investment program is $39.3 billion. The spend over the seven years of the previous government was $22.2 billion, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands and puts to us that we are not spending enough on the assets of the state. Ridiculous!
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.C. PORTER : The average annual spend under the previous government was $3.2 billion. The average annual spend under this government in the asset investment program is $6.6 billion. Mr B.J. Grylls : Double! Mr C.C. PORTER : Double what the previous government spent, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands in this place and asks a question with the clear inference that we are not spending enough on our asset investment program. How could that possibly be right? It is not right. We are obviously looking at debt with a very keen eye and managing that issue. But, yes, there are very strong demands. The total spend of this government that we envisage over the six years and out to 2013–14 in the asset investment program is $39.3 billion. The spend over the seven years of the previous government was $22.2 billion, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands and puts to us that we are not spending enough on the assets of the state. Ridiculous!
The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.C. PORTER : The average annual spend under the previous government was $3.2 billion. The average annual spend under this government in the asset investment program is $6.6 billion. Mr B.J. Grylls : Double! Mr C.C. PORTER : Double what the previous government spent, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands in this place and asks a question with the clear inference that we are not spending enough on our asset investment program. How could that possibly be right? It is not right. We are obviously looking at debt with a very keen eye and managing that issue. But, yes, there are very strong demands. The total spend of this government that we envisage over the six years and out to 2013–14 in the asset investment program is $39.3 billion. The spend over the seven years of the previous government was $22.2 billion, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands and puts to us that we are not spending enough on the assets of the state. Ridiculous!
Mr C.C. PORTER : The average annual spend under the previous government was $3.2 billion. The average annual spend under this government in the asset investment program is $6.6 billion. Mr B.J. Grylls : Double! Mr C.C. PORTER : Double what the previous government spent, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands in this place and asks a question with the clear inference that we are not spending enough on our asset investment program. How could that possibly be right? It is not right. We are obviously looking at debt with a very keen eye and managing that issue. But, yes, there are very strong demands. The total spend of this government that we envisage over the six years and out to 2013–14 in the asset investment program is $39.3 billion. The spend over the seven years of the previous government was $22.2 billion, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands and puts to us that we are not spending enough on the assets of the state. Ridiculous!
Mr B.J. Grylls : Double! Mr C.C. PORTER : Double what the previous government spent, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands in this place and asks a question with the clear inference that we are not spending enough on our asset investment program. How could that possibly be right? It is not right. We are obviously looking at debt with a very keen eye and managing that issue. But, yes, there are very strong demands. The total spend of this government that we envisage over the six years and out to 2013–14 in the asset investment program is $39.3 billion. The spend over the seven years of the previous government was $22.2 billion, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands and puts to us that we are not spending enough on the assets of the state. Ridiculous!
Mr C.C. PORTER : Double what the previous government spent, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands in this place and asks a question with the clear inference that we are not spending enough on our asset investment program. How could that possibly be right? It is not right. We are obviously looking at debt with a very keen eye and managing that issue. But, yes, there are very strong demands. The total spend of this government that we envisage over the six years and out to 2013–14 in the asset investment program is $39.3 billion. The spend over the seven years of the previous government was $22.2 billion, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands and puts to us that we are not spending enough on the assets of the state. Ridiculous!
My question is to the Treasurer. I note our state’s many unfunded infrastructure needs, which include the $800 million backlog in road maintenance, the increasing gap in investment in our electricity networks and the necessary expansion of the southern seawater desalination plant. (1) How will the Treasurer meet these essential needs alongside projects such as the Perth Waterfront foreshore project, the sports stadium and the Premier’s palace? (2) Have any of these projects been cancelled or put on the backburner; and, if so, which ones? (3) Does the Treasurer commit to staying within the Premier’s debt limit of $20 billion that he set in September 2010? Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the member for the question. (1)–(3) I recall that the Premier said in effect that the objective of the government was to contain debt at around the $20 billion mark. That is a good rule of thumb for an economy the size of Western Australia and at this present time. I certainly agree with the Premier on that, and we are working very hard to contain debt. The Leader of the Opposition will have to wait until the actual budget to see precisely what the debt will be. Essentially, the Leader of the Opposition’s question is this: at any budget cycle are there very strong demands on the government to spend large amounts of money on infrastructure? Yes, of course there are. Mr E.S. Ripper : My point is that you are cutting back on core infrastructure to fund pet projects. Mr C.C. PORTER : Let me just show the house a bar graph on the asset investment program of this government compared with the program of the last government, keeping in mind that the Leader of the Opposition’s contention is that we are cutting back somehow an asset investment in infrastructure. The bar graph that I am holding up to show members represents the previous government’s program. Members will see a black line, and after that black line the bar graph represent the asset investment and infrastructure program of this government. Mr M. McGowan : Table the document. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am very happy to table it. Members will note that the average annual spend in the asset investment program under the previous government was $3.2 billion. Mr E.S. Ripper : What was the debt you inherited? Mr C.C. PORTER : The Leader of the Opposition is asking us whether we will meet the rapid increase in demand for infrastructure spending in this state. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s what I am asking you. Mr C.C. PORTER : Within reason, within parameters and with a keen eye to debt, yes, we will. The reason our debt is higher than the former government’s debt is that we are spending far more than the former government ever did on asset investment programs. The Leader of the Opposition gets up in this place and tries to put to us that we are not spending enough on the asset investment program and that debt is too high. Mr E.S. Ripper : No; wrong priorities is what I am putting to you—pet projects while you can’t provide lights in the Pilbara! Mr C.C. PORTER : The Leader of the Opposition then asks us what we are going to build and what we are not going to build. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.C. PORTER : The average annual spend under the previous government was $3.2 billion. The average annual spend under this government in the asset investment program is $6.6 billion. Mr B.J. Grylls : Double! Mr C.C. PORTER : Double what the previous government spent, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands in this place and asks a question with the clear inference that we are not spending enough on our asset investment program. How could that possibly be right? It is not right. We are obviously looking at debt with a very keen eye and managing that issue. But, yes, there are very strong demands. The total spend of this government that we envisage over the six years and out to 2013–14 in the asset investment program is $39.3 billion. The spend over the seven years of the previous government was $22.2 billion, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands and puts to us that we are not spending enough on the assets of the state. Ridiculous!
