❓ Hon Adele Farina questions the Gallop Government on rural road expenditure. Hon Kim Chance responds, stating that the Gallop Government has spent more on country roads than the previous coalition government, providing figures to support this claim.
AnsweredQoN 1252Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
(1) Has state expenditure on rural roads declined during the term of the Gallop Government? (2) If so, what is the extent of and the reason for that decline? (3) If no to (1), what is the accurate commitment of state funds to country roads by the Gallop Government, and how does the figure compare with that of the former coalition Government? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
I thank Hon Adele Farina for her incisive questions. (1)-(3) As it happens - Hon Simon O’Brien: You’ve got to hand it to her - she never bothers the House unless she has nothing to say. Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Simon O’Brien - Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! The Leader of the House has the call. Hon Simon O’Brien: One dorothy dix for a year: that’s it. The PRESIDENT: Hon Simon O’Brien is not the Leader of the House just yet. Hon KIM CHANCE: Not just yet. However, I am sure that Hon Simon O’Brien will be fascinated by this answer and I encourage him to listen. As it happens, in my role as a regional minister I recently sought advice on spending on country roads, which is, of course, essential to the social and economic wellbeing of not only the regions in my electorate but also all country Western Australia. The result of that inquiry was somewhat surprising. It was surprising partly because of the continual bleating we hear from members on the other side when they roam around the regions that the Gallop Government has actually cut country road funding. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! The Leader of the House need not encourage interjections; the interjectors are quite capable by themselves. Hon KIM CHANCE: In fact, the reverse is true. The Gallop Government is spending more on country roads than did the coalition. So that I can provide members with the figures and their context, to determine the comparative spending levels, I sought details of state funding of rural roads of all categories for the years 1996-97 to the present. I chose those years, first, to minimise the impact of changes in consumer price index - I wanted a fairly narrow band - and, secondly, to ensure that all the years analysed were post-introduction of the 1995 additional funds program, because it would have been unfair to go back beyond 1995. To have done otherwise would not have provided an apples with apples comparison. Funding levels in the coalition years were $270 million in 1996-97; $229 million in 1997-98; $225.2 million in 1998-99; and $291.2 million in 1999-2000. That is an average of $253.85 million per annum. Funding levels for the Gallop Government years, including the estimates for the 2003-04 financial year, were $276.9 million in 2001-02; $270.3 million in 2002-03; and $264.2 million in 2003-04. That is an average of $273.8 million per annum. Hon Norman Moore: Can you give us the source of those figures? Hon KIM CHANCE: The source of my figures was the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure. However, I am sure they are verifiable from the budget. State expenditure on rural roads has not declined during the term of the Gallop Government. Hon Murray Criddle: Mainly because we put the contracts in place. Hon KIM CHANCE: There is an addition, but that is the truth. In fact, average spending in the period 2001-02 to 2003-04 is $20 million per annum higher than during the years 1996-97 to 1999-2000 in the term of the coalition Government.
(2) If so, what is the extent of and the reason for that decline? (3) If no to (1), what is the accurate commitment of state funds to country roads by the Gallop Government, and how does the figure compare with that of the former coalition Government? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank Hon Adele Farina for her incisive questions. (1)-(3) As it happens - Hon Simon O’Brien: You’ve got to hand it to her - she never bothers the House unless she has nothing to say. Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Simon O’Brien - Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! The Leader of the House has the call. Hon Simon O’Brien: One dorothy dix for a year: that’s it. The PRESIDENT: Hon Simon O’Brien is not the Leader of the House just yet. Hon KIM CHANCE: Not just yet. However, I am sure that Hon Simon O’Brien will be fascinated by this answer and I encourage him to listen. As it happens, in my role as a regional minister I recently sought advice on spending on country roads, which is, of course, essential to the social and economic wellbeing of not only the regions in my electorate but also all country Western Australia. The result of that inquiry was somewhat surprising. It was surprising partly because of the continual bleating we hear from members on the other side when they roam around the regions that the Gallop Government has actually cut country road funding. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! The Leader of the House need not encourage interjections; the interjectors are quite capable by themselves. Hon KIM CHANCE: In fact, the reverse is true. The Gallop Government is spending more on country roads than did the coalition. So that I can provide members with the figures and their context, to determine the comparative spending levels, I sought details of state funding of rural roads of all categories for the years 1996-97 to the present. I chose those years, first, to minimise the impact of changes in consumer price index - I wanted a fairly narrow band - and, secondly, to ensure that all the years analysed were post-introduction of the 1995 additional funds program, because it would have been unfair to go back beyond 1995. To have done otherwise would not have provided an apples with apples comparison. Funding levels in the coalition years were $270 million in 1996-97; $229 million in 1997-98; $225.2 million in 1998-99; and $291.2 million in 1999-2000. That is an average of $253.85 million per annum. Funding levels for the Gallop Government years, including the estimates for the 2003-04 financial year, were $276.9 million in 2001-02; $270.3 million in 2002-03; and $264.2 million in 2003-04. That is an average of $273.8 million per annum. Hon Norman Moore: Can you give us the source of those figures? Hon KIM CHANCE: The source of my figures was the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure. However, I am sure they are verifiable from the budget. State expenditure on rural roads has not declined during the term of the Gallop Government. Hon Murray Criddle: Mainly because we put the contracts in place. Hon KIM CHANCE: There is an addition, but that is the truth. In fact, average spending in the period 2001-02 to 2003-04 is $20 million per annum higher than during the years 1996-97 to 1999-2000 in the term of the coalition Government.
(3) If no to (1), what is the accurate commitment of state funds to country roads by the Gallop Government, and how does the figure compare with that of the former coalition Government? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank Hon Adele Farina for her incisive questions. (1)-(3) As it happens - Hon Simon O’Brien: You’ve got to hand it to her - she never bothers the House unless she has nothing to say. Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Simon O’Brien - Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! The Leader of the House has the call. Hon Simon O’Brien: One dorothy dix for a year: that’s it. The PRESIDENT: Hon Simon O’Brien is not the Leader of the House just yet. Hon KIM CHANCE: Not just yet. However, I am sure that Hon Simon O’Brien will be fascinated by this answer and I encourage him to listen. As it happens, in my role as a regional minister I recently sought advice on spending on country roads, which is, of course, essential to the social and economic wellbeing of not only the regions in my electorate but also all country Western Australia. The result of that inquiry was somewhat surprising. It was surprising partly because of the continual bleating we hear from members on the other side when they roam around the regions that the Gallop Government has actually cut country road funding. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! The Leader of the House need not encourage interjections; the interjectors are quite capable by themselves. Hon KIM CHANCE: In fact, the reverse is true. The Gallop Government is spending more on country roads than did the coalition. So that I can provide members with the figures and their context, to determine the comparative spending levels, I sought details of state funding of rural roads of all categories for the years 1996-97 to the present. I chose those years, first, to minimise the impact of changes in consumer price index - I wanted a fairly narrow band - and, secondly, to ensure that all the years analysed were post-introduction of the 1995 additional funds program, because it would have been unfair to go back beyond 1995. To have done otherwise would not have provided an apples with apples comparison. Funding levels in the coalition years were $270 million in 1996-97; $229 million in 1997-98; $225.2 million in 1998-99; and $291.2 million in 1999-2000. That is an average of $253.85 million per annum. Funding levels for the Gallop Government years, including the estimates for the 2003-04 financial year, were $276.9 million in 2001-02; $270.3 million in 2002-03; and $264.2 million in 2003-04. That is an average of $273.8 million per annum. Hon Norman Moore: Can you give us the source of those figures? Hon KIM CHANCE: The source of my figures was the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure. However, I am sure they are verifiable from the budget. State expenditure on rural roads has not declined during the term of the Gallop Government. Hon Murray Criddle: Mainly because we put the contracts in place. Hon KIM CHANCE: There is an addition, but that is the truth. In fact, average spending in the period 2001-02 to 2003-04 is $20 million per annum higher than during the years 1996-97 to 1999-2000 in the term of the coalition Government.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank Hon Adele Farina for her incisive questions. (1)-(3) As it happens - Hon Simon O’Brien: You’ve got to hand it to her - she never bothers the House unless she has nothing to say. Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Simon O’Brien - Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! The Leader of the House has the call. Hon Simon O’Brien: One dorothy dix for a year: that’s it. The PRESIDENT: Hon Simon O’Brien is not the Leader of the House just yet. Hon KIM CHANCE: Not just yet. However, I am sure that Hon Simon O’Brien will be fascinated by this answer and I encourage him to listen. As it happens, in my role as a regional minister I recently sought advice on spending on country roads, which is, of course, essential to the social and economic wellbeing of not only the regions in my electorate but also all country Western Australia. The result of that inquiry was somewhat surprising. It was surprising partly because of the continual bleating we hear from members on the other side when they roam around the regions that the Gallop Government has actually cut country road funding. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! The Leader of the House need not encourage interjections; the interjectors are quite capable by themselves. Hon KIM CHANCE: In fact, the reverse is true. The Gallop Government is spending more on country roads than did the coalition. So that I can provide members with the figures and their context, to determine the comparative spending levels, I sought details of state funding of rural roads of all categories for the years 1996-97 to the present. I chose those years, first, to minimise the impact of changes in consumer price index - I wanted a fairly narrow band - and, secondly, to ensure that all the years analysed were post-introduction of the 1995 additional funds program, because it would have been unfair to go back beyond 1995. To have done otherwise would not have provided an apples with apples comparison. Funding levels in the coalition years were $270 million in 1996-97; $229 million in 1997-98; $225.2 million in 1998-99; and $291.2 million in 1999-2000. That is an average of $253.85 million per annum. Funding levels for the Gallop Government years, including the estimates for the 2003-04 financial year, were $276.9 million in 2001-02; $270.3 million in 2002-03; and $264.2 million in 2003-04. That is an average of $273.8 million per annum. Hon Norman Moore: Can you give us the source of those figures? Hon KIM CHANCE: The source of my figures was the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure. However, I am sure they are verifiable from the budget. State expenditure on rural roads has not declined during the term of the Gallop Government. Hon Murray Criddle: Mainly because we put the contracts in place. Hon KIM CHANCE: There is an addition, but that is the truth. In fact, average spending in the period 2001-02 to 2003-04 is $20 million per annum higher than during the years 1996-97 to 1999-2000 in the term of the coalition Government.
