❓ Opposition questions Premier on GST payments decrease and new oil/gas tax impact. Premier defends, blaming previous Liberal govt for GST deal, highlighting infrastructure funding gains from the federal budget.
AnsweredQoN 244Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
FEDERAL-STATE RELATIONS — GST PAYMENTS, AND OIL AND GAS TAXES
Premier — Mr M.P. Murray interjected. The SPEAKER : It is disorderly to stop a question being asked. I call the member for Collie-Wellington to order for the first time. Mr T. BUSWELL : My question is to the Premier. (1) Does the Premier recall, back in the heady days after the last federal election, talking about a brave new era of federal-state cooperation and the positive results that this would deliver for Western Australia? (2) Is the Premier aware that, according to the federal budget delivered last night, goods and services tax payments from the commonwealth to Western Australia will actually fall by $68 million over the coming year and that, as a result of this, South Australia will receive more GST payments than will Western Australia next year, despite the fact that there are half a million more people living in Western Australia? (3) Is the Premier aware that the federal budget imposes a new tax on oil and gas that will have potentially damaging consequences for one of the most important industries in Western Australia? (4) Is it not the case that, rather than delivering a better deal for Western Australia, wall-to-wall Labor effectively means that the Premier has given up standing up for the interests of this state at a federal level? Mr A.J. CARPENTER
Premier — Mr M.P. Murray interjected. The SPEAKER : It is disorderly to stop a question being asked. I call the member for Collie-Wellington to order for the first time. Mr T. BUSWELL : My question is to the Premier. (1) Does the Premier recall, back in the heady days after the last federal election, talking about a brave new era of federal-state cooperation and the positive results that this would deliver for Western Australia? (2) Is the Premier aware that, according to the federal budget delivered last night, goods and services tax payments from the commonwealth to Western Australia will actually fall by $68 million over the coming year and that, as a result of this, South Australia will receive more GST payments than will Western Australia next year, despite the fact that there are half a million more people living in Western Australia? (3) Is the Premier aware that the federal budget imposes a new tax on oil and gas that will have potentially damaging consequences for one of the most important industries in Western Australia? (4) Is it not the case that, rather than delivering a better deal for Western Australia, wall-to-wall Labor effectively means that the Premier has given up standing up for the interests of this state at a federal level? Mr A.J. CARPENTER
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for the question. I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of the year 12 Carmel Adventist College students. I welcome them to Parliament House and give them my best wishes for the year. (1)-(4) As I recall—and my recollection is not too bad—the original GST deal was signed up by a federal Liberal government and a state Liberal government. A federal Liberal government and a state Liberal government delivered the model that has brought about this potentially unfortunate outcome, which we are working assiduously to try to — Mr T. Buswell : You’ve gone very quiet on it, haven’t you, Premier? Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The Leader of the Opposition would be well advised to remain quiet himself, quite frankly. Mr J.E. McGrath interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : Any time the member for South Perth wants to pursue that matter, he should let me know. I heard what he said. Mr C.J. Barnett : Threats across the chamber? Mr A.J. CARPENTER : No. I am quite happy to have a conversation with the member for South Perth. The member for Cottesloe should not sink. It was a federal Liberal government and a state Liberal government that delivered the current model for the GST. Richard Court signed up to it against the protestations, as I recall, of the state Labor Party at the time. What we are trying to do now is have the model changed, so that the Commonwealth Grants Commission can change the distribution model for GST payments in order that Western Australia is not disadvantaged. That is our objective. The last time the grants commission completed the review of the GST arrangements, it increased Western Australia’s base by $250 million as a result of pressure by the WA government. The grants commission is visiting WA in June as part of the next review to be completed by 2010, and we will be putting further pressure on it then to reassess the distribution model that potentially disadvantaged Western Australia to an extent that is unacceptable. To go to the broader point, does anybody seriously put the position that last night’s budget was not good for Western Australia? Does anybody seriously put that position? Mr B.J. Grylls interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The regional partnership fund was something like $250 million over five years, was it not? It was used in a most disgraceful pork-barrelling way by the former federal government. That is a fact. Everybody acknowledges that. Even members of the former government acknowledge that. Here we go. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER : What both sides of politics have been doing is trying to make sure that the federal government, no matter which political party is in power federally, gives some recognition to the fact that Western Australia needs assistance from the federal government for the provision of strategic economic infrastructure. This is the first time in a very long time, if not ever, that there has been any serious recognition of that fact. We have a federal government that has heard our pleas about assistance for the provision of economic infrastructure and has acknowledged that the provision of strategic economic infrastructure in Western Australia is in the national interest. Not only do we now have a situation in which last night an $80 million allocation was made to Western Australia for economic infrastructure—a one-off allocation of $80 million—in advance of the $100 million-plus potentially a year from the Pluto and Gorgon royalties, but also we have the opportunity to put our case for access to the $21 billion fund for economic infrastructure. Bearing in mind that Western Australia plays a disproportionately large role in the nation’s economic fortunes, I would have thought that we have a very good case to put in attempting to access moneys from that fund. Last night’s federal budget was a breath of fresh air. What we have, to the surprise of many of the critics of the observers of politics, is a federal political party that has pulled its head out of the pork barrel and made decisions in the long-term national interest. It is a federal budget that builds the nation. It is a federal budget that has its eye on the long-term benefit of the Australian nation and its people. It has been a long time since we have had a federal budget that we could categorise in that way. We have had a series of federal budgets, particularly the last few delivered by Peter Costello and John Howard, that were nothing more than giveaways to buy votes, and any serious observer of Australian economics and politics knows that that is the case. They let the country down badly in the pursuit of prolonged time in office. What we had last night was a completely different approach. We had a federal government that said it is going to invest in the long-term interests of the nation. It is going to have a $21 billion economic infrastructure fund, an $11 billion higher education and training fund and a $10 billion, I think it was—I might have the $11 billion and the $10 billion around the wrong way—health infrastructure fund, from which I have absolutely no doubt we will benefit. Therefore, does anybody seriously support the proposition that last night’s federal budget was not good for Western Australia? I will deal with the tax on condensate—condensate is effectively, in Western Australia anyway, something of a by-product of the liquefied natural gas industry. The tax on condensate, which most Western Australians would have no idea even existed, was put in place about 21 years ago as an incentive for the industry, if we take the time line back to that period. It is basically high-quality light crude. It burns cleanly. It attracts a premium price in the international market. The price of oil in the intervening 21 years has been as low as $8 a barrel, I think. What is the price of oil today? I think it is something like $120 a barrel, is it not? Therefore, an incentive was put in place 21 years ago to encourage people into the oil and gas industry in this state. In the intervening period, the price of light crude has been as low as $8 to $10 a barrel. Today it is in excess of $120 a barrel. Does anybody seriously believe that anywhere in the world oil companies require those sorts of tax exemptions to encourage them into the industry? The door is being knocked down by companies wanting to invest in the WA oil and gas industry. There we go. As far as the impact on the state budget goes, we have been given an assurance that we will be fully compensated for any impact that may occur as a result of the removal of the exemption on the condensate. I congratulate Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd on delivering a budget that is about building the nation of Australia. What a turnaround to finally get some investment into higher education and training. The investment in the long-term productivity of the nation was absolutely ignored by the previous federal government. Members should look at the trend lines on spending on higher education and training under the previous government. It is an international disgrace that effectively the federal government of Australia withdrew from investing in higher education and training and scientific research. There has been a turnaround in this nation. It was brought about because of the anticipation that such a turnaround was possible. We had a change of government, in the first place, and it is off to a very good start.