(1) How will the Treasurer meet these essential needs alongside projects such as the Perth Waterfront foreshore project, the sports stadium and the Premier’s palace? (2) Have any of these projects been cancelled or put on the backburner; and, if so, which ones? (3) Does the Treasurer commit to staying within the Premier’s debt limit of $20 billion that he set in September 2010? Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the member for the question. (1)–(3) I recall that the Premier said in effect that the objective of the government was to contain debt at around the $20 billion mark. That is a good rule of thumb for an economy the size of Western Australia and at this present time. I certainly agree with the Premier on that, and we are working very hard to contain debt. The Leader of the Opposition will have to wait until the actual budget to see precisely what the debt will be. Essentially, the Leader of the Opposition’s question is this: at any budget cycle are there very strong demands on the government to spend large amounts of money on infrastructure? Yes, of course there are. Mr E.S. Ripper : My point is that you are cutting back on core infrastructure to fund pet projects. Mr C.C. PORTER : Let me just show the house a bar graph on the asset investment program of this government compared with the program of the last government, keeping in mind that the Leader of the Opposition’s contention is that we are cutting back somehow an asset investment in infrastructure. The bar graph that I am holding up to show members represents the previous government’s program. Members will see a black line, and after that black line the bar graph represent the asset investment and infrastructure program of this government. Mr M. McGowan : Table the document. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am very happy to table it. Members will note that the average annual spend in the asset investment program under the previous government was $3.2 billion. Mr E.S. Ripper : What was the debt you inherited? Mr C.C. PORTER : The Leader of the Opposition is asking us whether we will meet the rapid increase in demand for infrastructure spending in this state. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s what I am asking you. Mr C.C. PORTER : Within reason, within parameters and with a keen eye to debt, yes, we will. The reason our debt is higher than the former government’s debt is that we are spending far more than the former government ever did on asset investment programs. The Leader of the Opposition gets up in this place and tries to put to us that we are not spending enough on the asset investment program and that debt is too high. Mr E.S. Ripper : No; wrong priorities is what I am putting to you—pet projects while you can’t provide lights in the Pilbara! Mr C.C. PORTER : The Leader of the Opposition then asks us what we are going to build and what we are not going to build. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.C. PORTER : The average annual spend under the previous government was $3.2 billion. The average annual spend under this government in the asset investment program is $6.6 billion. Mr B.J. Grylls : Double! Mr C.C. PORTER : Double what the previous government spent, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands in this place and asks a question with the clear inference that we are not spending enough on our asset investment program. How could that possibly be right? It is not right. We are obviously looking at debt with a very keen eye and managing that issue. But, yes, there are very strong demands. The total spend of this government that we envisage over the six years and out to 2013–14 in the asset investment program is $39.3 billion. The spend over the seven years of the previous government was $22.2 billion, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands and puts to us that we are not spending enough on the assets of the state. Ridiculous!