I thank Hon Adele Farina for her incisive questions. (1)-(3) As it happens - Hon Simon O’Brien: You’ve got to hand it to her - she never bothers the House unless she has nothing to say. Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Simon O’Brien - Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! The Leader of the House has the call. Hon Simon O’Brien: One dorothy dix for a year: that’s it. The PRESIDENT: Hon Simon O’Brien is not the Leader of the House just yet. Hon KIM CHANCE: Not just yet. However, I am sure that Hon Simon O’Brien will be fascinated by this answer and I encourage him to listen. As it happens, in my role as a regional minister I recently sought advice on spending on country roads, which is, of course, essential to the social and economic wellbeing of not only the regions in my electorate but also all country Western Australia. The result of that inquiry was somewhat surprising. It was surprising partly because of the continual bleating we hear from members on the other side when they roam around the regions that the Gallop Government has actually cut country road funding. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! The Leader of the House need not encourage interjections; the interjectors are quite capable by themselves. Hon KIM CHANCE: In fact, the reverse is true. The Gallop Government is spending more on country roads than did the coalition. So that I can provide members with the figures and their context, to determine the comparative spending levels, I sought details of state funding of rural roads of all categories for the years 1996-97 to the present. I chose those years, first, to minimise the impact of changes in consumer price index - I wanted a fairly narrow band - and, secondly, to ensure that all the years analysed were post-introduction of the 1995 additional funds program, because it would have been unfair to go back beyond 1995. To have done otherwise would not have provided an apples with apples comparison. Funding levels in the coalition years were $270 million in 1996-97; $229 million in 1997-98; $225.2 million in 1998-99; and $291.2 million in 1999-2000. That is an average of $253.85 million per annum. Funding levels for the Gallop Government years, including the estimates for the 2003-04 financial year, were $276.9 million in 2001-02; $270.3 million in 2002-03; and $264.2 million in 2003-04. That is an average of $273.8 million per annum. Hon Norman Moore: Can you give us the source of those figures? Hon KIM CHANCE: The source of my figures was the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure. However, I am sure they are verifiable from the budget. State expenditure on rural roads has not declined during the term of the Gallop Government. Hon Murray Criddle: Mainly because we put the contracts in place. Hon KIM CHANCE: There is an addition, but that is the truth. In fact, average spending in the period 2001-02 to 2003-04 is $20 million per annum higher than during the years 1996-97 to 1999-2000 in the term of the coalition Government.
(1)-(3) As it happens - Hon Simon O’Brien: You’ve got to hand it to her - she never bothers the House unless she has nothing to say. Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Simon O’Brien - Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! The Leader of the House has the call. Hon Simon O’Brien: One dorothy dix for a year: that’s it. The PRESIDENT: Hon Simon O’Brien is not the Leader of the House just yet. Hon KIM CHANCE: Not just yet. However, I am sure that Hon Simon O’Brien will be fascinated by this answer and I encourage him to listen. As it happens, in my role as a regional minister I recently sought advice on spending on country roads, which is, of course, essential to the social and economic wellbeing of not only the regions in my electorate but also all country Western Australia. The result of that inquiry was somewhat surprising. It was surprising partly because of the continual bleating we hear from members on the other side when they roam around the regions that the Gallop Government has actually cut country road funding. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! The Leader of the House need not encourage interjections; the interjectors are quite capable by themselves. Hon KIM CHANCE: In fact, the reverse is true. The Gallop Government is spending more on country roads than did the coalition. So that I can provide members with the figures and their context, to determine the comparative spending levels, I sought details of state funding of rural roads of all categories for the years 1996-97 to the present. I chose those years, first, to minimise the impact of changes in consumer price index - I wanted a fairly narrow band - and, secondly, to ensure that all the years analysed were post-introduction of the 1995 additional funds program, because it would have been unfair to go back beyond 1995. To have done otherwise would not have provided an apples with apples comparison. Funding levels in the coalition years were $270 million in 1996-97; $229 million in 1997-98; $225.2 million in 1998-99; and $291.2 million in 1999-2000. That is an average of $253.85 million per annum. Funding levels for the Gallop Government years, including the estimates for the 2003-04 financial year, were $276.9 million in 2001-02; $270.3 million in 2002-03; and $264.2 million in 2003-04. That is an average of $273.8 million per annum. Hon Norman Moore: Can you give us the source of those figures? Hon KIM CHANCE: The source of my figures was the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure. However, I am sure they are verifiable from the budget. State expenditure on rural roads has not declined during the term of the Gallop Government. Hon Murray Criddle: Mainly because we put the contracts in place. Hon KIM CHANCE: There is an addition, but that is the truth. In fact, average spending in the period 2001-02 to 2003-04 is $20 million per annum higher than during the years 1996-97 to 1999-2000 in the term of the coalition Government.
Hon Simon O’Brien: You’ve got to hand it to her - she never bothers the House unless she has nothing to say. Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Simon O’Brien - Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! The Leader of the House has the call. Hon Simon O’Brien: One dorothy dix for a year: that’s it. The PRESIDENT: Hon Simon O’Brien is not the Leader of the House just yet. Hon KIM CHANCE: Not just yet. However, I am sure that Hon Simon O’Brien will be fascinated by this answer and I encourage him to listen. As it happens, in my role as a regional minister I recently sought advice on spending on country roads, which is, of course, essential to the social and economic wellbeing of not only the regions in my electorate but also all country Western Australia. The result of that inquiry was somewhat surprising. It was surprising partly because of the continual bleating we hear from members on the other side when they roam around the regions that the Gallop Government has actually cut country road funding. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! The Leader of the House need not encourage interjections; the interjectors are quite capable by themselves. Hon KIM CHANCE: In fact, the reverse is true. The Gallop Government is spending more on country roads than did the coalition. So that I can provide members with the figures and their context, to determine the comparative spending levels, I sought details of state funding of rural roads of all categories for the years 1996-97 to the present. I chose those years, first, to minimise the impact of changes in consumer price index - I wanted a fairly narrow band - and, secondly, to ensure that all the years analysed were post-introduction of the 1995 additional funds program, because it would have been unfair to go back beyond 1995. To have done otherwise would not have provided an apples with apples comparison. Funding levels in the coalition years were $270 million in 1996-97; $229 million in 1997-98; $225.2 million in 1998-99; and $291.2 million in 1999-2000. That is an average of $253.85 million per annum. Funding levels for the Gallop Government years, including the estimates for the 2003-04 financial year, were $276.9 million in 2001-02; $270.3 million in 2002-03; and $264.2 million in 2003-04. That is an average of $273.8 million per annum. Hon Norman Moore: Can you give us the source of those figures? Hon KIM CHANCE: The source of my figures was the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure. However, I am sure they are verifiable from the budget. State expenditure on rural roads has not declined during the term of the Gallop Government. Hon Murray Criddle: Mainly because we put the contracts in place. Hon KIM CHANCE: There is an addition, but that is the truth. In fact, average spending in the period 2001-02 to 2003-04 is $20 million per annum higher than during the years 1996-97 to 1999-2000 in the term of the coalition Government.
Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Simon O’Brien - Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! The Leader of the House has the call. Hon Simon O’Brien: One dorothy dix for a year: that’s it. The PRESIDENT: Hon Simon O’Brien is not the Leader of the House just yet. Hon KIM CHANCE: Not just yet. However, I am sure that Hon Simon O’Brien will be fascinated by this answer and I encourage him to listen. As it happens, in my role as a regional minister I recently sought advice on spending on country roads, which is, of course, essential to the social and economic wellbeing of not only the regions in my electorate but also all country Western Australia. The result of that inquiry was somewhat surprising. It was surprising partly because of the continual bleating we hear from members on the other side when they roam around the regions that the Gallop Government has actually cut country road funding. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! The Leader of the House need not encourage interjections; the interjectors are quite capable by themselves. Hon KIM CHANCE: In fact, the reverse is true. The Gallop Government is spending more on country roads than did the coalition. So that I can provide members with the figures and their context, to determine the comparative spending levels, I sought details of state funding of rural roads of all categories for the years 1996-97 to the present. I chose those years, first, to minimise the impact of changes in consumer price index - I wanted a fairly narrow band - and, secondly, to ensure that all the years analysed were post-introduction of the 1995 additional funds program, because it would have been unfair to go back beyond 1995. To have done otherwise would not have provided an apples with apples comparison. Funding levels in the coalition years were $270 million in 1996-97; $229 million in 1997-98; $225.2 million in 1998-99; and $291.2 million in 1999-2000. That is an average of $253.85 million per annum. Funding levels for the Gallop Government years, including the estimates for the 2003-04 financial year, were $276.9 million in 2001-02; $270.3 million in 2002-03; and $264.2 million in 2003-04. That is an average of $273.8 million per annum. Hon Norman Moore: Can you give us the source of those figures? Hon KIM CHANCE: The source of my figures was the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure. However, I am sure they are verifiable from the budget. State expenditure on rural roads has not declined during the term of the Gallop Government. Hon Murray Criddle: Mainly because we put the contracts in place. Hon KIM CHANCE: There is an addition, but that is the truth. In fact, average spending in the period 2001-02 to 2003-04 is $20 million per annum higher than during the years 1996-97 to 1999-2000 in the term of the coalition Government.
Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! The Leader of the House has the call. Hon Simon O’Brien: One dorothy dix for a year: that’s it. The PRESIDENT: Hon Simon O’Brien is not the Leader of the House just yet. Hon KIM CHANCE: Not just yet. However, I am sure that Hon Simon O’Brien will be fascinated by this answer and I encourage him to listen. As it happens, in my role as a regional minister I recently sought advice on spending on country roads, which is, of course, essential to the social and economic wellbeing of not only the regions in my electorate but also all country Western Australia. The result of that inquiry was somewhat surprising. It was surprising partly because of the continual bleating we hear from members on the other side when they roam around the regions that the Gallop Government has actually cut country road funding. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! The Leader of the House need not encourage interjections; the interjectors are quite capable by themselves. Hon KIM CHANCE: In fact, the reverse is true. The Gallop Government is spending more on country roads than did the coalition. So that I can provide members with the figures and their context, to determine the comparative spending levels, I sought details of state funding of rural roads of all categories for the years 1996-97 to the present. I chose those years, first, to minimise the impact of changes in consumer price index - I wanted a fairly narrow band - and, secondly, to ensure that all the years analysed were post-introduction of the 1995 additional funds program, because it would have been unfair to go back beyond 1995. To have done otherwise would not have provided an apples with apples comparison. Funding levels in the coalition years were $270 million in 1996-97; $229 million in 1997-98; $225.2 million in 1998-99; and $291.2 million in 1999-2000. That is an average of $253.85 million per annum. Funding levels for the Gallop Government years, including the estimates for the 2003-04 financial year, were $276.9 million in 2001-02; $270.3 million in 2002-03; and $264.2 million in 2003-04. That is an average of $273.8 million per annum. Hon Norman Moore: Can you give us the source of those figures? Hon KIM CHANCE: The source of my figures was the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure. However, I am sure they are verifiable from the budget. State expenditure on rural roads has not declined during the term of the Gallop Government. Hon Murray Criddle: Mainly because we put the contracts in place. Hon KIM CHANCE: There is an addition, but that is the truth. In fact, average spending in the period 2001-02 to 2003-04 is $20 million per annum higher than during the years 1996-97 to 1999-2000 in the term of the coalition Government.
The PRESIDENT: Order! The Leader of the House has the call. Hon Simon O’Brien: One dorothy dix for a year: that’s it. The PRESIDENT: Hon Simon O’Brien is not the Leader of the House just yet. Hon KIM CHANCE: Not just yet. However, I am sure that Hon Simon O’Brien will be fascinated by this answer and I encourage him to listen. As it happens, in my role as a regional minister I recently sought advice on spending on country roads, which is, of course, essential to the social and economic wellbeing of not only the regions in my electorate but also all country Western Australia. The result of that inquiry was somewhat surprising. It was surprising partly because of the continual bleating we hear from members on the other side when they roam around the regions that the Gallop Government has actually cut country road funding. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! The Leader of the House need not encourage interjections; the interjectors are quite capable by themselves. Hon KIM CHANCE: In fact, the reverse is true. The Gallop Government is spending more on country roads than did the coalition. So that I can provide members with the figures and their context, to determine the comparative spending levels, I sought details of state funding of rural roads of all categories for the years 1996-97 to the present. I chose those years, first, to minimise the impact of changes in consumer price index - I wanted a fairly narrow band - and, secondly, to ensure that all the years analysed were post-introduction of the 1995 additional funds program, because it would have been unfair to go back beyond 1995. To have done otherwise would not have provided an apples with apples comparison. Funding levels in the coalition years were $270 million in 1996-97; $229 million in 1997-98; $225.2 million in 1998-99; and $291.2 million in 1999-2000. That is an average of $253.85 million per annum. Funding levels for the Gallop Government years, including the estimates for the 2003-04 financial year, were $276.9 million in 2001-02; $270.3 million in 2002-03; and $264.2 million in 2003-04. That is an average of $273.8 million per annum. Hon Norman Moore: Can you give us the source of those figures? Hon KIM CHANCE: The source of my figures was the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure. However, I am sure they are verifiable from the budget. State expenditure on rural roads has not declined during the term of the Gallop Government. Hon Murray Criddle: Mainly because we put the contracts in place. Hon KIM CHANCE: There is an addition, but that is the truth. In fact, average spending in the period 2001-02 to 2003-04 is $20 million per annum higher than during the years 1996-97 to 1999-2000 in the term of the coalition Government.
Hon Simon O’Brien: One dorothy dix for a year: that’s it. The PRESIDENT: Hon Simon O’Brien is not the Leader of the House just yet. Hon KIM CHANCE: Not just yet. However, I am sure that Hon Simon O’Brien will be fascinated by this answer and I encourage him to listen. As it happens, in my role as a regional minister I recently sought advice on spending on country roads, which is, of course, essential to the social and economic wellbeing of not only the regions in my electorate but also all country Western Australia. The result of that inquiry was somewhat surprising. It was surprising partly because of the continual bleating we hear from members on the other side when they roam around the regions that the Gallop Government has actually cut country road funding. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! The Leader of the House need not encourage interjections; the interjectors are quite capable by themselves. Hon KIM CHANCE: In fact, the reverse is true. The Gallop Government is spending more on country roads than did the coalition. So that I can provide members with the figures and their context, to determine the comparative spending levels, I sought details of state funding of rural roads of all categories for the years 1996-97 to the present. I chose those years, first, to minimise the impact of changes in consumer price index - I wanted a fairly narrow band - and, secondly, to ensure that all the years analysed were post-introduction of the 1995 additional funds program, because it would have been unfair to go back beyond 1995. To have done otherwise would not have provided an apples with apples comparison. Funding levels in the coalition years were $270 million in 1996-97; $229 million in 1997-98; $225.2 million in 1998-99; and $291.2 million in 1999-2000. That is an average of $253.85 million per annum. Funding levels for the Gallop Government years, including the estimates for the 2003-04 financial year, were $276.9 million in 2001-02; $270.3 million in 2002-03; and $264.2 million in 2003-04. That is an average of $273.8 million per annum. Hon Norman Moore: Can you give us the source of those figures? Hon KIM CHANCE: The source of my figures was the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure. However, I am sure they are verifiable from the budget. State expenditure on rural roads has not declined during the term of the Gallop Government. Hon Murray Criddle: Mainly because we put the contracts in place. Hon KIM CHANCE: There is an addition, but that is the truth. In fact, average spending in the period 2001-02 to 2003-04 is $20 million per annum higher than during the years 1996-97 to 1999-2000 in the term of the coalition Government.
The PRESIDENT: Hon Simon O’Brien is not the Leader of the House just yet. Hon KIM CHANCE: Not just yet. However, I am sure that Hon Simon O’Brien will be fascinated by this answer and I encourage him to listen. As it happens, in my role as a regional minister I recently sought advice on spending on country roads, which is, of course, essential to the social and economic wellbeing of not only the regions in my electorate but also all country Western Australia. The result of that inquiry was somewhat surprising. It was surprising partly because of the continual bleating we hear from members on the other side when they roam around the regions that the Gallop Government has actually cut country road funding. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! The Leader of the House need not encourage interjections; the interjectors are quite capable by themselves. Hon KIM CHANCE: In fact, the reverse is true. The Gallop Government is spending more on country roads than did the coalition. So that I can provide members with the figures and their context, to determine the comparative spending levels, I sought details of state funding of rural roads of all categories for the years 1996-97 to the present. I chose those years, first, to minimise the impact of changes in consumer price index - I wanted a fairly narrow band - and, secondly, to ensure that all the years analysed were post-introduction of the 1995 additional funds program, because it would have been unfair to go back beyond 1995. To have done otherwise would not have provided an apples with apples comparison. Funding levels in the coalition years were $270 million in 1996-97; $229 million in 1997-98; $225.2 million in 1998-99; and $291.2 million in 1999-2000. That is an average of $253.85 million per annum. Funding levels for the Gallop Government years, including the estimates for the 2003-04 financial year, were $276.9 million in 2001-02; $270.3 million in 2002-03; and $264.2 million in 2003-04. That is an average of $273.8 million per annum. Hon Norman Moore: Can you give us the source of those figures? Hon KIM CHANCE: The source of my figures was the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure. However, I am sure they are verifiable from the budget. State expenditure on rural roads has not declined during the term of the Gallop Government. Hon Murray Criddle: Mainly because we put the contracts in place. Hon KIM CHANCE: There is an addition, but that is the truth. In fact, average spending in the period 2001-02 to 2003-04 is $20 million per annum higher than during the years 1996-97 to 1999-2000 in the term of the coalition Government.