Mr M.P. Murray interjected. The SPEAKER : It is disorderly to stop a question being asked. I call the member for Collie-Wellington to order for the first time. Mr T. BUSWELL : My question is to the Premier. (1) Does the Premier recall, back in the heady days after the last federal election, talking about a brave new era of federal-state cooperation and the positive results that this would deliver for Western Australia? (2) Is the Premier aware that, according to the federal budget delivered last night, goods and services tax payments from the commonwealth to Western Australia will actually fall by $68 million over the coming year and that, as a result of this, South Australia will receive more GST payments than will Western Australia next year, despite the fact that there are half a million more people living in Western Australia? (3) Is the Premier aware that the federal budget imposes a new tax on oil and gas that will have potentially damaging consequences for one of the most important industries in Western Australia? (4) Is it not the case that, rather than delivering a better deal for Western Australia, wall-to-wall Labor effectively means that the Premier has given up standing up for the interests of this state at a federal level? Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: I thank the member for the question. I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of the year 12 Carmel Adventist College students. I welcome them to Parliament House and give them my best wishes for the year. (1)-(4) As I recall—and my recollection is not too bad—the original GST deal was signed up by a federal Liberal government and a state Liberal government. A federal Liberal government and a state Liberal government delivered the model that has brought about this potentially unfortunate outcome, which we are working assiduously to try to — Mr T. Buswell : You’ve gone very quiet on it, haven’t you, Premier? Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The Leader of the Opposition would be well advised to remain quiet himself, quite frankly. Mr J.E. McGrath interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : Any time the member for South Perth wants to pursue that matter, he should let me know. I heard what he said. Mr C.J. Barnett : Threats across the chamber? Mr A.J. CARPENTER : No. I am quite happy to have a conversation with the member for South Perth. The member for Cottesloe should not sink. It was a federal Liberal government and a state Liberal government that delivered the current model for the GST. Richard Court signed up to it against the protestations, as I recall, of the state Labor Party at the time. What we are trying to do now is have the model changed, so that the Commonwealth Grants Commission can change the distribution model for GST payments in order that Western Australia is not disadvantaged. That is our objective. The last time the grants commission completed the review of the GST arrangements, it increased Western Australia’s base by $250 million as a result of pressure by the WA government. The grants commission is visiting WA in June as part of the next review to be completed by 2010, and we will be putting further pressure on it then to reassess the distribution model that potentially disadvantaged Western Australia to an extent that is unacceptable. To go to the broader point, does anybody seriously put the position that last night’s budget was not good for Western Australia? Does anybody seriously put that position? Mr B.J. Grylls interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The regional partnership fund was something like $250 million over five years, was it not? It was used in a most disgraceful pork-barrelling way by the former federal government. That is a fact. Everybody acknowledges that. Even members of the former government acknowledge that. Here we go. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER : What both sides of politics have been doing is trying to make sure that the federal government, no matter which political party is in power federally, gives some recognition to the fact that Western Australia needs assistance from the federal government for the provision of strategic economic infrastructure. This is the first time in a very long time, if not ever, that there has been any serious recognition of that fact. We have a federal government that has heard our pleas about assistance for the provision of economic infrastructure and has acknowledged that the provision of strategic economic infrastructure in Western Australia is in the national interest. Not only do we now have a situation in which last night an $80 million allocation was made to Western Australia for economic infrastructure—a one-off allocation of $80 million—in advance of the $100 million-plus potentially a year from the Pluto and Gorgon royalties, but also we have the opportunity to put our case for access to the $21 billion fund for economic infrastructure. Bearing in mind that Western Australia plays a disproportionately large role in the nation’s economic fortunes, I would have thought that we have a very good case to put in attempting to access moneys from that fund. Last night’s federal budget was a breath of fresh air. What we have, to the surprise of many of the critics of the observers of politics, is a federal political party that has pulled its head out of the pork barrel and made decisions in the long-term national interest. It is a federal budget that builds the nation. It is a federal budget that has its eye on the long-term benefit of the Australian nation and its people. It has been a long time since we have had a federal budget that we could categorise in that way. We have had a series of federal budgets, particularly the last few delivered by Peter Costello and John Howard, that were nothing more than giveaways to buy votes, and any serious observer of Australian economics and politics knows that that is the case. They let the country down badly in the pursuit of prolonged time in office. What we had last night was a completely different approach. We had a federal government that said it is going to invest in the long-term interests of the nation. It is going to have a $21 billion economic infrastructure fund, an $11 billion higher education and training fund and a $10 billion, I think it was—I might have the $11 billion and the $10 billion around the wrong way—health infrastructure fund, from which I have absolutely no doubt we will benefit. Therefore, does anybody seriously support the proposition that last night’s federal budget was not good for Western Australia? I will deal with the tax on condensate—condensate is effectively, in Western Australia anyway, something of a by-product of the liquefied natural gas industry. The tax on condensate, which most Western Australians would have no idea even existed, was put in place about 21 years ago as an incentive for the industry, if we take the time line back to that period. It is basically high-quality light crude. It burns cleanly. It attracts a premium price in the international market. The price of oil in the intervening 21 years has been as low as $8 a barrel, I think. What is the price of oil today? I think it is something like $120 a barrel, is it not? Therefore, an incentive was put in place 21 years ago to encourage people into the oil and gas industry in this state. In the intervening period, the price of light crude has been as low as $8 to $10 a barrel. Today it is in excess of $120 a barrel. Does anybody seriously believe that anywhere in the world oil companies require those sorts of tax exemptions to encourage them into the industry? The door is being knocked down by companies wanting to invest in the WA oil and gas industry. There we go. As far as the impact on the state budget goes, we have been given an assurance that we will be fully compensated for any impact that may occur as a result of the removal of the exemption on the condensate. I congratulate Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd on delivering a budget that is about building the nation of Australia. What a turnaround to finally get some investment into higher education and training. The investment in the long-term productivity of the nation was absolutely ignored by the previous federal government. Members should look at the trend lines on spending on higher education and training under the previous government. It is an international disgrace that effectively the federal government of Australia withdrew from investing in higher education and training and scientific research. There has been a turnaround in this nation. It was brought about because of the anticipation that such a turnaround was possible. We had a change of government, in the first place, and it is off to a very good start.
The SPEAKER : It is disorderly to stop a question being asked. I call the member for Collie-Wellington to order for the first time. Mr T. BUSWELL : My question is to the Premier. (1) Does the Premier recall, back in the heady days after the last federal election, talking about a brave new era of federal-state cooperation and the positive results that this would deliver for Western Australia? (2) Is the Premier aware that, according to the federal budget delivered last night, goods and services tax payments from the commonwealth to Western Australia will actually fall by $68 million over the coming year and that, as a result of this, South Australia will receive more GST payments than will Western Australia next year, despite the fact that there are half a million more people living in Western Australia? (3) Is the Premier aware that the federal budget imposes a new tax on oil and gas that will have potentially damaging consequences for one of the most important industries in Western Australia? (4) Is it not the case that, rather than delivering a better deal for Western Australia, wall-to-wall Labor effectively means that the Premier has given up standing up for the interests of this state at a federal level? Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: I thank the member for the question. I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of the year 12 Carmel Adventist College students. I welcome them to Parliament House and give them my best wishes for the year. (1)-(4) As I recall—and my recollection is not too bad—the original GST deal was signed up by a federal Liberal government and a state Liberal government. A federal Liberal government and a state Liberal government delivered the model that has brought about this potentially unfortunate outcome, which we are working assiduously to try to — Mr T. Buswell : You’ve gone very quiet on it, haven’t you, Premier? Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The Leader of the Opposition would be well advised to remain quiet himself, quite frankly. Mr J.E. McGrath interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : Any time the member for South Perth wants to pursue that matter, he should let me know. I heard what he said. Mr C.J. Barnett : Threats across the chamber? Mr A.J. CARPENTER : No. I am quite happy to have a conversation with the member for South Perth. The member for Cottesloe should not sink. It was a federal Liberal government and a state Liberal government that delivered the current model for the GST. Richard Court signed up to it against the protestations, as I recall, of the state Labor Party at the time. What we are trying to do now is have the model changed, so that the Commonwealth Grants Commission can change the distribution model for GST payments in order that Western Australia is not disadvantaged. That is our objective. The last time the grants commission completed the review of the GST arrangements, it increased Western Australia’s base by $250 million as a result of pressure by the WA government. The grants commission is visiting WA in June as part of the next review to be completed by 2010, and we will be putting further pressure on it then to reassess the distribution model that potentially disadvantaged Western Australia to an extent that is unacceptable. To go to the broader point, does anybody seriously put the position that last night’s budget was not good for Western Australia? Does anybody seriously put that position? Mr B.J. Grylls interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The regional partnership fund was something like $250 million over five years, was it not? It was used in a most disgraceful pork-barrelling way by the former federal government. That is a fact. Everybody acknowledges that. Even members of the former government acknowledge that. Here we go. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER : What both sides of politics have been doing is trying to make sure that the federal government, no matter which political party is in power federally, gives some recognition to the fact that Western Australia needs assistance from the federal government for the provision of strategic economic infrastructure. This is the first time in a very long time, if not ever, that there has been any serious recognition of that fact. We have a federal government that has heard our pleas about assistance for the provision of economic infrastructure and has acknowledged that the provision of strategic economic infrastructure in Western Australia is in the national interest. Not only do we now have a situation in which last night an $80 million allocation was made to Western Australia for economic infrastructure—a one-off allocation of $80 million—in advance of the $100 million-plus potentially a year from the Pluto and Gorgon royalties, but also we have the opportunity to put our case for access to the $21 billion fund for economic infrastructure. Bearing in mind that Western Australia plays a disproportionately large role in the nation’s economic fortunes, I would have thought that we have a very good case to put in attempting to access moneys from that fund. Last night’s federal budget was a breath of fresh air. What we have, to the surprise of many of the critics of the observers of politics, is a federal political party that has pulled its head out of the pork barrel and made decisions in the long-term national interest. It is a federal budget that builds the nation. It is a federal budget that has its eye on the long-term benefit of the Australian nation and its people. It has been a long time since we have had a federal budget that we could categorise in that way. We have had a series of federal budgets, particularly the last few delivered by Peter Costello and John Howard, that were nothing more than giveaways to buy votes, and any serious observer of Australian economics and politics knows that that is the case. They let the country down badly in the pursuit of prolonged time in office. What we had last night was a completely different approach. We had a federal government that said it is going to invest in the long-term interests of the nation. It is going to have a $21 billion economic infrastructure fund, an $11 billion higher education and training fund and a $10 billion, I think it was—I might have the $11 billion and the $10 billion around the wrong way—health infrastructure fund, from which I have absolutely no doubt we will benefit. Therefore, does anybody seriously support the proposition that last night’s federal budget was not good for Western Australia? I will deal with the tax on condensate—condensate is effectively, in Western Australia anyway, something of a by-product of the liquefied natural gas industry. The tax on condensate, which most Western Australians would have no idea even existed, was put in place about 21 years ago as an incentive for the industry, if we take the time line back to that period. It is basically high-quality light crude. It burns cleanly. It attracts a premium price in the international market. The price of oil in the intervening 21 years has been as low as $8 a barrel, I think. What is the price of oil today? I think it is something like $120 a barrel, is it not? Therefore, an incentive was put in place 21 years ago to encourage people into the oil and gas industry in this state. In the intervening period, the price of light crude has been as low as $8 to $10 a barrel. Today it is in excess of $120 a barrel. Does anybody seriously believe that anywhere in the world oil companies require those sorts of tax exemptions to encourage them into the industry? The door is being knocked down by companies wanting to invest in the WA oil and gas industry. There we go. As far as the impact on the state budget goes, we have been given an assurance that we will be fully compensated for any impact that may occur as a result of the removal of the exemption on the condensate. I congratulate Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd on delivering a budget that is about building the nation of Australia. What a turnaround to finally get some investment into higher education and training. The investment in the long-term productivity of the nation was absolutely ignored by the previous federal government. Members should look at the trend lines on spending on higher education and training under the previous government. It is an international disgrace that effectively the federal government of Australia withdrew from investing in higher education and training and scientific research. There has been a turnaround in this nation. It was brought about because of the anticipation that such a turnaround was possible. We had a change of government, in the first place, and it is off to a very good start.