(2) Have any of these projects been cancelled or put on the backburner; and, if so, which ones? (3) Does the Treasurer commit to staying within the Premier’s debt limit of $20 billion that he set in September 2010? Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the member for the question. (1)–(3) I recall that the Premier said in effect that the objective of the government was to contain debt at around the $20 billion mark. That is a good rule of thumb for an economy the size of Western Australia and at this present time. I certainly agree with the Premier on that, and we are working very hard to contain debt. The Leader of the Opposition will have to wait until the actual budget to see precisely what the debt will be. Essentially, the Leader of the Opposition’s question is this: at any budget cycle are there very strong demands on the government to spend large amounts of money on infrastructure? Yes, of course there are. Mr E.S. Ripper : My point is that you are cutting back on core infrastructure to fund pet projects. Mr C.C. PORTER : Let me just show the house a bar graph on the asset investment program of this government compared with the program of the last government, keeping in mind that the Leader of the Opposition’s contention is that we are cutting back somehow an asset investment in infrastructure. The bar graph that I am holding up to show members represents the previous government’s program. Members will see a black line, and after that black line the bar graph represent the asset investment and infrastructure program of this government. Mr M. McGowan : Table the document. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am very happy to table it. Members will note that the average annual spend in the asset investment program under the previous government was $3.2 billion. Mr E.S. Ripper : What was the debt you inherited? Mr C.C. PORTER : The Leader of the Opposition is asking us whether we will meet the rapid increase in demand for infrastructure spending in this state. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s what I am asking you. Mr C.C. PORTER : Within reason, within parameters and with a keen eye to debt, yes, we will. The reason our debt is higher than the former government’s debt is that we are spending far more than the former government ever did on asset investment programs. The Leader of the Opposition gets up in this place and tries to put to us that we are not spending enough on the asset investment program and that debt is too high. Mr E.S. Ripper : No; wrong priorities is what I am putting to you—pet projects while you can’t provide lights in the Pilbara! Mr C.C. PORTER : The Leader of the Opposition then asks us what we are going to build and what we are not going to build. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.C. PORTER : The average annual spend under the previous government was $3.2 billion. The average annual spend under this government in the asset investment program is $6.6 billion. Mr B.J. Grylls : Double! Mr C.C. PORTER : Double what the previous government spent, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands in this place and asks a question with the clear inference that we are not spending enough on our asset investment program. How could that possibly be right? It is not right. We are obviously looking at debt with a very keen eye and managing that issue. But, yes, there are very strong demands. The total spend of this government that we envisage over the six years and out to 2013–14 in the asset investment program is $39.3 billion. The spend over the seven years of the previous government was $22.2 billion, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands and puts to us that we are not spending enough on the assets of the state. Ridiculous!
(3) Does the Treasurer commit to staying within the Premier’s debt limit of $20 billion that he set in September 2010? Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the member for the question. (1)–(3) I recall that the Premier said in effect that the objective of the government was to contain debt at around the $20 billion mark. That is a good rule of thumb for an economy the size of Western Australia and at this present time. I certainly agree with the Premier on that, and we are working very hard to contain debt. The Leader of the Opposition will have to wait until the actual budget to see precisely what the debt will be. Essentially, the Leader of the Opposition’s question is this: at any budget cycle are there very strong demands on the government to spend large amounts of money on infrastructure? Yes, of course there are. Mr E.S. Ripper : My point is that you are cutting back on core infrastructure to fund pet projects. Mr C.C. PORTER : Let me just show the house a bar graph on the asset investment program of this government compared with the program of the last government, keeping in mind that the Leader of the Opposition’s contention is that we are cutting back somehow an asset investment in infrastructure. The bar graph that I am holding up to show members represents the previous government’s program. Members will see a black line, and after that black line the bar graph represent the asset investment and infrastructure program of this government. Mr M. McGowan : Table the document. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am very happy to table it. Members will note that the average annual spend in the asset investment program under the previous government was $3.2 billion. Mr E.S. Ripper : What was the debt you inherited? Mr C.C. PORTER : The Leader of the Opposition is asking us whether we will meet the rapid increase in demand for infrastructure spending in this state. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s what I am asking you. Mr C.C. PORTER : Within reason, within parameters and with a keen eye to debt, yes, we will. The reason our debt is higher than the former government’s debt is that we are spending far more than the former government ever did on asset investment programs. The Leader of the Opposition gets up in this place and tries to put to us that we are not spending enough on the asset investment program and that debt is too high. Mr E.S. Ripper : No; wrong priorities is what I am putting to you—pet projects while you can’t provide lights in the Pilbara! Mr C.C. PORTER : The Leader of the Opposition then asks us what we are going to build and what we are not going to build. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.C. PORTER : The average annual spend under the previous government was $3.2 billion. The average annual spend under this government in the asset investment program is $6.6 billion. Mr B.J. Grylls : Double! Mr C.C. PORTER : Double what the previous government spent, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands in this place and asks a question with the clear inference that we are not spending enough on our asset investment program. How could that possibly be right? It is not right. We are obviously looking at debt with a very keen eye and managing that issue. But, yes, there are very strong demands. The total spend of this government that we envisage over the six years and out to 2013–14 in the asset investment program is $39.3 billion. The spend over the seven years of the previous government was $22.2 billion, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands and puts to us that we are not spending enough on the assets of the state. Ridiculous!
Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the member for the question. (1)–(3) I recall that the Premier said in effect that the objective of the government was to contain debt at around the $20 billion mark. That is a good rule of thumb for an economy the size of Western Australia and at this present time. I certainly agree with the Premier on that, and we are working very hard to contain debt. The Leader of the Opposition will have to wait until the actual budget to see precisely what the debt will be. Essentially, the Leader of the Opposition’s question is this: at any budget cycle are there very strong demands on the government to spend large amounts of money on infrastructure? Yes, of course there are. Mr E.S. Ripper : My point is that you are cutting back on core infrastructure to fund pet projects. Mr C.C. PORTER : Let me just show the house a bar graph on the asset investment program of this government compared with the program of the last government, keeping in mind that the Leader of the Opposition’s contention is that we are cutting back somehow an asset investment in infrastructure. The bar graph that I am holding up to show members represents the previous government’s program. Members will see a black line, and after that black line the bar graph represent the asset investment and infrastructure program of this government. Mr M. McGowan : Table the document. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am very happy to table it. Members will note that the average annual spend in the asset investment program under the previous government was $3.2 billion. Mr E.S. Ripper : What was the debt you inherited? Mr C.C. PORTER : The Leader of the Opposition is asking us whether we will meet the rapid increase in demand for infrastructure spending in this state. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s what I am asking you. Mr C.C. PORTER : Within reason, within parameters and with a keen eye to debt, yes, we will. The reason our debt is higher than the former government’s debt is that we are spending far more than the former government ever did on asset investment programs. The Leader of the Opposition gets up in this place and tries to put to us that we are not spending enough on the asset investment program and that debt is too high. Mr E.S. Ripper : No; wrong priorities is what I am putting to you—pet projects while you can’t provide lights in the Pilbara! Mr C.C. PORTER : The Leader of the Opposition then asks us what we are going to build and what we are not going to build. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.C. PORTER : The average annual spend under the previous government was $3.2 billion. The average annual spend under this government in the asset investment program is $6.6 billion. Mr B.J. Grylls : Double! Mr C.C. PORTER : Double what the previous government spent, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands in this place and asks a question with the clear inference that we are not spending enough on our asset investment program. How could that possibly be right? It is not right. We are obviously looking at debt with a very keen eye and managing that issue. But, yes, there are very strong demands. The total spend of this government that we envisage over the six years and out to 2013–14 in the asset investment program is $39.3 billion. The spend over the seven years of the previous government was $22.2 billion, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands and puts to us that we are not spending enough on the assets of the state. Ridiculous!
I thank the member for the question. (1)–(3) I recall that the Premier said in effect that the objective of the government was to contain debt at around the $20 billion mark. That is a good rule of thumb for an economy the size of Western Australia and at this present time. I certainly agree with the Premier on that, and we are working very hard to contain debt. The Leader of the Opposition will have to wait until the actual budget to see precisely what the debt will be. Essentially, the Leader of the Opposition’s question is this: at any budget cycle are there very strong demands on the government to spend large amounts of money on infrastructure? Yes, of course there are. Mr E.S. Ripper : My point is that you are cutting back on core infrastructure to fund pet projects. Mr C.C. PORTER : Let me just show the house a bar graph on the asset investment program of this government compared with the program of the last government, keeping in mind that the Leader of the Opposition’s contention is that we are cutting back somehow an asset investment in infrastructure. The bar graph that I am holding up to show members represents the previous government’s program. Members will see a black line, and after that black line the bar graph represent the asset investment and infrastructure program of this government. Mr M. McGowan : Table the document. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am very happy to table it. Members will note that the average annual spend in the asset investment program under the previous government was $3.2 billion. Mr E.S. Ripper : What was the debt you inherited? Mr C.C. PORTER : The Leader of the Opposition is asking us whether we will meet the rapid increase in demand for infrastructure spending in this state. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s what I am asking you. Mr C.C. PORTER : Within reason, within parameters and with a keen eye to debt, yes, we will. The reason our debt is higher than the former government’s debt is that we are spending far more than the former government ever did on asset investment programs. The Leader of the Opposition gets up in this place and tries to put to us that we are not spending enough on the asset investment program and that debt is too high. Mr E.S. Ripper : No; wrong priorities is what I am putting to you—pet projects while you can’t provide lights in the Pilbara! Mr C.C. PORTER : The Leader of the Opposition then asks us what we are going to build and what we are not going to build. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.C. PORTER : The average annual spend under the previous government was $3.2 billion. The average annual spend under this government in the asset investment program is $6.6 billion. Mr B.J. Grylls : Double! Mr C.C. PORTER : Double what the previous government spent, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands in this place and asks a question with the clear inference that we are not spending enough on our asset investment program. How could that possibly be right? It is not right. We are obviously looking at debt with a very keen eye and managing that issue. But, yes, there are very strong demands. The total spend of this government that we envisage over the six years and out to 2013–14 in the asset investment program is $39.3 billion. The spend over the seven years of the previous government was $22.2 billion, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands and puts to us that we are not spending enough on the assets of the state. Ridiculous!