Hon KIM CHANCE: Not just yet. However, I am sure that Hon Simon O’Brien will be fascinated by this answer and I encourage him to listen. As it happens, in my role as a regional minister I recently sought advice on spending on country roads, which is, of course, essential to the social and economic wellbeing of not only the regions in my electorate but also all country Western Australia. The result of that inquiry was somewhat surprising. It was surprising partly because of the continual bleating we hear from members on the other side when they roam around the regions that the Gallop Government has actually cut country road funding. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! The Leader of the House need not encourage interjections; the interjectors are quite capable by themselves. Hon KIM CHANCE: In fact, the reverse is true. The Gallop Government is spending more on country roads than did the coalition. So that I can provide members with the figures and their context, to determine the comparative spending levels, I sought details of state funding of rural roads of all categories for the years 1996-97 to the present. I chose those years, first, to minimise the impact of changes in consumer price index - I wanted a fairly narrow band - and, secondly, to ensure that all the years analysed were post-introduction of the 1995 additional funds program, because it would have been unfair to go back beyond 1995. To have done otherwise would not have provided an apples with apples comparison. Funding levels in the coalition years were $270 million in 1996-97; $229 million in 1997-98; $225.2 million in 1998-99; and $291.2 million in 1999-2000. That is an average of $253.85 million per annum. Funding levels for the Gallop Government years, including the estimates for the 2003-04 financial year, were $276.9 million in 2001-02; $270.3 million in 2002-03; and $264.2 million in 2003-04. That is an average of $273.8 million per annum. Hon Norman Moore: Can you give us the source of those figures? Hon KIM CHANCE: The source of my figures was the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure. However, I am sure they are verifiable from the budget. State expenditure on rural roads has not declined during the term of the Gallop Government. Hon Murray Criddle: Mainly because we put the contracts in place. Hon KIM CHANCE: There is an addition, but that is the truth. In fact, average spending in the period 2001-02 to 2003-04 is $20 million per annum higher than during the years 1996-97 to 1999-2000 in the term of the coalition Government.
As it happens, in my role as a regional minister I recently sought advice on spending on country roads, which is, of course, essential to the social and economic wellbeing of not only the regions in my electorate but also all country Western Australia. The result of that inquiry was somewhat surprising. It was surprising partly because of the continual bleating we hear from members on the other side when they roam around the regions that the Gallop Government has actually cut country road funding. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! The Leader of the House need not encourage interjections; the interjectors are quite capable by themselves. Hon KIM CHANCE: In fact, the reverse is true. The Gallop Government is spending more on country roads than did the coalition. So that I can provide members with the figures and their context, to determine the comparative spending levels, I sought details of state funding of rural roads of all categories for the years 1996-97 to the present. I chose those years, first, to minimise the impact of changes in consumer price index - I wanted a fairly narrow band - and, secondly, to ensure that all the years analysed were post-introduction of the 1995 additional funds program, because it would have been unfair to go back beyond 1995. To have done otherwise would not have provided an apples with apples comparison. Funding levels in the coalition years were $270 million in 1996-97; $229 million in 1997-98; $225.2 million in 1998-99; and $291.2 million in 1999-2000. That is an average of $253.85 million per annum. Funding levels for the Gallop Government years, including the estimates for the 2003-04 financial year, were $276.9 million in 2001-02; $270.3 million in 2002-03; and $264.2 million in 2003-04. That is an average of $273.8 million per annum. Hon Norman Moore: Can you give us the source of those figures? Hon KIM CHANCE: The source of my figures was the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure. However, I am sure they are verifiable from the budget. State expenditure on rural roads has not declined during the term of the Gallop Government. Hon Murray Criddle: Mainly because we put the contracts in place. Hon KIM CHANCE: There is an addition, but that is the truth. In fact, average spending in the period 2001-02 to 2003-04 is $20 million per annum higher than during the years 1996-97 to 1999-2000 in the term of the coalition Government.
Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! The Leader of the House need not encourage interjections; the interjectors are quite capable by themselves. Hon KIM CHANCE: In fact, the reverse is true. The Gallop Government is spending more on country roads than did the coalition. So that I can provide members with the figures and their context, to determine the comparative spending levels, I sought details of state funding of rural roads of all categories for the years 1996-97 to the present. I chose those years, first, to minimise the impact of changes in consumer price index - I wanted a fairly narrow band - and, secondly, to ensure that all the years analysed were post-introduction of the 1995 additional funds program, because it would have been unfair to go back beyond 1995. To have done otherwise would not have provided an apples with apples comparison. Funding levels in the coalition years were $270 million in 1996-97; $229 million in 1997-98; $225.2 million in 1998-99; and $291.2 million in 1999-2000. That is an average of $253.85 million per annum. Funding levels for the Gallop Government years, including the estimates for the 2003-04 financial year, were $276.9 million in 2001-02; $270.3 million in 2002-03; and $264.2 million in 2003-04. That is an average of $273.8 million per annum. Hon Norman Moore: Can you give us the source of those figures? Hon KIM CHANCE: The source of my figures was the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure. However, I am sure they are verifiable from the budget. State expenditure on rural roads has not declined during the term of the Gallop Government. Hon Murray Criddle: Mainly because we put the contracts in place. Hon KIM CHANCE: There is an addition, but that is the truth. In fact, average spending in the period 2001-02 to 2003-04 is $20 million per annum higher than during the years 1996-97 to 1999-2000 in the term of the coalition Government.
The PRESIDENT: Order! The Leader of the House need not encourage interjections; the interjectors are quite capable by themselves. Hon KIM CHANCE: In fact, the reverse is true. The Gallop Government is spending more on country roads than did the coalition. So that I can provide members with the figures and their context, to determine the comparative spending levels, I sought details of state funding of rural roads of all categories for the years 1996-97 to the present. I chose those years, first, to minimise the impact of changes in consumer price index - I wanted a fairly narrow band - and, secondly, to ensure that all the years analysed were post-introduction of the 1995 additional funds program, because it would have been unfair to go back beyond 1995. To have done otherwise would not have provided an apples with apples comparison. Funding levels in the coalition years were $270 million in 1996-97; $229 million in 1997-98; $225.2 million in 1998-99; and $291.2 million in 1999-2000. That is an average of $253.85 million per annum. Funding levels for the Gallop Government years, including the estimates for the 2003-04 financial year, were $276.9 million in 2001-02; $270.3 million in 2002-03; and $264.2 million in 2003-04. That is an average of $273.8 million per annum. Hon Norman Moore: Can you give us the source of those figures? Hon KIM CHANCE: The source of my figures was the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure. However, I am sure they are verifiable from the budget. State expenditure on rural roads has not declined during the term of the Gallop Government. Hon Murray Criddle: Mainly because we put the contracts in place. Hon KIM CHANCE: There is an addition, but that is the truth. In fact, average spending in the period 2001-02 to 2003-04 is $20 million per annum higher than during the years 1996-97 to 1999-2000 in the term of the coalition Government.
Hon KIM CHANCE: In fact, the reverse is true. The Gallop Government is spending more on country roads than did the coalition. So that I can provide members with the figures and their context, to determine the comparative spending levels, I sought details of state funding of rural roads of all categories for the years 1996-97 to the present. I chose those years, first, to minimise the impact of changes in consumer price index - I wanted a fairly narrow band - and, secondly, to ensure that all the years analysed were post-introduction of the 1995 additional funds program, because it would have been unfair to go back beyond 1995. To have done otherwise would not have provided an apples with apples comparison. Funding levels in the coalition years were $270 million in 1996-97; $229 million in 1997-98; $225.2 million in 1998-99; and $291.2 million in 1999-2000. That is an average of $253.85 million per annum. Funding levels for the Gallop Government years, including the estimates for the 2003-04 financial year, were $276.9 million in 2001-02; $270.3 million in 2002-03; and $264.2 million in 2003-04. That is an average of $273.8 million per annum. Hon Norman Moore: Can you give us the source of those figures? Hon KIM CHANCE: The source of my figures was the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure. However, I am sure they are verifiable from the budget. State expenditure on rural roads has not declined during the term of the Gallop Government. Hon Murray Criddle: Mainly because we put the contracts in place. Hon KIM CHANCE: There is an addition, but that is the truth. In fact, average spending in the period 2001-02 to 2003-04 is $20 million per annum higher than during the years 1996-97 to 1999-2000 in the term of the coalition Government.
Funding levels in the coalition years were $270 million in 1996-97; $229 million in 1997-98; $225.2 million in 1998-99; and $291.2 million in 1999-2000. That is an average of $253.85 million per annum. Funding levels for the Gallop Government years, including the estimates for the 2003-04 financial year, were $276.9 million in 2001-02; $270.3 million in 2002-03; and $264.2 million in 2003-04. That is an average of $273.8 million per annum. Hon Norman Moore: Can you give us the source of those figures? Hon KIM CHANCE: The source of my figures was the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure. However, I am sure they are verifiable from the budget. State expenditure on rural roads has not declined during the term of the Gallop Government. Hon Murray Criddle: Mainly because we put the contracts in place. Hon KIM CHANCE: There is an addition, but that is the truth. In fact, average spending in the period 2001-02 to 2003-04 is $20 million per annum higher than during the years 1996-97 to 1999-2000 in the term of the coalition Government.