Mr T. BUSWELL : My question is to the Premier. (1) Does the Premier recall, back in the heady days after the last federal election, talking about a brave new era of federal-state cooperation and the positive results that this would deliver for Western Australia? (2) Is the Premier aware that, according to the federal budget delivered last night, goods and services tax payments from the commonwealth to Western Australia will actually fall by $68 million over the coming year and that, as a result of this, South Australia will receive more GST payments than will Western Australia next year, despite the fact that there are half a million more people living in Western Australia? (3) Is the Premier aware that the federal budget imposes a new tax on oil and gas that will have potentially damaging consequences for one of the most important industries in Western Australia? (4) Is it not the case that, rather than delivering a better deal for Western Australia, wall-to-wall Labor effectively means that the Premier has given up standing up for the interests of this state at a federal level? Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: I thank the member for the question. I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of the year 12 Carmel Adventist College students. I welcome them to Parliament House and give them my best wishes for the year. (1)-(4) As I recall—and my recollection is not too bad—the original GST deal was signed up by a federal Liberal government and a state Liberal government. A federal Liberal government and a state Liberal government delivered the model that has brought about this potentially unfortunate outcome, which we are working assiduously to try to — Mr T. Buswell : You’ve gone very quiet on it, haven’t you, Premier? Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The Leader of the Opposition would be well advised to remain quiet himself, quite frankly. Mr J.E. McGrath interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : Any time the member for South Perth wants to pursue that matter, he should let me know. I heard what he said. Mr C.J. Barnett : Threats across the chamber? Mr A.J. CARPENTER : No. I am quite happy to have a conversation with the member for South Perth. The member for Cottesloe should not sink. It was a federal Liberal government and a state Liberal government that delivered the current model for the GST. Richard Court signed up to it against the protestations, as I recall, of the state Labor Party at the time. What we are trying to do now is have the model changed, so that the Commonwealth Grants Commission can change the distribution model for GST payments in order that Western Australia is not disadvantaged. That is our objective. The last time the grants commission completed the review of the GST arrangements, it increased Western Australia’s base by $250 million as a result of pressure by the WA government. The grants commission is visiting WA in June as part of the next review to be completed by 2010, and we will be putting further pressure on it then to reassess the distribution model that potentially disadvantaged Western Australia to an extent that is unacceptable. To go to the broader point, does anybody seriously put the position that last night’s budget was not good for Western Australia? Does anybody seriously put that position? Mr B.J. Grylls interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The regional partnership fund was something like $250 million over five years, was it not? It was used in a most disgraceful pork-barrelling way by the former federal government. That is a fact. Everybody acknowledges that. Even members of the former government acknowledge that. Here we go. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER : What both sides of politics have been doing is trying to make sure that the federal government, no matter which political party is in power federally, gives some recognition to the fact that Western Australia needs assistance from the federal government for the provision of strategic economic infrastructure. This is the first time in a very long time, if not ever, that there has been any serious recognition of that fact. We have a federal government that has heard our pleas about assistance for the provision of economic infrastructure and has acknowledged that the provision of strategic economic infrastructure in Western Australia is in the national interest. Not only do we now have a situation in which last night an $80 million allocation was made to Western Australia for economic infrastructure—a one-off allocation of $80 million—in advance of the $100 million-plus potentially a year from the Pluto and Gorgon royalties, but also we have the opportunity to put our case for access to the $21 billion fund for economic infrastructure. Bearing in mind that Western Australia plays a disproportionately large role in the nation’s economic fortunes, I would have thought that we have a very good case to put in attempting to access moneys from that fund. Last night’s federal budget was a breath of fresh air. What we have, to the surprise of many of the critics of the observers of politics, is a federal political party that has pulled its head out of the pork barrel and made decisions in the long-term national interest. It is a federal budget that builds the nation. It is a federal budget that has its eye on the long-term benefit of the Australian nation and its people. It has been a long time since we have had a federal budget that we could categorise in that way. We have had a series of federal budgets, particularly the last few delivered by Peter Costello and John Howard, that were nothing more than giveaways to buy votes, and any serious observer of Australian economics and politics knows that that is the case. They let the country down badly in the pursuit of prolonged time in office. What we had last night was a completely different approach. We had a federal government that said it is going to invest in the long-term interests of the nation. It is going to have a $21 billion economic infrastructure fund, an $11 billion higher education and training fund and a $10 billion, I think it was—I might have the $11 billion and the $10 billion around the wrong way—health infrastructure fund, from which I have absolutely no doubt we will benefit. Therefore, does anybody seriously support the proposition that last night’s federal budget was not good for Western Australia? I will deal with the tax on condensate—condensate is effectively, in Western Australia anyway, something of a by-product of the liquefied natural gas industry. The tax on condensate, which most Western Australians would have no idea even existed, was put in place about 21 years ago as an incentive for the industry, if we take the time line back to that period. It is basically high-quality light crude. It burns cleanly. It attracts a premium price in the international market. The price of oil in the intervening 21 years has been as low as $8 a barrel, I think. What is the price of oil today? I think it is something like $120 a barrel, is it not? Therefore, an incentive was put in place 21 years ago to encourage people into the oil and gas industry in this state. In the intervening period, the price of light crude has been as low as $8 to $10 a barrel. Today it is in excess of $120 a barrel. Does anybody seriously believe that anywhere in the world oil companies require those sorts of tax exemptions to encourage them into the industry? The door is being knocked down by companies wanting to invest in the WA oil and gas industry. There we go. As far as the impact on the state budget goes, we have been given an assurance that we will be fully compensated for any impact that may occur as a result of the removal of the exemption on the condensate. I congratulate Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd on delivering a budget that is about building the nation of Australia. What a turnaround to finally get some investment into higher education and training. The investment in the long-term productivity of the nation was absolutely ignored by the previous federal government. Members should look at the trend lines on spending on higher education and training under the previous government. It is an international disgrace that effectively the federal government of Australia withdrew from investing in higher education and training and scientific research. There has been a turnaround in this nation. It was brought about because of the anticipation that such a turnaround was possible. We had a change of government, in the first place, and it is off to a very good start.