(1)–(3) I recall that the Premier said in effect that the objective of the government was to contain debt at around the $20 billion mark. That is a good rule of thumb for an economy the size of Western Australia and at this present time. I certainly agree with the Premier on that, and we are working very hard to contain debt. The Leader of the Opposition will have to wait until the actual budget to see precisely what the debt will be. Essentially, the Leader of the Opposition’s question is this: at any budget cycle are there very strong demands on the government to spend large amounts of money on infrastructure? Yes, of course there are. Mr E.S. Ripper : My point is that you are cutting back on core infrastructure to fund pet projects. Mr C.C. PORTER : Let me just show the house a bar graph on the asset investment program of this government compared with the program of the last government, keeping in mind that the Leader of the Opposition’s contention is that we are cutting back somehow an asset investment in infrastructure. The bar graph that I am holding up to show members represents the previous government’s program. Members will see a black line, and after that black line the bar graph represent the asset investment and infrastructure program of this government. Mr M. McGowan : Table the document. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am very happy to table it. Members will note that the average annual spend in the asset investment program under the previous government was $3.2 billion. Mr E.S. Ripper : What was the debt you inherited? Mr C.C. PORTER : The Leader of the Opposition is asking us whether we will meet the rapid increase in demand for infrastructure spending in this state. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s what I am asking you. Mr C.C. PORTER : Within reason, within parameters and with a keen eye to debt, yes, we will. The reason our debt is higher than the former government’s debt is that we are spending far more than the former government ever did on asset investment programs. The Leader of the Opposition gets up in this place and tries to put to us that we are not spending enough on the asset investment program and that debt is too high. Mr E.S. Ripper : No; wrong priorities is what I am putting to you—pet projects while you can’t provide lights in the Pilbara! Mr C.C. PORTER : The Leader of the Opposition then asks us what we are going to build and what we are not going to build. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.C. PORTER : The average annual spend under the previous government was $3.2 billion. The average annual spend under this government in the asset investment program is $6.6 billion. Mr B.J. Grylls : Double! Mr C.C. PORTER : Double what the previous government spent, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands in this place and asks a question with the clear inference that we are not spending enough on our asset investment program. How could that possibly be right? It is not right. We are obviously looking at debt with a very keen eye and managing that issue. But, yes, there are very strong demands. The total spend of this government that we envisage over the six years and out to 2013–14 in the asset investment program is $39.3 billion. The spend over the seven years of the previous government was $22.2 billion, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands and puts to us that we are not spending enough on the assets of the state. Ridiculous!
Mr E.S. Ripper : My point is that you are cutting back on core infrastructure to fund pet projects. Mr C.C. PORTER : Let me just show the house a bar graph on the asset investment program of this government compared with the program of the last government, keeping in mind that the Leader of the Opposition’s contention is that we are cutting back somehow an asset investment in infrastructure. The bar graph that I am holding up to show members represents the previous government’s program. Members will see a black line, and after that black line the bar graph represent the asset investment and infrastructure program of this government. Mr M. McGowan : Table the document. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am very happy to table it. Members will note that the average annual spend in the asset investment program under the previous government was $3.2 billion. Mr E.S. Ripper : What was the debt you inherited? Mr C.C. PORTER : The Leader of the Opposition is asking us whether we will meet the rapid increase in demand for infrastructure spending in this state. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s what I am asking you. Mr C.C. PORTER : Within reason, within parameters and with a keen eye to debt, yes, we will. The reason our debt is higher than the former government’s debt is that we are spending far more than the former government ever did on asset investment programs. The Leader of the Opposition gets up in this place and tries to put to us that we are not spending enough on the asset investment program and that debt is too high. Mr E.S. Ripper : No; wrong priorities is what I am putting to you—pet projects while you can’t provide lights in the Pilbara! Mr C.C. PORTER : The Leader of the Opposition then asks us what we are going to build and what we are not going to build. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.C. PORTER : The average annual spend under the previous government was $3.2 billion. The average annual spend under this government in the asset investment program is $6.6 billion. Mr B.J. Grylls : Double! Mr C.C. PORTER : Double what the previous government spent, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands in this place and asks a question with the clear inference that we are not spending enough on our asset investment program. How could that possibly be right? It is not right. We are obviously looking at debt with a very keen eye and managing that issue. But, yes, there are very strong demands. The total spend of this government that we envisage over the six years and out to 2013–14 in the asset investment program is $39.3 billion. The spend over the seven years of the previous government was $22.2 billion, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands and puts to us that we are not spending enough on the assets of the state. Ridiculous!