Hon Norman Moore: Can you give us the source of those figures? Hon KIM CHANCE: The source of my figures was the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure. However, I am sure they are verifiable from the budget. State expenditure on rural roads has not declined during the term of the Gallop Government. Hon Murray Criddle: Mainly because we put the contracts in place. Hon KIM CHANCE: There is an addition, but that is the truth. In fact, average spending in the period 2001-02 to 2003-04 is $20 million per annum higher than during the years 1996-97 to 1999-2000 in the term of the coalition Government.
Hon KIM CHANCE: The source of my figures was the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure. However, I am sure they are verifiable from the budget. State expenditure on rural roads has not declined during the term of the Gallop Government. Hon Murray Criddle: Mainly because we put the contracts in place. Hon KIM CHANCE: There is an addition, but that is the truth. In fact, average spending in the period 2001-02 to 2003-04 is $20 million per annum higher than during the years 1996-97 to 1999-2000 in the term of the coalition Government.
Hon Murray Criddle: Mainly because we put the contracts in place. Hon KIM CHANCE: There is an addition, but that is the truth. In fact, average spending in the period 2001-02 to 2003-04 is $20 million per annum higher than during the years 1996-97 to 1999-2000 in the term of the coalition Government.
Hon KIM CHANCE: There is an addition, but that is the truth. In fact, average spending in the period 2001-02 to 2003-04 is $20 million per annum higher than during the years 1996-97 to 1999-2000 in the term of the coalition Government.
(2) If so, what is the extent of and the reason for that decline? (3) If no to (1), what is the accurate commitment of state funds to country roads by the Gallop Government, and how does the figure compare with that of the former coalition Government? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank Hon Adele Farina for her incisive questions. (1)-(3) As it happens - Hon Simon O’Brien: You’ve got to hand it to her - she never bothers the House unless she has nothing to say. Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Simon O’Brien - Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! The Leader of the House has the call. Hon Simon O’Brien: One dorothy dix for a year: that’s it. The PRESIDENT: Hon Simon O’Brien is not the Leader of the House just yet. Hon KIM CHANCE: Not just yet. However, I am sure that Hon Simon O’Brien will be fascinated by this answer and I encourage him to listen. As it happens, in my role as a regional minister I recently sought advice on spending on country roads, which is, of course, essential to the social and economic wellbeing of not only the regions in my electorate but also all country Western Australia. The result of that inquiry was somewhat surprising. It was surprising partly because of the continual bleating we hear from members on the other side when they roam around the regions that the Gallop Government has actually cut country road funding. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! The Leader of the House need not encourage interjections; the interjectors are quite capable by themselves. Hon KIM CHANCE: In fact, the reverse is true. The Gallop Government is spending more on country roads than did the coalition. So that I can provide members with the figures and their context, to determine the comparative spending levels, I sought details of state funding of rural roads of all categories for the years 1996-97 to the present. I chose those years, first, to minimise the impact of changes in consumer price index - I wanted a fairly narrow band - and, secondly, to ensure that all the years analysed were post-introduction of the 1995 additional funds program, because it would have been unfair to go back beyond 1995. To have done otherwise would not have provided an apples with apples comparison. Funding levels in the coalition years were $270 million in 1996-97; $229 million in 1997-98; $225.2 million in 1998-99; and $291.2 million in 1999-2000. That is an average of $253.85 million per annum. Funding levels for the Gallop Government years, including the estimates for the 2003-04 financial year, were $276.9 million in 2001-02; $270.3 million in 2002-03; and $264.2 million in 2003-04. That is an average of $273.8 million per annum. Hon Norman Moore: Can you give us the source of those figures? Hon KIM CHANCE: The source of my figures was the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure. However, I am sure they are verifiable from the budget. State expenditure on rural roads has not declined during the term of the Gallop Government. Hon Murray Criddle: Mainly because we put the contracts in place. Hon KIM CHANCE: There is an addition, but that is the truth. In fact, average spending in the period 2001-02 to 2003-04 is $20 million per annum higher than during the years 1996-97 to 1999-2000 in the term of the coalition Government.
(3) If no to (1), what is the accurate commitment of state funds to country roads by the Gallop Government, and how does the figure compare with that of the former coalition Government? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank Hon Adele Farina for her incisive questions. (1)-(3) As it happens - Hon Simon O’Brien: You’ve got to hand it to her - she never bothers the House unless she has nothing to say. Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Simon O’Brien - Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! The Leader of the House has the call. Hon Simon O’Brien: One dorothy dix for a year: that’s it. The PRESIDENT: Hon Simon O’Brien is not the Leader of the House just yet. Hon KIM CHANCE: Not just yet. However, I am sure that Hon Simon O’Brien will be fascinated by this answer and I encourage him to listen. As it happens, in my role as a regional minister I recently sought advice on spending on country roads, which is, of course, essential to the social and economic wellbeing of not only the regions in my electorate but also all country Western Australia. The result of that inquiry was somewhat surprising. It was surprising partly because of the continual bleating we hear from members on the other side when they roam around the regions that the Gallop Government has actually cut country road funding. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! The Leader of the House need not encourage interjections; the interjectors are quite capable by themselves. Hon KIM CHANCE: In fact, the reverse is true. The Gallop Government is spending more on country roads than did the coalition. So that I can provide members with the figures and their context, to determine the comparative spending levels, I sought details of state funding of rural roads of all categories for the years 1996-97 to the present. I chose those years, first, to minimise the impact of changes in consumer price index - I wanted a fairly narrow band - and, secondly, to ensure that all the years analysed were post-introduction of the 1995 additional funds program, because it would have been unfair to go back beyond 1995. To have done otherwise would not have provided an apples with apples comparison. Funding levels in the coalition years were $270 million in 1996-97; $229 million in 1997-98; $225.2 million in 1998-99; and $291.2 million in 1999-2000. That is an average of $253.85 million per annum. Funding levels for the Gallop Government years, including the estimates for the 2003-04 financial year, were $276.9 million in 2001-02; $270.3 million in 2002-03; and $264.2 million in 2003-04. That is an average of $273.8 million per annum. Hon Norman Moore: Can you give us the source of those figures? Hon KIM CHANCE: The source of my figures was the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure. However, I am sure they are verifiable from the budget. State expenditure on rural roads has not declined during the term of the Gallop Government. Hon Murray Criddle: Mainly because we put the contracts in place. Hon KIM CHANCE: There is an addition, but that is the truth. In fact, average spending in the period 2001-02 to 2003-04 is $20 million per annum higher than during the years 1996-97 to 1999-2000 in the term of the coalition Government.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank Hon Adele Farina for her incisive questions. (1)-(3) As it happens - Hon Simon O’Brien: You’ve got to hand it to her - she never bothers the House unless she has nothing to say. Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Simon O’Brien - Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! The Leader of the House has the call. Hon Simon O’Brien: One dorothy dix for a year: that’s it. The PRESIDENT: Hon Simon O’Brien is not the Leader of the House just yet. Hon KIM CHANCE: Not just yet. However, I am sure that Hon Simon O’Brien will be fascinated by this answer and I encourage him to listen. As it happens, in my role as a regional minister I recently sought advice on spending on country roads, which is, of course, essential to the social and economic wellbeing of not only the regions in my electorate but also all country Western Australia. The result of that inquiry was somewhat surprising. It was surprising partly because of the continual bleating we hear from members on the other side when they roam around the regions that the Gallop Government has actually cut country road funding. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! The Leader of the House need not encourage interjections; the interjectors are quite capable by themselves. Hon KIM CHANCE: In fact, the reverse is true. The Gallop Government is spending more on country roads than did the coalition. So that I can provide members with the figures and their context, to determine the comparative spending levels, I sought details of state funding of rural roads of all categories for the years 1996-97 to the present. I chose those years, first, to minimise the impact of changes in consumer price index - I wanted a fairly narrow band - and, secondly, to ensure that all the years analysed were post-introduction of the 1995 additional funds program, because it would have been unfair to go back beyond 1995. To have done otherwise would not have provided an apples with apples comparison. Funding levels in the coalition years were $270 million in 1996-97; $229 million in 1997-98; $225.2 million in 1998-99; and $291.2 million in 1999-2000. That is an average of $253.85 million per annum. Funding levels for the Gallop Government years, including the estimates for the 2003-04 financial year, were $276.9 million in 2001-02; $270.3 million in 2002-03; and $264.2 million in 2003-04. That is an average of $273.8 million per annum. Hon Norman Moore: Can you give us the source of those figures? Hon KIM CHANCE: The source of my figures was the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure. However, I am sure they are verifiable from the budget. State expenditure on rural roads has not declined during the term of the Gallop Government. Hon Murray Criddle: Mainly because we put the contracts in place. Hon KIM CHANCE: There is an addition, but that is the truth. In fact, average spending in the period 2001-02 to 2003-04 is $20 million per annum higher than during the years 1996-97 to 1999-2000 in the term of the coalition Government.