(1) Does the Premier recall, back in the heady days after the last federal election, talking about a brave new era of federal-state cooperation and the positive results that this would deliver for Western Australia? (2) Is the Premier aware that, according to the federal budget delivered last night, goods and services tax payments from the commonwealth to Western Australia will actually fall by $68 million over the coming year and that, as a result of this, South Australia will receive more GST payments than will Western Australia next year, despite the fact that there are half a million more people living in Western Australia? (3) Is the Premier aware that the federal budget imposes a new tax on oil and gas that will have potentially damaging consequences for one of the most important industries in Western Australia? (4) Is it not the case that, rather than delivering a better deal for Western Australia, wall-to-wall Labor effectively means that the Premier has given up standing up for the interests of this state at a federal level? Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: I thank the member for the question. I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of the year 12 Carmel Adventist College students. I welcome them to Parliament House and give them my best wishes for the year. (1)-(4) As I recall—and my recollection is not too bad—the original GST deal was signed up by a federal Liberal government and a state Liberal government. A federal Liberal government and a state Liberal government delivered the model that has brought about this potentially unfortunate outcome, which we are working assiduously to try to — Mr T. Buswell : You’ve gone very quiet on it, haven’t you, Premier? Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The Leader of the Opposition would be well advised to remain quiet himself, quite frankly. Mr J.E. McGrath interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : Any time the member for South Perth wants to pursue that matter, he should let me know. I heard what he said. Mr C.J. Barnett : Threats across the chamber? Mr A.J. CARPENTER : No. I am quite happy to have a conversation with the member for South Perth. The member for Cottesloe should not sink. It was a federal Liberal government and a state Liberal government that delivered the current model for the GST. Richard Court signed up to it against the protestations, as I recall, of the state Labor Party at the time. What we are trying to do now is have the model changed, so that the Commonwealth Grants Commission can change the distribution model for GST payments in order that Western Australia is not disadvantaged. That is our objective. The last time the grants commission completed the review of the GST arrangements, it increased Western Australia’s base by $250 million as a result of pressure by the WA government. The grants commission is visiting WA in June as part of the next review to be completed by 2010, and we will be putting further pressure on it then to reassess the distribution model that potentially disadvantaged Western Australia to an extent that is unacceptable. To go to the broader point, does anybody seriously put the position that last night’s budget was not good for Western Australia? Does anybody seriously put that position? Mr B.J. Grylls interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The regional partnership fund was something like $250 million over five years, was it not? It was used in a most disgraceful pork-barrelling way by the former federal government. That is a fact. Everybody acknowledges that. Even members of the former government acknowledge that. Here we go. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER : What both sides of politics have been doing is trying to make sure that the federal government, no matter which political party is in power federally, gives some recognition to the fact that Western Australia needs assistance from the federal government for the provision of strategic economic infrastructure. This is the first time in a very long time, if not ever, that there has been any serious recognition of that fact. We have a federal government that has heard our pleas about assistance for the provision of economic infrastructure and has acknowledged that the provision of strategic economic infrastructure in Western Australia is in the national interest. Not only do we now have a situation in which last night an $80 million allocation was made to Western Australia for economic infrastructure—a one-off allocation of $80 million—in advance of the $100 million-plus potentially a year from the Pluto and Gorgon royalties, but also we have the opportunity to put our case for access to the $21 billion fund for economic infrastructure. Bearing in mind that Western Australia plays a disproportionately large role in the nation’s economic fortunes, I would have thought that we have a very good case to put in attempting to access moneys from that fund. Last night’s federal budget was a breath of fresh air. What we have, to the surprise of many of the critics of the observers of politics, is a federal political party that has pulled its head out of the pork barrel and made decisions in the long-term national interest. It is a federal budget that builds the nation. It is a federal budget that has its eye on the long-term benefit of the Australian nation and its people. It has been a long time since we have had a federal budget that we could categorise in that way. We have had a series of federal budgets, particularly the last few delivered by Peter Costello and John Howard, that were nothing more than giveaways to buy votes, and any serious observer of Australian economics and politics knows that that is the case. They let the country down badly in the pursuit of prolonged time in office. What we had last night was a completely different approach. We had a federal government that said it is going to invest in the long-term interests of the nation. It is going to have a $21 billion economic infrastructure fund, an $11 billion higher education and training fund and a $10 billion, I think it was—I might have the $11 billion and the $10 billion around the wrong way—health infrastructure fund, from which I have absolutely no doubt we will benefit. Therefore, does anybody seriously support the proposition that last night’s federal budget was not good for Western Australia? I will deal with the tax on condensate—condensate is effectively, in Western Australia anyway, something of a by-product of the liquefied natural gas industry. The tax on condensate, which most Western Australians would have no idea even existed, was put in place about 21 years ago as an incentive for the industry, if we take the time line back to that period. It is basically high-quality light crude. It burns cleanly. It attracts a premium price in the international market. The price of oil in the intervening 21 years has been as low as $8 a barrel, I think. What is the price of oil today? I think it is something like $120 a barrel, is it not? Therefore, an incentive was put in place 21 years ago to encourage people into the oil and gas industry in this state. In the intervening period, the price of light crude has been as low as $8 to $10 a barrel. Today it is in excess of $120 a barrel. Does anybody seriously believe that anywhere in the world oil companies require those sorts of tax exemptions to encourage them into the industry? The door is being knocked down by companies wanting to invest in the WA oil and gas industry. There we go. As far as the impact on the state budget goes, we have been given an assurance that we will be fully compensated for any impact that may occur as a result of the removal of the exemption on the condensate. I congratulate Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd on delivering a budget that is about building the nation of Australia. What a turnaround to finally get some investment into higher education and training. The investment in the long-term productivity of the nation was absolutely ignored by the previous federal government. Members should look at the trend lines on spending on higher education and training under the previous government. It is an international disgrace that effectively the federal government of Australia withdrew from investing in higher education and training and scientific research. There has been a turnaround in this nation. It was brought about because of the anticipation that such a turnaround was possible. We had a change of government, in the first place, and it is off to a very good start.
(2) Is the Premier aware that, according to the federal budget delivered last night, goods and services tax payments from the commonwealth to Western Australia will actually fall by $68 million over the coming year and that, as a result of this, South Australia will receive more GST payments than will Western Australia next year, despite the fact that there are half a million more people living in Western Australia? (3) Is the Premier aware that the federal budget imposes a new tax on oil and gas that will have potentially damaging consequences for one of the most important industries in Western Australia? (4) Is it not the case that, rather than delivering a better deal for Western Australia, wall-to-wall Labor effectively means that the Premier has given up standing up for the interests of this state at a federal level? Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: I thank the member for the question. I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of the year 12 Carmel Adventist College students. I welcome them to Parliament House and give them my best wishes for the year. (1)-(4) As I recall—and my recollection is not too bad—the original GST deal was signed up by a federal Liberal government and a state Liberal government. A federal Liberal government and a state Liberal government delivered the model that has brought about this potentially unfortunate outcome, which we are working assiduously to try to — Mr T. Buswell : You’ve gone very quiet on it, haven’t you, Premier? Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The Leader of the Opposition would be well advised to remain quiet himself, quite frankly. Mr J.E. McGrath interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : Any time the member for South Perth wants to pursue that matter, he should let me know. I heard what he said. Mr C.J. Barnett : Threats across the chamber? Mr A.J. CARPENTER : No. I am quite happy to have a conversation with the member for South Perth. The member for Cottesloe should not sink. It was a federal Liberal government and a state Liberal government that delivered the current model for the GST. Richard Court signed up to it against the protestations, as I recall, of the state Labor Party at the time. What we are trying to do now is have the model changed, so that the Commonwealth Grants Commission can change the distribution model for GST payments in order that Western Australia is not disadvantaged. That is our objective. The last time the grants commission completed the review of the GST arrangements, it increased Western Australia’s base by $250 million as a result of pressure by the WA government. The grants commission is visiting WA in June as part of the next review to be completed by 2010, and we will be putting further pressure on it then to reassess the distribution model that potentially disadvantaged Western Australia to an extent that is unacceptable. To go to the broader point, does anybody seriously put the position that last night’s budget was not good for Western Australia? Does anybody seriously put that position? Mr B.J. Grylls interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The regional partnership fund was something like $250 million over five years, was it not? It was used in a most disgraceful pork-barrelling way by the former federal government. That is a fact. Everybody acknowledges that. Even members of the former government acknowledge that. Here we go. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER : What both sides of politics have been doing is trying to make sure that the federal government, no matter which political party is in power federally, gives some recognition to the fact that Western Australia needs assistance from the federal government for the provision of strategic economic infrastructure. This is the first time in a very long time, if not ever, that there has been any serious recognition of that fact. We have a federal government that has heard our pleas about assistance for the provision of economic infrastructure and has acknowledged that the provision of strategic economic infrastructure in Western Australia is in the national interest. Not only do we now have a situation in which last night an $80 million allocation was made to Western Australia for economic infrastructure—a one-off allocation of $80 million—in advance of the $100 million-plus potentially a year from the Pluto and Gorgon royalties, but also we have the opportunity to put our case for access to the $21 billion fund for economic infrastructure. Bearing in mind that Western Australia plays a disproportionately large role in the nation’s economic fortunes, I would have thought that we have a very good case to put in attempting to access moneys from that fund. Last night’s federal budget was a breath of fresh air. What we have, to the surprise of many of the critics of the observers of politics, is a federal political party that has pulled its head out of the pork barrel and made decisions in the long-term national interest. It is a federal budget that builds the nation. It is a federal budget that has its eye on the long-term benefit of the Australian nation and its people. It has been a long time since we have had a federal budget that we could categorise in that way. We have had a series of federal budgets, particularly the last few delivered by Peter Costello and John Howard, that were nothing more than giveaways to buy votes, and any serious observer of Australian economics and politics knows that that is the case. They let the country down badly in the pursuit of prolonged time in office. What we had last night was a completely different approach. We had a federal government that said it is going to invest in the long-term interests of the nation. It is going to have a $21 billion economic infrastructure fund, an $11 billion higher education and training fund and a $10 billion, I think it was—I might have the $11 billion and the $10 billion around the wrong way—health infrastructure fund, from which I have absolutely no doubt we will benefit. Therefore, does anybody seriously support the proposition that last night’s federal budget was not good for Western Australia? I will deal with the tax on condensate—condensate is effectively, in Western Australia anyway, something of a by-product of the liquefied natural gas industry. The tax on condensate, which most Western Australians would have no idea even existed, was put in place about 21 years ago as an incentive for the industry, if we take the time line back to that period. It is basically high-quality light crude. It burns cleanly. It attracts a premium price in the international market. The price of oil in the intervening 21 years has been as low as $8 a barrel, I think. What is the price of oil today? I think it is something like $120 a barrel, is it not? Therefore, an incentive was put in place 21 years ago to encourage people into the oil and gas industry in this state. In the intervening period, the price of light crude has been as low as $8 to $10 a barrel. Today it is in excess of $120 a barrel. Does anybody seriously believe that anywhere in the world oil companies require those sorts of tax exemptions to encourage them into the industry? The door is being knocked down by companies wanting to invest in the WA oil and gas industry. There we go. As far as the impact on the state budget goes, we have been given an assurance that we will be fully compensated for any impact that may occur as a result of the removal of the exemption on the condensate. I congratulate Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd on delivering a budget that is about building the nation of Australia. What a turnaround to finally get some investment into higher education and training. The investment in the long-term productivity of the nation was absolutely ignored by the previous federal government. Members should look at the trend lines on spending on higher education and training under the previous government. It is an international disgrace that effectively the federal government of Australia withdrew from investing in higher education and training and scientific research. There has been a turnaround in this nation. It was brought about because of the anticipation that such a turnaround was possible. We had a change of government, in the first place, and it is off to a very good start.