Mr C.C. PORTER : Let me just show the house a bar graph on the asset investment program of this government compared with the program of the last government, keeping in mind that the Leader of the Opposition’s contention is that we are cutting back somehow an asset investment in infrastructure. The bar graph that I am holding up to show members represents the previous government’s program. Members will see a black line, and after that black line the bar graph represent the asset investment and infrastructure program of this government. Mr M. McGowan : Table the document. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am very happy to table it. Members will note that the average annual spend in the asset investment program under the previous government was $3.2 billion. Mr E.S. Ripper : What was the debt you inherited? Mr C.C. PORTER : The Leader of the Opposition is asking us whether we will meet the rapid increase in demand for infrastructure spending in this state. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s what I am asking you. Mr C.C. PORTER : Within reason, within parameters and with a keen eye to debt, yes, we will. The reason our debt is higher than the former government’s debt is that we are spending far more than the former government ever did on asset investment programs. The Leader of the Opposition gets up in this place and tries to put to us that we are not spending enough on the asset investment program and that debt is too high. Mr E.S. Ripper : No; wrong priorities is what I am putting to you—pet projects while you can’t provide lights in the Pilbara! Mr C.C. PORTER : The Leader of the Opposition then asks us what we are going to build and what we are not going to build. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.C. PORTER : The average annual spend under the previous government was $3.2 billion. The average annual spend under this government in the asset investment program is $6.6 billion. Mr B.J. Grylls : Double! Mr C.C. PORTER : Double what the previous government spent, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands in this place and asks a question with the clear inference that we are not spending enough on our asset investment program. How could that possibly be right? It is not right. We are obviously looking at debt with a very keen eye and managing that issue. But, yes, there are very strong demands. The total spend of this government that we envisage over the six years and out to 2013–14 in the asset investment program is $39.3 billion. The spend over the seven years of the previous government was $22.2 billion, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands and puts to us that we are not spending enough on the assets of the state. Ridiculous!
Mr M. McGowan : Table the document. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am very happy to table it. Members will note that the average annual spend in the asset investment program under the previous government was $3.2 billion. Mr E.S. Ripper : What was the debt you inherited? Mr C.C. PORTER : The Leader of the Opposition is asking us whether we will meet the rapid increase in demand for infrastructure spending in this state. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s what I am asking you. Mr C.C. PORTER : Within reason, within parameters and with a keen eye to debt, yes, we will. The reason our debt is higher than the former government’s debt is that we are spending far more than the former government ever did on asset investment programs. The Leader of the Opposition gets up in this place and tries to put to us that we are not spending enough on the asset investment program and that debt is too high. Mr E.S. Ripper : No; wrong priorities is what I am putting to you—pet projects while you can’t provide lights in the Pilbara! Mr C.C. PORTER : The Leader of the Opposition then asks us what we are going to build and what we are not going to build. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.C. PORTER : The average annual spend under the previous government was $3.2 billion. The average annual spend under this government in the asset investment program is $6.6 billion. Mr B.J. Grylls : Double! Mr C.C. PORTER : Double what the previous government spent, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands in this place and asks a question with the clear inference that we are not spending enough on our asset investment program. How could that possibly be right? It is not right. We are obviously looking at debt with a very keen eye and managing that issue. But, yes, there are very strong demands. The total spend of this government that we envisage over the six years and out to 2013–14 in the asset investment program is $39.3 billion. The spend over the seven years of the previous government was $22.2 billion, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands and puts to us that we are not spending enough on the assets of the state. Ridiculous!
Mr C.C. PORTER : I am very happy to table it. Members will note that the average annual spend in the asset investment program under the previous government was $3.2 billion. Mr E.S. Ripper : What was the debt you inherited? Mr C.C. PORTER : The Leader of the Opposition is asking us whether we will meet the rapid increase in demand for infrastructure spending in this state. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s what I am asking you. Mr C.C. PORTER : Within reason, within parameters and with a keen eye to debt, yes, we will. The reason our debt is higher than the former government’s debt is that we are spending far more than the former government ever did on asset investment programs. The Leader of the Opposition gets up in this place and tries to put to us that we are not spending enough on the asset investment program and that debt is too high. Mr E.S. Ripper : No; wrong priorities is what I am putting to you—pet projects while you can’t provide lights in the Pilbara! Mr C.C. PORTER : The Leader of the Opposition then asks us what we are going to build and what we are not going to build. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.C. PORTER : The average annual spend under the previous government was $3.2 billion. The average annual spend under this government in the asset investment program is $6.6 billion. Mr B.J. Grylls : Double! Mr C.C. PORTER : Double what the previous government spent, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands in this place and asks a question with the clear inference that we are not spending enough on our asset investment program. How could that possibly be right? It is not right. We are obviously looking at debt with a very keen eye and managing that issue. But, yes, there are very strong demands. The total spend of this government that we envisage over the six years and out to 2013–14 in the asset investment program is $39.3 billion. The spend over the seven years of the previous government was $22.2 billion, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands and puts to us that we are not spending enough on the assets of the state. Ridiculous!