I thank Hon Adele Farina for her incisive questions. (1)-(3) As it happens - Hon Simon O’Brien: You’ve got to hand it to her - she never bothers the House unless she has nothing to say. Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Simon O’Brien - Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! The Leader of the House has the call. Hon Simon O’Brien: One dorothy dix for a year: that’s it. The PRESIDENT: Hon Simon O’Brien is not the Leader of the House just yet. Hon KIM CHANCE: Not just yet. However, I am sure that Hon Simon O’Brien will be fascinated by this answer and I encourage him to listen. As it happens, in my role as a regional minister I recently sought advice on spending on country roads, which is, of course, essential to the social and economic wellbeing of not only the regions in my electorate but also all country Western Australia. The result of that inquiry was somewhat surprising. It was surprising partly because of the continual bleating we hear from members on the other side when they roam around the regions that the Gallop Government has actually cut country road funding. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! The Leader of the House need not encourage interjections; the interjectors are quite capable by themselves. Hon KIM CHANCE: In fact, the reverse is true. The Gallop Government is spending more on country roads than did the coalition. So that I can provide members with the figures and their context, to determine the comparative spending levels, I sought details of state funding of rural roads of all categories for the years 1996-97 to the present. I chose those years, first, to minimise the impact of changes in consumer price index - I wanted a fairly narrow band - and, secondly, to ensure that all the years analysed were post-introduction of the 1995 additional funds program, because it would have been unfair to go back beyond 1995. To have done otherwise would not have provided an apples with apples comparison. Funding levels in the coalition years were $270 million in 1996-97; $229 million in 1997-98; $225.2 million in 1998-99; and $291.2 million in 1999-2000. That is an average of $253.85 million per annum. Funding levels for the Gallop Government years, including the estimates for the 2003-04 financial year, were $276.9 million in 2001-02; $270.3 million in 2002-03; and $264.2 million in 2003-04. That is an average of $273.8 million per annum. Hon Norman Moore: Can you give us the source of those figures? Hon KIM CHANCE: The source of my figures was the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure. However, I am sure they are verifiable from the budget. State expenditure on rural roads has not declined during the term of the Gallop Government. Hon Murray Criddle: Mainly because we put the contracts in place. Hon KIM CHANCE: There is an addition, but that is the truth. In fact, average spending in the period 2001-02 to 2003-04 is $20 million per annum higher than during the years 1996-97 to 1999-2000 in the term of the coalition Government.
(1)-(3) As it happens - Hon Simon O’Brien: You’ve got to hand it to her - she never bothers the House unless she has nothing to say. Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Simon O’Brien - Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! The Leader of the House has the call. Hon Simon O’Brien: One dorothy dix for a year: that’s it. The PRESIDENT: Hon Simon O’Brien is not the Leader of the House just yet. Hon KIM CHANCE: Not just yet. However, I am sure that Hon Simon O’Brien will be fascinated by this answer and I encourage him to listen. As it happens, in my role as a regional minister I recently sought advice on spending on country roads, which is, of course, essential to the social and economic wellbeing of not only the regions in my electorate but also all country Western Australia. The result of that inquiry was somewhat surprising. It was surprising partly because of the continual bleating we hear from members on the other side when they roam around the regions that the Gallop Government has actually cut country road funding. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! The Leader of the House need not encourage interjections; the interjectors are quite capable by themselves. Hon KIM CHANCE: In fact, the reverse is true. The Gallop Government is spending more on country roads than did the coalition. So that I can provide members with the figures and their context, to determine the comparative spending levels, I sought details of state funding of rural roads of all categories for the years 1996-97 to the present. I chose those years, first, to minimise the impact of changes in consumer price index - I wanted a fairly narrow band - and, secondly, to ensure that all the years analysed were post-introduction of the 1995 additional funds program, because it would have been unfair to go back beyond 1995. To have done otherwise would not have provided an apples with apples comparison. Funding levels in the coalition years were $270 million in 1996-97; $229 million in 1997-98; $225.2 million in 1998-99; and $291.2 million in 1999-2000. That is an average of $253.85 million per annum. Funding levels for the Gallop Government years, including the estimates for the 2003-04 financial year, were $276.9 million in 2001-02; $270.3 million in 2002-03; and $264.2 million in 2003-04. That is an average of $273.8 million per annum. Hon Norman Moore: Can you give us the source of those figures? Hon KIM CHANCE: The source of my figures was the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure. However, I am sure they are verifiable from the budget. State expenditure on rural roads has not declined during the term of the Gallop Government. Hon Murray Criddle: Mainly because we put the contracts in place. Hon KIM CHANCE: There is an addition, but that is the truth. In fact, average spending in the period 2001-02 to 2003-04 is $20 million per annum higher than during the years 1996-97 to 1999-2000 in the term of the coalition Government.
Hon Simon O’Brien: You’ve got to hand it to her - she never bothers the House unless she has nothing to say. Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Simon O’Brien - Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! The Leader of the House has the call. Hon Simon O’Brien: One dorothy dix for a year: that’s it. The PRESIDENT: Hon Simon O’Brien is not the Leader of the House just yet. Hon KIM CHANCE: Not just yet. However, I am sure that Hon Simon O’Brien will be fascinated by this answer and I encourage him to listen. As it happens, in my role as a regional minister I recently sought advice on spending on country roads, which is, of course, essential to the social and economic wellbeing of not only the regions in my electorate but also all country Western Australia. The result of that inquiry was somewhat surprising. It was surprising partly because of the continual bleating we hear from members on the other side when they roam around the regions that the Gallop Government has actually cut country road funding. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! The Leader of the House need not encourage interjections; the interjectors are quite capable by themselves. Hon KIM CHANCE: In fact, the reverse is true. The Gallop Government is spending more on country roads than did the coalition. So that I can provide members with the figures and their context, to determine the comparative spending levels, I sought details of state funding of rural roads of all categories for the years 1996-97 to the present. I chose those years, first, to minimise the impact of changes in consumer price index - I wanted a fairly narrow band - and, secondly, to ensure that all the years analysed were post-introduction of the 1995 additional funds program, because it would have been unfair to go back beyond 1995. To have done otherwise would not have provided an apples with apples comparison. Funding levels in the coalition years were $270 million in 1996-97; $229 million in 1997-98; $225.2 million in 1998-99; and $291.2 million in 1999-2000. That is an average of $253.85 million per annum. Funding levels for the Gallop Government years, including the estimates for the 2003-04 financial year, were $276.9 million in 2001-02; $270.3 million in 2002-03; and $264.2 million in 2003-04. That is an average of $273.8 million per annum. Hon Norman Moore: Can you give us the source of those figures? Hon KIM CHANCE: The source of my figures was the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure. However, I am sure they are verifiable from the budget. State expenditure on rural roads has not declined during the term of the Gallop Government. Hon Murray Criddle: Mainly because we put the contracts in place. Hon KIM CHANCE: There is an addition, but that is the truth. In fact, average spending in the period 2001-02 to 2003-04 is $20 million per annum higher than during the years 1996-97 to 1999-2000 in the term of the coalition Government.
Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Simon O’Brien - Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! The Leader of the House has the call. Hon Simon O’Brien: One dorothy dix for a year: that’s it. The PRESIDENT: Hon Simon O’Brien is not the Leader of the House just yet. Hon KIM CHANCE: Not just yet. However, I am sure that Hon Simon O’Brien will be fascinated by this answer and I encourage him to listen. As it happens, in my role as a regional minister I recently sought advice on spending on country roads, which is, of course, essential to the social and economic wellbeing of not only the regions in my electorate but also all country Western Australia. The result of that inquiry was somewhat surprising. It was surprising partly because of the continual bleating we hear from members on the other side when they roam around the regions that the Gallop Government has actually cut country road funding. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! The Leader of the House need not encourage interjections; the interjectors are quite capable by themselves. Hon KIM CHANCE: In fact, the reverse is true. The Gallop Government is spending more on country roads than did the coalition. So that I can provide members with the figures and their context, to determine the comparative spending levels, I sought details of state funding of rural roads of all categories for the years 1996-97 to the present. I chose those years, first, to minimise the impact of changes in consumer price index - I wanted a fairly narrow band - and, secondly, to ensure that all the years analysed were post-introduction of the 1995 additional funds program, because it would have been unfair to go back beyond 1995. To have done otherwise would not have provided an apples with apples comparison. Funding levels in the coalition years were $270 million in 1996-97; $229 million in 1997-98; $225.2 million in 1998-99; and $291.2 million in 1999-2000. That is an average of $253.85 million per annum. Funding levels for the Gallop Government years, including the estimates for the 2003-04 financial year, were $276.9 million in 2001-02; $270.3 million in 2002-03; and $264.2 million in 2003-04. That is an average of $273.8 million per annum. Hon Norman Moore: Can you give us the source of those figures? Hon KIM CHANCE: The source of my figures was the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure. However, I am sure they are verifiable from the budget. State expenditure on rural roads has not declined during the term of the Gallop Government. Hon Murray Criddle: Mainly because we put the contracts in place. Hon KIM CHANCE: There is an addition, but that is the truth. In fact, average spending in the period 2001-02 to 2003-04 is $20 million per annum higher than during the years 1996-97 to 1999-2000 in the term of the coalition Government.
Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! The Leader of the House has the call. Hon Simon O’Brien: One dorothy dix for a year: that’s it. The PRESIDENT: Hon Simon O’Brien is not the Leader of the House just yet. Hon KIM CHANCE: Not just yet. However, I am sure that Hon Simon O’Brien will be fascinated by this answer and I encourage him to listen. As it happens, in my role as a regional minister I recently sought advice on spending on country roads, which is, of course, essential to the social and economic wellbeing of not only the regions in my electorate but also all country Western Australia. The result of that inquiry was somewhat surprising. It was surprising partly because of the continual bleating we hear from members on the other side when they roam around the regions that the Gallop Government has actually cut country road funding. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! The Leader of the House need not encourage interjections; the interjectors are quite capable by themselves. Hon KIM CHANCE: In fact, the reverse is true. The Gallop Government is spending more on country roads than did the coalition. So that I can provide members with the figures and their context, to determine the comparative spending levels, I sought details of state funding of rural roads of all categories for the years 1996-97 to the present. I chose those years, first, to minimise the impact of changes in consumer price index - I wanted a fairly narrow band - and, secondly, to ensure that all the years analysed were post-introduction of the 1995 additional funds program, because it would have been unfair to go back beyond 1995. To have done otherwise would not have provided an apples with apples comparison. Funding levels in the coalition years were $270 million in 1996-97; $229 million in 1997-98; $225.2 million in 1998-99; and $291.2 million in 1999-2000. That is an average of $253.85 million per annum. Funding levels for the Gallop Government years, including the estimates for the 2003-04 financial year, were $276.9 million in 2001-02; $270.3 million in 2002-03; and $264.2 million in 2003-04. That is an average of $273.8 million per annum. Hon Norman Moore: Can you give us the source of those figures? Hon KIM CHANCE: The source of my figures was the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure. However, I am sure they are verifiable from the budget. State expenditure on rural roads has not declined during the term of the Gallop Government. Hon Murray Criddle: Mainly because we put the contracts in place. Hon KIM CHANCE: There is an addition, but that is the truth. In fact, average spending in the period 2001-02 to 2003-04 is $20 million per annum higher than during the years 1996-97 to 1999-2000 in the term of the coalition Government.
The PRESIDENT: Order! The Leader of the House has the call. Hon Simon O’Brien: One dorothy dix for a year: that’s it. The PRESIDENT: Hon Simon O’Brien is not the Leader of the House just yet. Hon KIM CHANCE: Not just yet. However, I am sure that Hon Simon O’Brien will be fascinated by this answer and I encourage him to listen. As it happens, in my role as a regional minister I recently sought advice on spending on country roads, which is, of course, essential to the social and economic wellbeing of not only the regions in my electorate but also all country Western Australia. The result of that inquiry was somewhat surprising. It was surprising partly because of the continual bleating we hear from members on the other side when they roam around the regions that the Gallop Government has actually cut country road funding. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! The Leader of the House need not encourage interjections; the interjectors are quite capable by themselves. Hon KIM CHANCE: In fact, the reverse is true. The Gallop Government is spending more on country roads than did the coalition. So that I can provide members with the figures and their context, to determine the comparative spending levels, I sought details of state funding of rural roads of all categories for the years 1996-97 to the present. I chose those years, first, to minimise the impact of changes in consumer price index - I wanted a fairly narrow band - and, secondly, to ensure that all the years analysed were post-introduction of the 1995 additional funds program, because it would have been unfair to go back beyond 1995. To have done otherwise would not have provided an apples with apples comparison. Funding levels in the coalition years were $270 million in 1996-97; $229 million in 1997-98; $225.2 million in 1998-99; and $291.2 million in 1999-2000. That is an average of $253.85 million per annum. Funding levels for the Gallop Government years, including the estimates for the 2003-04 financial year, were $276.9 million in 2001-02; $270.3 million in 2002-03; and $264.2 million in 2003-04. That is an average of $273.8 million per annum. Hon Norman Moore: Can you give us the source of those figures? Hon KIM CHANCE: The source of my figures was the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure. However, I am sure they are verifiable from the budget. State expenditure on rural roads has not declined during the term of the Gallop Government. Hon Murray Criddle: Mainly because we put the contracts in place. Hon KIM CHANCE: There is an addition, but that is the truth. In fact, average spending in the period 2001-02 to 2003-04 is $20 million per annum higher than during the years 1996-97 to 1999-2000 in the term of the coalition Government.
Hon Simon O’Brien: One dorothy dix for a year: that’s it. The PRESIDENT: Hon Simon O’Brien is not the Leader of the House just yet. Hon KIM CHANCE: Not just yet. However, I am sure that Hon Simon O’Brien will be fascinated by this answer and I encourage him to listen. As it happens, in my role as a regional minister I recently sought advice on spending on country roads, which is, of course, essential to the social and economic wellbeing of not only the regions in my electorate but also all country Western Australia. The result of that inquiry was somewhat surprising. It was surprising partly because of the continual bleating we hear from members on the other side when they roam around the regions that the Gallop Government has actually cut country road funding. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! The Leader of the House need not encourage interjections; the interjectors are quite capable by themselves. Hon KIM CHANCE: In fact, the reverse is true. The Gallop Government is spending more on country roads than did the coalition. So that I can provide members with the figures and their context, to determine the comparative spending levels, I sought details of state funding of rural roads of all categories for the years 1996-97 to the present. I chose those years, first, to minimise the impact of changes in consumer price index - I wanted a fairly narrow band - and, secondly, to ensure that all the years analysed were post-introduction of the 1995 additional funds program, because it would have been unfair to go back beyond 1995. To have done otherwise would not have provided an apples with apples comparison. Funding levels in the coalition years were $270 million in 1996-97; $229 million in 1997-98; $225.2 million in 1998-99; and $291.2 million in 1999-2000. That is an average of $253.85 million per annum. Funding levels for the Gallop Government years, including the estimates for the 2003-04 financial year, were $276.9 million in 2001-02; $270.3 million in 2002-03; and $264.2 million in 2003-04. That is an average of $273.8 million per annum. Hon Norman Moore: Can you give us the source of those figures? Hon KIM CHANCE: The source of my figures was the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure. However, I am sure they are verifiable from the budget. State expenditure on rural roads has not declined during the term of the Gallop Government. Hon Murray Criddle: Mainly because we put the contracts in place. Hon KIM CHANCE: There is an addition, but that is the truth. In fact, average spending in the period 2001-02 to 2003-04 is $20 million per annum higher than during the years 1996-97 to 1999-2000 in the term of the coalition Government.
The PRESIDENT: Hon Simon O’Brien is not the Leader of the House just yet. Hon KIM CHANCE: Not just yet. However, I am sure that Hon Simon O’Brien will be fascinated by this answer and I encourage him to listen. As it happens, in my role as a regional minister I recently sought advice on spending on country roads, which is, of course, essential to the social and economic wellbeing of not only the regions in my electorate but also all country Western Australia. The result of that inquiry was somewhat surprising. It was surprising partly because of the continual bleating we hear from members on the other side when they roam around the regions that the Gallop Government has actually cut country road funding. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! The Leader of the House need not encourage interjections; the interjectors are quite capable by themselves. Hon KIM CHANCE: In fact, the reverse is true. The Gallop Government is spending more on country roads than did the coalition. So that I can provide members with the figures and their context, to determine the comparative spending levels, I sought details of state funding of rural roads of all categories for the years 1996-97 to the present. I chose those years, first, to minimise the impact of changes in consumer price index - I wanted a fairly narrow band - and, secondly, to ensure that all the years analysed were post-introduction of the 1995 additional funds program, because it would have been unfair to go back beyond 1995. To have done otherwise would not have provided an apples with apples comparison. Funding levels in the coalition years were $270 million in 1996-97; $229 million in 1997-98; $225.2 million in 1998-99; and $291.2 million in 1999-2000. That is an average of $253.85 million per annum. Funding levels for the Gallop Government years, including the estimates for the 2003-04 financial year, were $276.9 million in 2001-02; $270.3 million in 2002-03; and $264.2 million in 2003-04. That is an average of $273.8 million per annum. Hon Norman Moore: Can you give us the source of those figures? Hon KIM CHANCE: The source of my figures was the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure. However, I am sure they are verifiable from the budget. State expenditure on rural roads has not declined during the term of the Gallop Government. Hon Murray Criddle: Mainly because we put the contracts in place. Hon KIM CHANCE: There is an addition, but that is the truth. In fact, average spending in the period 2001-02 to 2003-04 is $20 million per annum higher than during the years 1996-97 to 1999-2000 in the term of the coalition Government.
Hon KIM CHANCE: Not just yet. However, I am sure that Hon Simon O’Brien will be fascinated by this answer and I encourage him to listen. As it happens, in my role as a regional minister I recently sought advice on spending on country roads, which is, of course, essential to the social and economic wellbeing of not only the regions in my electorate but also all country Western Australia. The result of that inquiry was somewhat surprising. It was surprising partly because of the continual bleating we hear from members on the other side when they roam around the regions that the Gallop Government has actually cut country road funding. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! The Leader of the House need not encourage interjections; the interjectors are quite capable by themselves. Hon KIM CHANCE: In fact, the reverse is true. The Gallop Government is spending more on country roads than did the coalition. So that I can provide members with the figures and their context, to determine the comparative spending levels, I sought details of state funding of rural roads of all categories for the years 1996-97 to the present. I chose those years, first, to minimise the impact of changes in consumer price index - I wanted a fairly narrow band - and, secondly, to ensure that all the years analysed were post-introduction of the 1995 additional funds program, because it would have been unfair to go back beyond 1995. To have done otherwise would not have provided an apples with apples comparison. Funding levels in the coalition years were $270 million in 1996-97; $229 million in 1997-98; $225.2 million in 1998-99; and $291.2 million in 1999-2000. That is an average of $253.85 million per annum. Funding levels for the Gallop Government years, including the estimates for the 2003-04 financial year, were $276.9 million in 2001-02; $270.3 million in 2002-03; and $264.2 million in 2003-04. That is an average of $273.8 million per annum. Hon Norman Moore: Can you give us the source of those figures? Hon KIM CHANCE: The source of my figures was the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure. However, I am sure they are verifiable from the budget. State expenditure on rural roads has not declined during the term of the Gallop Government. Hon Murray Criddle: Mainly because we put the contracts in place. Hon KIM CHANCE: There is an addition, but that is the truth. In fact, average spending in the period 2001-02 to 2003-04 is $20 million per annum higher than during the years 1996-97 to 1999-2000 in the term of the coalition Government.