(3) Is the Premier aware that the federal budget imposes a new tax on oil and gas that will have potentially damaging consequences for one of the most important industries in Western Australia? (4) Is it not the case that, rather than delivering a better deal for Western Australia, wall-to-wall Labor effectively means that the Premier has given up standing up for the interests of this state at a federal level? Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: I thank the member for the question. I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of the year 12 Carmel Adventist College students. I welcome them to Parliament House and give them my best wishes for the year. (1)-(4) As I recall—and my recollection is not too bad—the original GST deal was signed up by a federal Liberal government and a state Liberal government. A federal Liberal government and a state Liberal government delivered the model that has brought about this potentially unfortunate outcome, which we are working assiduously to try to — Mr T. Buswell : You’ve gone very quiet on it, haven’t you, Premier? Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The Leader of the Opposition would be well advised to remain quiet himself, quite frankly. Mr J.E. McGrath interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : Any time the member for South Perth wants to pursue that matter, he should let me know. I heard what he said. Mr C.J. Barnett : Threats across the chamber? Mr A.J. CARPENTER : No. I am quite happy to have a conversation with the member for South Perth. The member for Cottesloe should not sink. It was a federal Liberal government and a state Liberal government that delivered the current model for the GST. Richard Court signed up to it against the protestations, as I recall, of the state Labor Party at the time. What we are trying to do now is have the model changed, so that the Commonwealth Grants Commission can change the distribution model for GST payments in order that Western Australia is not disadvantaged. That is our objective. The last time the grants commission completed the review of the GST arrangements, it increased Western Australia’s base by $250 million as a result of pressure by the WA government. The grants commission is visiting WA in June as part of the next review to be completed by 2010, and we will be putting further pressure on it then to reassess the distribution model that potentially disadvantaged Western Australia to an extent that is unacceptable. To go to the broader point, does anybody seriously put the position that last night’s budget was not good for Western Australia? Does anybody seriously put that position? Mr B.J. Grylls interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The regional partnership fund was something like $250 million over five years, was it not? It was used in a most disgraceful pork-barrelling way by the former federal government. That is a fact. Everybody acknowledges that. Even members of the former government acknowledge that. Here we go. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER : What both sides of politics have been doing is trying to make sure that the federal government, no matter which political party is in power federally, gives some recognition to the fact that Western Australia needs assistance from the federal government for the provision of strategic economic infrastructure. This is the first time in a very long time, if not ever, that there has been any serious recognition of that fact. We have a federal government that has heard our pleas about assistance for the provision of economic infrastructure and has acknowledged that the provision of strategic economic infrastructure in Western Australia is in the national interest. Not only do we now have a situation in which last night an $80 million allocation was made to Western Australia for economic infrastructure—a one-off allocation of $80 million—in advance of the $100 million-plus potentially a year from the Pluto and Gorgon royalties, but also we have the opportunity to put our case for access to the $21 billion fund for economic infrastructure. Bearing in mind that Western Australia plays a disproportionately large role in the nation’s economic fortunes, I would have thought that we have a very good case to put in attempting to access moneys from that fund. Last night’s federal budget was a breath of fresh air. What we have, to the surprise of many of the critics of the observers of politics, is a federal political party that has pulled its head out of the pork barrel and made decisions in the long-term national interest. It is a federal budget that builds the nation. It is a federal budget that has its eye on the long-term benefit of the Australian nation and its people. It has been a long time since we have had a federal budget that we could categorise in that way. We have had a series of federal budgets, particularly the last few delivered by Peter Costello and John Howard, that were nothing more than giveaways to buy votes, and any serious observer of Australian economics and politics knows that that is the case. They let the country down badly in the pursuit of prolonged time in office. What we had last night was a completely different approach. We had a federal government that said it is going to invest in the long-term interests of the nation. It is going to have a $21 billion economic infrastructure fund, an $11 billion higher education and training fund and a $10 billion, I think it was—I might have the $11 billion and the $10 billion around the wrong way—health infrastructure fund, from which I have absolutely no doubt we will benefit. Therefore, does anybody seriously support the proposition that last night’s federal budget was not good for Western Australia? I will deal with the tax on condensate—condensate is effectively, in Western Australia anyway, something of a by-product of the liquefied natural gas industry. The tax on condensate, which most Western Australians would have no idea even existed, was put in place about 21 years ago as an incentive for the industry, if we take the time line back to that period. It is basically high-quality light crude. It burns cleanly. It attracts a premium price in the international market. The price of oil in the intervening 21 years has been as low as $8 a barrel, I think. What is the price of oil today? I think it is something like $120 a barrel, is it not? Therefore, an incentive was put in place 21 years ago to encourage people into the oil and gas industry in this state. In the intervening period, the price of light crude has been as low as $8 to $10 a barrel. Today it is in excess of $120 a barrel. Does anybody seriously believe that anywhere in the world oil companies require those sorts of tax exemptions to encourage them into the industry? The door is being knocked down by companies wanting to invest in the WA oil and gas industry. There we go. As far as the impact on the state budget goes, we have been given an assurance that we will be fully compensated for any impact that may occur as a result of the removal of the exemption on the condensate. I congratulate Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd on delivering a budget that is about building the nation of Australia. What a turnaround to finally get some investment into higher education and training. The investment in the long-term productivity of the nation was absolutely ignored by the previous federal government. Members should look at the trend lines on spending on higher education and training under the previous government. It is an international disgrace that effectively the federal government of Australia withdrew from investing in higher education and training and scientific research. There has been a turnaround in this nation. It was brought about because of the anticipation that such a turnaround was possible. We had a change of government, in the first place, and it is off to a very good start.