Mr E.S. Ripper : What was the debt you inherited? Mr C.C. PORTER : The Leader of the Opposition is asking us whether we will meet the rapid increase in demand for infrastructure spending in this state. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s what I am asking you. Mr C.C. PORTER : Within reason, within parameters and with a keen eye to debt, yes, we will. The reason our debt is higher than the former government’s debt is that we are spending far more than the former government ever did on asset investment programs. The Leader of the Opposition gets up in this place and tries to put to us that we are not spending enough on the asset investment program and that debt is too high. Mr E.S. Ripper : No; wrong priorities is what I am putting to you—pet projects while you can’t provide lights in the Pilbara! Mr C.C. PORTER : The Leader of the Opposition then asks us what we are going to build and what we are not going to build. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.C. PORTER : The average annual spend under the previous government was $3.2 billion. The average annual spend under this government in the asset investment program is $6.6 billion. Mr B.J. Grylls : Double! Mr C.C. PORTER : Double what the previous government spent, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands in this place and asks a question with the clear inference that we are not spending enough on our asset investment program. How could that possibly be right? It is not right. We are obviously looking at debt with a very keen eye and managing that issue. But, yes, there are very strong demands. The total spend of this government that we envisage over the six years and out to 2013–14 in the asset investment program is $39.3 billion. The spend over the seven years of the previous government was $22.2 billion, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands and puts to us that we are not spending enough on the assets of the state. Ridiculous!
Mr C.C. PORTER : The Leader of the Opposition is asking us whether we will meet the rapid increase in demand for infrastructure spending in this state. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s what I am asking you. Mr C.C. PORTER : Within reason, within parameters and with a keen eye to debt, yes, we will. The reason our debt is higher than the former government’s debt is that we are spending far more than the former government ever did on asset investment programs. The Leader of the Opposition gets up in this place and tries to put to us that we are not spending enough on the asset investment program and that debt is too high. Mr E.S. Ripper : No; wrong priorities is what I am putting to you—pet projects while you can’t provide lights in the Pilbara! Mr C.C. PORTER : The Leader of the Opposition then asks us what we are going to build and what we are not going to build. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.C. PORTER : The average annual spend under the previous government was $3.2 billion. The average annual spend under this government in the asset investment program is $6.6 billion. Mr B.J. Grylls : Double! Mr C.C. PORTER : Double what the previous government spent, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands in this place and asks a question with the clear inference that we are not spending enough on our asset investment program. How could that possibly be right? It is not right. We are obviously looking at debt with a very keen eye and managing that issue. But, yes, there are very strong demands. The total spend of this government that we envisage over the six years and out to 2013–14 in the asset investment program is $39.3 billion. The spend over the seven years of the previous government was $22.2 billion, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands and puts to us that we are not spending enough on the assets of the state. Ridiculous!
Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s what I am asking you. Mr C.C. PORTER : Within reason, within parameters and with a keen eye to debt, yes, we will. The reason our debt is higher than the former government’s debt is that we are spending far more than the former government ever did on asset investment programs. The Leader of the Opposition gets up in this place and tries to put to us that we are not spending enough on the asset investment program and that debt is too high. Mr E.S. Ripper : No; wrong priorities is what I am putting to you—pet projects while you can’t provide lights in the Pilbara! Mr C.C. PORTER : The Leader of the Opposition then asks us what we are going to build and what we are not going to build. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.C. PORTER : The average annual spend under the previous government was $3.2 billion. The average annual spend under this government in the asset investment program is $6.6 billion. Mr B.J. Grylls : Double! Mr C.C. PORTER : Double what the previous government spent, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands in this place and asks a question with the clear inference that we are not spending enough on our asset investment program. How could that possibly be right? It is not right. We are obviously looking at debt with a very keen eye and managing that issue. But, yes, there are very strong demands. The total spend of this government that we envisage over the six years and out to 2013–14 in the asset investment program is $39.3 billion. The spend over the seven years of the previous government was $22.2 billion, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands and puts to us that we are not spending enough on the assets of the state. Ridiculous!
Mr C.C. PORTER : Within reason, within parameters and with a keen eye to debt, yes, we will. The reason our debt is higher than the former government’s debt is that we are spending far more than the former government ever did on asset investment programs. The Leader of the Opposition gets up in this place and tries to put to us that we are not spending enough on the asset investment program and that debt is too high. Mr E.S. Ripper : No; wrong priorities is what I am putting to you—pet projects while you can’t provide lights in the Pilbara! Mr C.C. PORTER : The Leader of the Opposition then asks us what we are going to build and what we are not going to build. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.C. PORTER : The average annual spend under the previous government was $3.2 billion. The average annual spend under this government in the asset investment program is $6.6 billion. Mr B.J. Grylls : Double! Mr C.C. PORTER : Double what the previous government spent, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands in this place and asks a question with the clear inference that we are not spending enough on our asset investment program. How could that possibly be right? It is not right. We are obviously looking at debt with a very keen eye and managing that issue. But, yes, there are very strong demands. The total spend of this government that we envisage over the six years and out to 2013–14 in the asset investment program is $39.3 billion. The spend over the seven years of the previous government was $22.2 billion, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands and puts to us that we are not spending enough on the assets of the state. Ridiculous!