As it happens, in my role as a regional minister I recently sought advice on spending on country roads, which is, of course, essential to the social and economic wellbeing of not only the regions in my electorate but also all country Western Australia. The result of that inquiry was somewhat surprising. It was surprising partly because of the continual bleating we hear from members on the other side when they roam around the regions that the Gallop Government has actually cut country road funding. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! The Leader of the House need not encourage interjections; the interjectors are quite capable by themselves. Hon KIM CHANCE: In fact, the reverse is true. The Gallop Government is spending more on country roads than did the coalition. So that I can provide members with the figures and their context, to determine the comparative spending levels, I sought details of state funding of rural roads of all categories for the years 1996-97 to the present. I chose those years, first, to minimise the impact of changes in consumer price index - I wanted a fairly narrow band - and, secondly, to ensure that all the years analysed were post-introduction of the 1995 additional funds program, because it would have been unfair to go back beyond 1995. To have done otherwise would not have provided an apples with apples comparison. Funding levels in the coalition years were $270 million in 1996-97; $229 million in 1997-98; $225.2 million in 1998-99; and $291.2 million in 1999-2000. That is an average of $253.85 million per annum. Funding levels for the Gallop Government years, including the estimates for the 2003-04 financial year, were $276.9 million in 2001-02; $270.3 million in 2002-03; and $264.2 million in 2003-04. That is an average of $273.8 million per annum. Hon Norman Moore: Can you give us the source of those figures? Hon KIM CHANCE: The source of my figures was the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure. However, I am sure they are verifiable from the budget. State expenditure on rural roads has not declined during the term of the Gallop Government. Hon Murray Criddle: Mainly because we put the contracts in place. Hon KIM CHANCE: There is an addition, but that is the truth. In fact, average spending in the period 2001-02 to 2003-04 is $20 million per annum higher than during the years 1996-97 to 1999-2000 in the term of the coalition Government.
Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! The Leader of the House need not encourage interjections; the interjectors are quite capable by themselves. Hon KIM CHANCE: In fact, the reverse is true. The Gallop Government is spending more on country roads than did the coalition. So that I can provide members with the figures and their context, to determine the comparative spending levels, I sought details of state funding of rural roads of all categories for the years 1996-97 to the present. I chose those years, first, to minimise the impact of changes in consumer price index - I wanted a fairly narrow band - and, secondly, to ensure that all the years analysed were post-introduction of the 1995 additional funds program, because it would have been unfair to go back beyond 1995. To have done otherwise would not have provided an apples with apples comparison. Funding levels in the coalition years were $270 million in 1996-97; $229 million in 1997-98; $225.2 million in 1998-99; and $291.2 million in 1999-2000. That is an average of $253.85 million per annum. Funding levels for the Gallop Government years, including the estimates for the 2003-04 financial year, were $276.9 million in 2001-02; $270.3 million in 2002-03; and $264.2 million in 2003-04. That is an average of $273.8 million per annum. Hon Norman Moore: Can you give us the source of those figures? Hon KIM CHANCE: The source of my figures was the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure. However, I am sure they are verifiable from the budget. State expenditure on rural roads has not declined during the term of the Gallop Government. Hon Murray Criddle: Mainly because we put the contracts in place. Hon KIM CHANCE: There is an addition, but that is the truth. In fact, average spending in the period 2001-02 to 2003-04 is $20 million per annum higher than during the years 1996-97 to 1999-2000 in the term of the coalition Government.
The PRESIDENT: Order! The Leader of the House need not encourage interjections; the interjectors are quite capable by themselves. Hon KIM CHANCE: In fact, the reverse is true. The Gallop Government is spending more on country roads than did the coalition. So that I can provide members with the figures and their context, to determine the comparative spending levels, I sought details of state funding of rural roads of all categories for the years 1996-97 to the present. I chose those years, first, to minimise the impact of changes in consumer price index - I wanted a fairly narrow band - and, secondly, to ensure that all the years analysed were post-introduction of the 1995 additional funds program, because it would have been unfair to go back beyond 1995. To have done otherwise would not have provided an apples with apples comparison. Funding levels in the coalition years were $270 million in 1996-97; $229 million in 1997-98; $225.2 million in 1998-99; and $291.2 million in 1999-2000. That is an average of $253.85 million per annum. Funding levels for the Gallop Government years, including the estimates for the 2003-04 financial year, were $276.9 million in 2001-02; $270.3 million in 2002-03; and $264.2 million in 2003-04. That is an average of $273.8 million per annum. Hon Norman Moore: Can you give us the source of those figures? Hon KIM CHANCE: The source of my figures was the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure. However, I am sure they are verifiable from the budget. State expenditure on rural roads has not declined during the term of the Gallop Government. Hon Murray Criddle: Mainly because we put the contracts in place. Hon KIM CHANCE: There is an addition, but that is the truth. In fact, average spending in the period 2001-02 to 2003-04 is $20 million per annum higher than during the years 1996-97 to 1999-2000 in the term of the coalition Government.
Hon KIM CHANCE: In fact, the reverse is true. The Gallop Government is spending more on country roads than did the coalition. So that I can provide members with the figures and their context, to determine the comparative spending levels, I sought details of state funding of rural roads of all categories for the years 1996-97 to the present. I chose those years, first, to minimise the impact of changes in consumer price index - I wanted a fairly narrow band - and, secondly, to ensure that all the years analysed were post-introduction of the 1995 additional funds program, because it would have been unfair to go back beyond 1995. To have done otherwise would not have provided an apples with apples comparison. Funding levels in the coalition years were $270 million in 1996-97; $229 million in 1997-98; $225.2 million in 1998-99; and $291.2 million in 1999-2000. That is an average of $253.85 million per annum. Funding levels for the Gallop Government years, including the estimates for the 2003-04 financial year, were $276.9 million in 2001-02; $270.3 million in 2002-03; and $264.2 million in 2003-04. That is an average of $273.8 million per annum. Hon Norman Moore: Can you give us the source of those figures? Hon KIM CHANCE: The source of my figures was the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure. However, I am sure they are verifiable from the budget. State expenditure on rural roads has not declined during the term of the Gallop Government. Hon Murray Criddle: Mainly because we put the contracts in place. Hon KIM CHANCE: There is an addition, but that is the truth. In fact, average spending in the period 2001-02 to 2003-04 is $20 million per annum higher than during the years 1996-97 to 1999-2000 in the term of the coalition Government.
Funding levels in the coalition years were $270 million in 1996-97; $229 million in 1997-98; $225.2 million in 1998-99; and $291.2 million in 1999-2000. That is an average of $253.85 million per annum. Funding levels for the Gallop Government years, including the estimates for the 2003-04 financial year, were $276.9 million in 2001-02; $270.3 million in 2002-03; and $264.2 million in 2003-04. That is an average of $273.8 million per annum. Hon Norman Moore: Can you give us the source of those figures? Hon KIM CHANCE: The source of my figures was the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure. However, I am sure they are verifiable from the budget. State expenditure on rural roads has not declined during the term of the Gallop Government. Hon Murray Criddle: Mainly because we put the contracts in place. Hon KIM CHANCE: There is an addition, but that is the truth. In fact, average spending in the period 2001-02 to 2003-04 is $20 million per annum higher than during the years 1996-97 to 1999-2000 in the term of the coalition Government.
Hon Norman Moore: Can you give us the source of those figures? Hon KIM CHANCE: The source of my figures was the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure. However, I am sure they are verifiable from the budget. State expenditure on rural roads has not declined during the term of the Gallop Government. Hon Murray Criddle: Mainly because we put the contracts in place. Hon KIM CHANCE: There is an addition, but that is the truth. In fact, average spending in the period 2001-02 to 2003-04 is $20 million per annum higher than during the years 1996-97 to 1999-2000 in the term of the coalition Government.
Hon KIM CHANCE: The source of my figures was the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure. However, I am sure they are verifiable from the budget. State expenditure on rural roads has not declined during the term of the Gallop Government. Hon Murray Criddle: Mainly because we put the contracts in place. Hon KIM CHANCE: There is an addition, but that is the truth. In fact, average spending in the period 2001-02 to 2003-04 is $20 million per annum higher than during the years 1996-97 to 1999-2000 in the term of the coalition Government.
Hon Murray Criddle: Mainly because we put the contracts in place. Hon KIM CHANCE: There is an addition, but that is the truth. In fact, average spending in the period 2001-02 to 2003-04 is $20 million per annum higher than during the years 1996-97 to 1999-2000 in the term of the coalition Government.
Hon KIM CHANCE: There is an addition, but that is the truth. In fact, average spending in the period 2001-02 to 2003-04 is $20 million per annum higher than during the years 1996-97 to 1999-2000 in the term of the coalition Government.
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.