(4) Is it not the case that, rather than delivering a better deal for Western Australia, wall-to-wall Labor effectively means that the Premier has given up standing up for the interests of this state at a federal level? Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: I thank the member for the question. I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of the year 12 Carmel Adventist College students. I welcome them to Parliament House and give them my best wishes for the year. (1)-(4) As I recall—and my recollection is not too bad—the original GST deal was signed up by a federal Liberal government and a state Liberal government. A federal Liberal government and a state Liberal government delivered the model that has brought about this potentially unfortunate outcome, which we are working assiduously to try to — Mr T. Buswell : You’ve gone very quiet on it, haven’t you, Premier? Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The Leader of the Opposition would be well advised to remain quiet himself, quite frankly. Mr J.E. McGrath interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : Any time the member for South Perth wants to pursue that matter, he should let me know. I heard what he said. Mr C.J. Barnett : Threats across the chamber? Mr A.J. CARPENTER : No. I am quite happy to have a conversation with the member for South Perth. The member for Cottesloe should not sink. It was a federal Liberal government and a state Liberal government that delivered the current model for the GST. Richard Court signed up to it against the protestations, as I recall, of the state Labor Party at the time. What we are trying to do now is have the model changed, so that the Commonwealth Grants Commission can change the distribution model for GST payments in order that Western Australia is not disadvantaged. That is our objective. The last time the grants commission completed the review of the GST arrangements, it increased Western Australia’s base by $250 million as a result of pressure by the WA government. The grants commission is visiting WA in June as part of the next review to be completed by 2010, and we will be putting further pressure on it then to reassess the distribution model that potentially disadvantaged Western Australia to an extent that is unacceptable. To go to the broader point, does anybody seriously put the position that last night’s budget was not good for Western Australia? Does anybody seriously put that position? Mr B.J. Grylls interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The regional partnership fund was something like $250 million over five years, was it not? It was used in a most disgraceful pork-barrelling way by the former federal government. That is a fact. Everybody acknowledges that. Even members of the former government acknowledge that. Here we go. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER : What both sides of politics have been doing is trying to make sure that the federal government, no matter which political party is in power federally, gives some recognition to the fact that Western Australia needs assistance from the federal government for the provision of strategic economic infrastructure. This is the first time in a very long time, if not ever, that there has been any serious recognition of that fact. We have a federal government that has heard our pleas about assistance for the provision of economic infrastructure and has acknowledged that the provision of strategic economic infrastructure in Western Australia is in the national interest. Not only do we now have a situation in which last night an $80 million allocation was made to Western Australia for economic infrastructure—a one-off allocation of $80 million—in advance of the $100 million-plus potentially a year from the Pluto and Gorgon royalties, but also we have the opportunity to put our case for access to the $21 billion fund for economic infrastructure. Bearing in mind that Western Australia plays a disproportionately large role in the nation’s economic fortunes, I would have thought that we have a very good case to put in attempting to access moneys from that fund. Last night’s federal budget was a breath of fresh air. What we have, to the surprise of many of the critics of the observers of politics, is a federal political party that has pulled its head out of the pork barrel and made decisions in the long-term national interest. It is a federal budget that builds the nation. It is a federal budget that has its eye on the long-term benefit of the Australian nation and its people. It has been a long time since we have had a federal budget that we could categorise in that way. We have had a series of federal budgets, particularly the last few delivered by Peter Costello and John Howard, that were nothing more than giveaways to buy votes, and any serious observer of Australian economics and politics knows that that is the case. They let the country down badly in the pursuit of prolonged time in office. What we had last night was a completely different approach. We had a federal government that said it is going to invest in the long-term interests of the nation. It is going to have a $21 billion economic infrastructure fund, an $11 billion higher education and training fund and a $10 billion, I think it was—I might have the $11 billion and the $10 billion around the wrong way—health infrastructure fund, from which I have absolutely no doubt we will benefit. Therefore, does anybody seriously support the proposition that last night’s federal budget was not good for Western Australia? I will deal with the tax on condensate—condensate is effectively, in Western Australia anyway, something of a by-product of the liquefied natural gas industry. The tax on condensate, which most Western Australians would have no idea even existed, was put in place about 21 years ago as an incentive for the industry, if we take the time line back to that period. It is basically high-quality light crude. It burns cleanly. It attracts a premium price in the international market. The price of oil in the intervening 21 years has been as low as $8 a barrel, I think. What is the price of oil today? I think it is something like $120 a barrel, is it not? Therefore, an incentive was put in place 21 years ago to encourage people into the oil and gas industry in this state. In the intervening period, the price of light crude has been as low as $8 to $10 a barrel. Today it is in excess of $120 a barrel. Does anybody seriously believe that anywhere in the world oil companies require those sorts of tax exemptions to encourage them into the industry? The door is being knocked down by companies wanting to invest in the WA oil and gas industry. There we go. As far as the impact on the state budget goes, we have been given an assurance that we will be fully compensated for any impact that may occur as a result of the removal of the exemption on the condensate. I congratulate Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd on delivering a budget that is about building the nation of Australia. What a turnaround to finally get some investment into higher education and training. The investment in the long-term productivity of the nation was absolutely ignored by the previous federal government. Members should look at the trend lines on spending on higher education and training under the previous government. It is an international disgrace that effectively the federal government of Australia withdrew from investing in higher education and training and scientific research. There has been a turnaround in this nation. It was brought about because of the anticipation that such a turnaround was possible. We had a change of government, in the first place, and it is off to a very good start.
Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: I thank the member for the question. I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of the year 12 Carmel Adventist College students. I welcome them to Parliament House and give them my best wishes for the year. (1)-(4) As I recall—and my recollection is not too bad—the original GST deal was signed up by a federal Liberal government and a state Liberal government. A federal Liberal government and a state Liberal government delivered the model that has brought about this potentially unfortunate outcome, which we are working assiduously to try to — Mr T. Buswell : You’ve gone very quiet on it, haven’t you, Premier? Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The Leader of the Opposition would be well advised to remain quiet himself, quite frankly. Mr J.E. McGrath interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : Any time the member for South Perth wants to pursue that matter, he should let me know. I heard what he said. Mr C.J. Barnett : Threats across the chamber? Mr A.J. CARPENTER : No. I am quite happy to have a conversation with the member for South Perth. The member for Cottesloe should not sink. It was a federal Liberal government and a state Liberal government that delivered the current model for the GST. Richard Court signed up to it against the protestations, as I recall, of the state Labor Party at the time. What we are trying to do now is have the model changed, so that the Commonwealth Grants Commission can change the distribution model for GST payments in order that Western Australia is not disadvantaged. That is our objective. The last time the grants commission completed the review of the GST arrangements, it increased Western Australia’s base by $250 million as a result of pressure by the WA government. The grants commission is visiting WA in June as part of the next review to be completed by 2010, and we will be putting further pressure on it then to reassess the distribution model that potentially disadvantaged Western Australia to an extent that is unacceptable. To go to the broader point, does anybody seriously put the position that last night’s budget was not good for Western Australia? Does anybody seriously put that position? Mr B.J. Grylls interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The regional partnership fund was something like $250 million over five years, was it not? It was used in a most disgraceful pork-barrelling way by the former federal government. That is a fact. Everybody acknowledges that. Even members of the former government acknowledge that. Here we go. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER : What both sides of politics have been doing is trying to make sure that the federal government, no matter which political party is in power federally, gives some recognition to the fact that Western Australia needs assistance from the federal government for the provision of strategic economic infrastructure. This is the first time in a very long time, if not ever, that there has been any serious recognition of that fact. We have a federal government that has heard our pleas about assistance for the provision of economic infrastructure and has acknowledged that the provision of strategic economic infrastructure in Western Australia is in the national interest. Not only do we now have a situation in which last night an $80 million allocation was made to Western Australia for economic infrastructure—a one-off allocation of $80 million—in advance of the $100 million-plus potentially a year from the Pluto and Gorgon royalties, but also we have the opportunity to put our case for access to the $21 billion fund for economic infrastructure. Bearing in mind that Western Australia plays a disproportionately large role in the nation’s economic fortunes, I would have thought that we have a very good case to put in attempting to access moneys from that fund. Last night’s federal budget was a breath of fresh air. What we have, to the surprise of many of the critics of the observers of politics, is a federal political party that has pulled its head out of the pork barrel and made decisions in the long-term national interest. It is a federal budget that builds the nation. It is a federal budget that has its eye on the long-term benefit of the Australian nation and its people. It has been a long time since we have had a federal budget that we could categorise in that way. We have had a series of federal budgets, particularly the last few delivered by Peter Costello and John Howard, that were nothing more than giveaways to buy votes, and any serious observer of Australian economics and politics knows that that is the case. They let the country down badly in the pursuit of prolonged time in office. What we had last night was a completely different approach. We had a federal government that said it is going to invest in the long-term interests of the nation. It is going to have a $21 billion economic infrastructure fund, an $11 billion higher education and training fund and a $10 billion, I think it was—I might have the $11 billion and the $10 billion around the wrong way—health infrastructure fund, from which I have absolutely no doubt we will benefit. Therefore, does anybody seriously support the proposition that last night’s federal budget was not good for Western Australia? I will deal with the tax on condensate—condensate is effectively, in Western Australia anyway, something of a by-product of the liquefied natural gas industry. The tax on condensate, which most Western Australians would have no idea even existed, was put in place about 21 years ago as an incentive for the industry, if we take the time line back to that period. It is basically high-quality light crude. It burns cleanly. It attracts a premium price in the international market. The price of oil in the intervening 21 years has been as low as $8 a barrel, I think. What is the price of oil today? I think it is something like $120 a barrel, is it not? Therefore, an incentive was put in place 21 years ago to encourage people into the oil and gas industry in this state. In the intervening period, the price of light crude has been as low as $8 to $10 a barrel. Today it is in excess of $120 a barrel. Does anybody seriously believe that anywhere in the world oil companies require those sorts of tax exemptions to encourage them into the industry? The door is being knocked down by companies wanting to invest in the WA oil and gas industry. There we go. As far as the impact on the state budget goes, we have been given an assurance that we will be fully compensated for any impact that may occur as a result of the removal of the exemption on the condensate. I congratulate Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd on delivering a budget that is about building the nation of Australia. What a turnaround to finally get some investment into higher education and training. The investment in the long-term productivity of the nation was absolutely ignored by the previous federal government. Members should look at the trend lines on spending on higher education and training under the previous government. It is an international disgrace that effectively the federal government of Australia withdrew from investing in higher education and training and scientific research. There has been a turnaround in this nation. It was brought about because of the anticipation that such a turnaround was possible. We had a change of government, in the first place, and it is off to a very good start.