Mr E.S. Ripper : No; wrong priorities is what I am putting to you—pet projects while you can’t provide lights in the Pilbara! Mr C.C. PORTER : The Leader of the Opposition then asks us what we are going to build and what we are not going to build. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.C. PORTER : The average annual spend under the previous government was $3.2 billion. The average annual spend under this government in the asset investment program is $6.6 billion. Mr B.J. Grylls : Double! Mr C.C. PORTER : Double what the previous government spent, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands in this place and asks a question with the clear inference that we are not spending enough on our asset investment program. How could that possibly be right? It is not right. We are obviously looking at debt with a very keen eye and managing that issue. But, yes, there are very strong demands. The total spend of this government that we envisage over the six years and out to 2013–14 in the asset investment program is $39.3 billion. The spend over the seven years of the previous government was $22.2 billion, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands and puts to us that we are not spending enough on the assets of the state. Ridiculous!
Mr C.C. PORTER : The Leader of the Opposition then asks us what we are going to build and what we are not going to build. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.C. PORTER : The average annual spend under the previous government was $3.2 billion. The average annual spend under this government in the asset investment program is $6.6 billion. Mr B.J. Grylls : Double! Mr C.C. PORTER : Double what the previous government spent, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands in this place and asks a question with the clear inference that we are not spending enough on our asset investment program. How could that possibly be right? It is not right. We are obviously looking at debt with a very keen eye and managing that issue. But, yes, there are very strong demands. The total spend of this government that we envisage over the six years and out to 2013–14 in the asset investment program is $39.3 billion. The spend over the seven years of the previous government was $22.2 billion, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands and puts to us that we are not spending enough on the assets of the state. Ridiculous!
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.C. PORTER : The average annual spend under the previous government was $3.2 billion. The average annual spend under this government in the asset investment program is $6.6 billion. Mr B.J. Grylls : Double! Mr C.C. PORTER : Double what the previous government spent, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands in this place and asks a question with the clear inference that we are not spending enough on our asset investment program. How could that possibly be right? It is not right. We are obviously looking at debt with a very keen eye and managing that issue. But, yes, there are very strong demands. The total spend of this government that we envisage over the six years and out to 2013–14 in the asset investment program is $39.3 billion. The spend over the seven years of the previous government was $22.2 billion, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands and puts to us that we are not spending enough on the assets of the state. Ridiculous!
The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.C. PORTER : The average annual spend under the previous government was $3.2 billion. The average annual spend under this government in the asset investment program is $6.6 billion. Mr B.J. Grylls : Double! Mr C.C. PORTER : Double what the previous government spent, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands in this place and asks a question with the clear inference that we are not spending enough on our asset investment program. How could that possibly be right? It is not right. We are obviously looking at debt with a very keen eye and managing that issue. But, yes, there are very strong demands. The total spend of this government that we envisage over the six years and out to 2013–14 in the asset investment program is $39.3 billion. The spend over the seven years of the previous government was $22.2 billion, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands and puts to us that we are not spending enough on the assets of the state. Ridiculous!
Mr C.C. PORTER : The average annual spend under the previous government was $3.2 billion. The average annual spend under this government in the asset investment program is $6.6 billion. Mr B.J. Grylls : Double! Mr C.C. PORTER : Double what the previous government spent, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands in this place and asks a question with the clear inference that we are not spending enough on our asset investment program. How could that possibly be right? It is not right. We are obviously looking at debt with a very keen eye and managing that issue. But, yes, there are very strong demands. The total spend of this government that we envisage over the six years and out to 2013–14 in the asset investment program is $39.3 billion. The spend over the seven years of the previous government was $22.2 billion, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands and puts to us that we are not spending enough on the assets of the state. Ridiculous!
Mr B.J. Grylls : Double! Mr C.C. PORTER : Double what the previous government spent, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands in this place and asks a question with the clear inference that we are not spending enough on our asset investment program. How could that possibly be right? It is not right. We are obviously looking at debt with a very keen eye and managing that issue. But, yes, there are very strong demands. The total spend of this government that we envisage over the six years and out to 2013–14 in the asset investment program is $39.3 billion. The spend over the seven years of the previous government was $22.2 billion, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands and puts to us that we are not spending enough on the assets of the state. Ridiculous!
Mr C.C. PORTER : Double what the previous government spent, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands in this place and asks a question with the clear inference that we are not spending enough on our asset investment program. How could that possibly be right? It is not right. We are obviously looking at debt with a very keen eye and managing that issue. But, yes, there are very strong demands. The total spend of this government that we envisage over the six years and out to 2013–14 in the asset investment program is $39.3 billion. The spend over the seven years of the previous government was $22.2 billion, yet the Leader of the Opposition stands and puts to us that we are not spending enough on the assets of the state. Ridiculous!
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.