I thank the member for the question. I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of the year 12 Carmel Adventist College students. I welcome them to Parliament House and give them my best wishes for the year. (1)-(4) As I recall—and my recollection is not too bad—the original GST deal was signed up by a federal Liberal government and a state Liberal government. A federal Liberal government and a state Liberal government delivered the model that has brought about this potentially unfortunate outcome, which we are working assiduously to try to — Mr T. Buswell : You’ve gone very quiet on it, haven’t you, Premier? Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The Leader of the Opposition would be well advised to remain quiet himself, quite frankly. Mr J.E. McGrath interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : Any time the member for South Perth wants to pursue that matter, he should let me know. I heard what he said. Mr C.J. Barnett : Threats across the chamber? Mr A.J. CARPENTER : No. I am quite happy to have a conversation with the member for South Perth. The member for Cottesloe should not sink. It was a federal Liberal government and a state Liberal government that delivered the current model for the GST. Richard Court signed up to it against the protestations, as I recall, of the state Labor Party at the time. What we are trying to do now is have the model changed, so that the Commonwealth Grants Commission can change the distribution model for GST payments in order that Western Australia is not disadvantaged. That is our objective. The last time the grants commission completed the review of the GST arrangements, it increased Western Australia’s base by $250 million as a result of pressure by the WA government. The grants commission is visiting WA in June as part of the next review to be completed by 2010, and we will be putting further pressure on it then to reassess the distribution model that potentially disadvantaged Western Australia to an extent that is unacceptable. To go to the broader point, does anybody seriously put the position that last night’s budget was not good for Western Australia? Does anybody seriously put that position? Mr B.J. Grylls interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The regional partnership fund was something like $250 million over five years, was it not? It was used in a most disgraceful pork-barrelling way by the former federal government. That is a fact. Everybody acknowledges that. Even members of the former government acknowledge that. Here we go. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER : What both sides of politics have been doing is trying to make sure that the federal government, no matter which political party is in power federally, gives some recognition to the fact that Western Australia needs assistance from the federal government for the provision of strategic economic infrastructure. This is the first time in a very long time, if not ever, that there has been any serious recognition of that fact. We have a federal government that has heard our pleas about assistance for the provision of economic infrastructure and has acknowledged that the provision of strategic economic infrastructure in Western Australia is in the national interest. Not only do we now have a situation in which last night an $80 million allocation was made to Western Australia for economic infrastructure—a one-off allocation of $80 million—in advance of the $100 million-plus potentially a year from the Pluto and Gorgon royalties, but also we have the opportunity to put our case for access to the $21 billion fund for economic infrastructure. Bearing in mind that Western Australia plays a disproportionately large role in the nation’s economic fortunes, I would have thought that we have a very good case to put in attempting to access moneys from that fund. Last night’s federal budget was a breath of fresh air. What we have, to the surprise of many of the critics of the observers of politics, is a federal political party that has pulled its head out of the pork barrel and made decisions in the long-term national interest. It is a federal budget that builds the nation. It is a federal budget that has its eye on the long-term benefit of the Australian nation and its people. It has been a long time since we have had a federal budget that we could categorise in that way. We have had a series of federal budgets, particularly the last few delivered by Peter Costello and John Howard, that were nothing more than giveaways to buy votes, and any serious observer of Australian economics and politics knows that that is the case. They let the country down badly in the pursuit of prolonged time in office. What we had last night was a completely different approach. We had a federal government that said it is going to invest in the long-term interests of the nation. It is going to have a $21 billion economic infrastructure fund, an $11 billion higher education and training fund and a $10 billion, I think it was—I might have the $11 billion and the $10 billion around the wrong way—health infrastructure fund, from which I have absolutely no doubt we will benefit. Therefore, does anybody seriously support the proposition that last night’s federal budget was not good for Western Australia? I will deal with the tax on condensate—condensate is effectively, in Western Australia anyway, something of a by-product of the liquefied natural gas industry. The tax on condensate, which most Western Australians would have no idea even existed, was put in place about 21 years ago as an incentive for the industry, if we take the time line back to that period. It is basically high-quality light crude. It burns cleanly. It attracts a premium price in the international market. The price of oil in the intervening 21 years has been as low as $8 a barrel, I think. What is the price of oil today? I think it is something like $120 a barrel, is it not? Therefore, an incentive was put in place 21 years ago to encourage people into the oil and gas industry in this state. In the intervening period, the price of light crude has been as low as $8 to $10 a barrel. Today it is in excess of $120 a barrel. Does anybody seriously believe that anywhere in the world oil companies require those sorts of tax exemptions to encourage them into the industry? The door is being knocked down by companies wanting to invest in the WA oil and gas industry. There we go. As far as the impact on the state budget goes, we have been given an assurance that we will be fully compensated for any impact that may occur as a result of the removal of the exemption on the condensate. I congratulate Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd on delivering a budget that is about building the nation of Australia. What a turnaround to finally get some investment into higher education and training. The investment in the long-term productivity of the nation was absolutely ignored by the previous federal government. Members should look at the trend lines on spending on higher education and training under the previous government. It is an international disgrace that effectively the federal government of Australia withdrew from investing in higher education and training and scientific research. There has been a turnaround in this nation. It was brought about because of the anticipation that such a turnaround was possible. We had a change of government, in the first place, and it is off to a very good start.
(1)-(4) As I recall—and my recollection is not too bad—the original GST deal was signed up by a federal Liberal government and a state Liberal government. A federal Liberal government and a state Liberal government delivered the model that has brought about this potentially unfortunate outcome, which we are working assiduously to try to — Mr T. Buswell : You’ve gone very quiet on it, haven’t you, Premier? Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The Leader of the Opposition would be well advised to remain quiet himself, quite frankly. Mr J.E. McGrath interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : Any time the member for South Perth wants to pursue that matter, he should let me know. I heard what he said. Mr C.J. Barnett : Threats across the chamber? Mr A.J. CARPENTER : No. I am quite happy to have a conversation with the member for South Perth. The member for Cottesloe should not sink. It was a federal Liberal government and a state Liberal government that delivered the current model for the GST. Richard Court signed up to it against the protestations, as I recall, of the state Labor Party at the time. What we are trying to do now is have the model changed, so that the Commonwealth Grants Commission can change the distribution model for GST payments in order that Western Australia is not disadvantaged. That is our objective. The last time the grants commission completed the review of the GST arrangements, it increased Western Australia’s base by $250 million as a result of pressure by the WA government. The grants commission is visiting WA in June as part of the next review to be completed by 2010, and we will be putting further pressure on it then to reassess the distribution model that potentially disadvantaged Western Australia to an extent that is unacceptable. To go to the broader point, does anybody seriously put the position that last night’s budget was not good for Western Australia? Does anybody seriously put that position? Mr B.J. Grylls interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The regional partnership fund was something like $250 million over five years, was it not? It was used in a most disgraceful pork-barrelling way by the former federal government. That is a fact. Everybody acknowledges that. Even members of the former government acknowledge that. Here we go. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER : What both sides of politics have been doing is trying to make sure that the federal government, no matter which political party is in power federally, gives some recognition to the fact that Western Australia needs assistance from the federal government for the provision of strategic economic infrastructure. This is the first time in a very long time, if not ever, that there has been any serious recognition of that fact. We have a federal government that has heard our pleas about assistance for the provision of economic infrastructure and has acknowledged that the provision of strategic economic infrastructure in Western Australia is in the national interest. Not only do we now have a situation in which last night an $80 million allocation was made to Western Australia for economic infrastructure—a one-off allocation of $80 million—in advance of the $100 million-plus potentially a year from the Pluto and Gorgon royalties, but also we have the opportunity to put our case for access to the $21 billion fund for economic infrastructure. Bearing in mind that Western Australia plays a disproportionately large role in the nation’s economic fortunes, I would have thought that we have a very good case to put in attempting to access moneys from that fund. Last night’s federal budget was a breath of fresh air. What we have, to the surprise of many of the critics of the observers of politics, is a federal political party that has pulled its head out of the pork barrel and made decisions in the long-term national interest. It is a federal budget that builds the nation. It is a federal budget that has its eye on the long-term benefit of the Australian nation and its people. It has been a long time since we have had a federal budget that we could categorise in that way. We have had a series of federal budgets, particularly the last few delivered by Peter Costello and John Howard, that were nothing more than giveaways to buy votes, and any serious observer of Australian economics and politics knows that that is the case. They let the country down badly in the pursuit of prolonged time in office. What we had last night was a completely different approach. We had a federal government that said it is going to invest in the long-term interests of the nation. It is going to have a $21 billion economic infrastructure fund, an $11 billion higher education and training fund and a $10 billion, I think it was—I might have the $11 billion and the $10 billion around the wrong way—health infrastructure fund, from which I have absolutely no doubt we will benefit. Therefore, does anybody seriously support the proposition that last night’s federal budget was not good for Western Australia? I will deal with the tax on condensate—condensate is effectively, in Western Australia anyway, something of a by-product of the liquefied natural gas industry. The tax on condensate, which most Western Australians would have no idea even existed, was put in place about 21 years ago as an incentive for the industry, if we take the time line back to that period. It is basically high-quality light crude. It burns cleanly. It attracts a premium price in the international market. The price of oil in the intervening 21 years has been as low as $8 a barrel, I think. What is the price of oil today? I think it is something like $120 a barrel, is it not? Therefore, an incentive was put in place 21 years ago to encourage people into the oil and gas industry in this state. In the intervening period, the price of light crude has been as low as $8 to $10 a barrel. Today it is in excess of $120 a barrel. Does anybody seriously believe that anywhere in the world oil companies require those sorts of tax exemptions to encourage them into the industry? The door is being knocked down by companies wanting to invest in the WA oil and gas industry. There we go. As far as the impact on the state budget goes, we have been given an assurance that we will be fully compensated for any impact that may occur as a result of the removal of the exemption on the condensate. I congratulate Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd on delivering a budget that is about building the nation of Australia. What a turnaround to finally get some investment into higher education and training. The investment in the long-term productivity of the nation was absolutely ignored by the previous federal government. Members should look at the trend lines on spending on higher education and training under the previous government. It is an international disgrace that effectively the federal government of Australia withdrew from investing in higher education and training and scientific research. There has been a turnaround in this nation. It was brought about because of the anticipation that such a turnaround was possible. We had a change of government, in the first place, and it is off to a very good start.
Mr T. Buswell : You’ve gone very quiet on it, haven’t you, Premier? Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The Leader of the Opposition would be well advised to remain quiet himself, quite frankly. Mr J.E. McGrath interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : Any time the member for South Perth wants to pursue that matter, he should let me know. I heard what he said. Mr C.J. Barnett : Threats across the chamber? Mr A.J. CARPENTER : No. I am quite happy to have a conversation with the member for South Perth. The member for Cottesloe should not sink. It was a federal Liberal government and a state Liberal government that delivered the current model for the GST. Richard Court signed up to it against the protestations, as I recall, of the state Labor Party at the time. What we are trying to do now is have the model changed, so that the Commonwealth Grants Commission can change the distribution model for GST payments in order that Western Australia is not disadvantaged. That is our objective. The last time the grants commission completed the review of the GST arrangements, it increased Western Australia’s base by $250 million as a result of pressure by the WA government. The grants commission is visiting WA in June as part of the next review to be completed by 2010, and we will be putting further pressure on it then to reassess the distribution model that potentially disadvantaged Western Australia to an extent that is unacceptable. To go to the broader point, does anybody seriously put the position that last night’s budget was not good for Western Australia? Does anybody seriously put that position? Mr B.J. Grylls interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The regional partnership fund was something like $250 million over five years, was it not? It was used in a most disgraceful pork-barrelling way by the former federal government. That is a fact. Everybody acknowledges that. Even members of the former government acknowledge that. Here we go. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER : What both sides of politics have been doing is trying to make sure that the federal government, no matter which political party is in power federally, gives some recognition to the fact that Western Australia needs assistance from the federal government for the provision of strategic economic infrastructure. This is the first time in a very long time, if not ever, that there has been any serious recognition of that fact. We have a federal government that has heard our pleas about assistance for the provision of economic infrastructure and has acknowledged that the provision of strategic economic infrastructure in Western Australia is in the national interest. Not only do we now have a situation in which last night an $80 million allocation was made to Western Australia for economic infrastructure—a one-off allocation of $80 million—in advance of the $100 million-plus potentially a year from the Pluto and Gorgon royalties, but also we have the opportunity to put our case for access to the $21 billion fund for economic infrastructure. Bearing in mind that Western Australia plays a disproportionately large role in the nation’s economic fortunes, I would have thought that we have a very good case to put in attempting to access moneys from that fund. Last night’s federal budget was a breath of fresh air. What we have, to the surprise of many of the critics of the observers of politics, is a federal political party that has pulled its head out of the pork barrel and made decisions in the long-term national interest. It is a federal budget that builds the nation. It is a federal budget that has its eye on the long-term benefit of the Australian nation and its people. It has been a long time since we have had a federal budget that we could categorise in that way. We have had a series of federal budgets, particularly the last few delivered by Peter Costello and John Howard, that were nothing more than giveaways to buy votes, and any serious observer of Australian economics and politics knows that that is the case. They let the country down badly in the pursuit of prolonged time in office. What we had last night was a completely different approach. We had a federal government that said it is going to invest in the long-term interests of the nation. It is going to have a $21 billion economic infrastructure fund, an $11 billion higher education and training fund and a $10 billion, I think it was—I might have the $11 billion and the $10 billion around the wrong way—health infrastructure fund, from which I have absolutely no doubt we will benefit. Therefore, does anybody seriously support the proposition that last night’s federal budget was not good for Western Australia? I will deal with the tax on condensate—condensate is effectively, in Western Australia anyway, something of a by-product of the liquefied natural gas industry. The tax on condensate, which most Western Australians would have no idea even existed, was put in place about 21 years ago as an incentive for the industry, if we take the time line back to that period. It is basically high-quality light crude. It burns cleanly. It attracts a premium price in the international market. The price of oil in the intervening 21 years has been as low as $8 a barrel, I think. What is the price of oil today? I think it is something like $120 a barrel, is it not? Therefore, an incentive was put in place 21 years ago to encourage people into the oil and gas industry in this state. In the intervening period, the price of light crude has been as low as $8 to $10 a barrel. Today it is in excess of $120 a barrel. Does anybody seriously believe that anywhere in the world oil companies require those sorts of tax exemptions to encourage them into the industry? The door is being knocked down by companies wanting to invest in the WA oil and gas industry. There we go. As far as the impact on the state budget goes, we have been given an assurance that we will be fully compensated for any impact that may occur as a result of the removal of the exemption on the condensate. I congratulate Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd on delivering a budget that is about building the nation of Australia. What a turnaround to finally get some investment into higher education and training. The investment in the long-term productivity of the nation was absolutely ignored by the previous federal government. Members should look at the trend lines on spending on higher education and training under the previous government. It is an international disgrace that effectively the federal government of Australia withdrew from investing in higher education and training and scientific research. There has been a turnaround in this nation. It was brought about because of the anticipation that such a turnaround was possible. We had a change of government, in the first place, and it is off to a very good start.
Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The Leader of the Opposition would be well advised to remain quiet himself, quite frankly. Mr J.E. McGrath interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : Any time the member for South Perth wants to pursue that matter, he should let me know. I heard what he said. Mr C.J. Barnett : Threats across the chamber? Mr A.J. CARPENTER : No. I am quite happy to have a conversation with the member for South Perth. The member for Cottesloe should not sink. It was a federal Liberal government and a state Liberal government that delivered the current model for the GST. Richard Court signed up to it against the protestations, as I recall, of the state Labor Party at the time. What we are trying to do now is have the model changed, so that the Commonwealth Grants Commission can change the distribution model for GST payments in order that Western Australia is not disadvantaged. That is our objective. The last time the grants commission completed the review of the GST arrangements, it increased Western Australia’s base by $250 million as a result of pressure by the WA government. The grants commission is visiting WA in June as part of the next review to be completed by 2010, and we will be putting further pressure on it then to reassess the distribution model that potentially disadvantaged Western Australia to an extent that is unacceptable. To go to the broader point, does anybody seriously put the position that last night’s budget was not good for Western Australia? Does anybody seriously put that position? Mr B.J. Grylls interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The regional partnership fund was something like $250 million over five years, was it not? It was used in a most disgraceful pork-barrelling way by the former federal government. That is a fact. Everybody acknowledges that. Even members of the former government acknowledge that. Here we go. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER : What both sides of politics have been doing is trying to make sure that the federal government, no matter which political party is in power federally, gives some recognition to the fact that Western Australia needs assistance from the federal government for the provision of strategic economic infrastructure. This is the first time in a very long time, if not ever, that there has been any serious recognition of that fact. We have a federal government that has heard our pleas about assistance for the provision of economic infrastructure and has acknowledged that the provision of strategic economic infrastructure in Western Australia is in the national interest. Not only do we now have a situation in which last night an $80 million allocation was made to Western Australia for economic infrastructure—a one-off allocation of $80 million—in advance of the $100 million-plus potentially a year from the Pluto and Gorgon royalties, but also we have the opportunity to put our case for access to the $21 billion fund for economic infrastructure. Bearing in mind that Western Australia plays a disproportionately large role in the nation’s economic fortunes, I would have thought that we have a very good case to put in attempting to access moneys from that fund. Last night’s federal budget was a breath of fresh air. What we have, to the surprise of many of the critics of the observers of politics, is a federal political party that has pulled its head out of the pork barrel and made decisions in the long-term national interest. It is a federal budget that builds the nation. It is a federal budget that has its eye on the long-term benefit of the Australian nation and its people. It has been a long time since we have had a federal budget that we could categorise in that way. We have had a series of federal budgets, particularly the last few delivered by Peter Costello and John Howard, that were nothing more than giveaways to buy votes, and any serious observer of Australian economics and politics knows that that is the case. They let the country down badly in the pursuit of prolonged time in office. What we had last night was a completely different approach. We had a federal government that said it is going to invest in the long-term interests of the nation. It is going to have a $21 billion economic infrastructure fund, an $11 billion higher education and training fund and a $10 billion, I think it was—I might have the $11 billion and the $10 billion around the wrong way—health infrastructure fund, from which I have absolutely no doubt we will benefit. Therefore, does anybody seriously support the proposition that last night’s federal budget was not good for Western Australia? I will deal with the tax on condensate—condensate is effectively, in Western Australia anyway, something of a by-product of the liquefied natural gas industry. The tax on condensate, which most Western Australians would have no idea even existed, was put in place about 21 years ago as an incentive for the industry, if we take the time line back to that period. It is basically high-quality light crude. It burns cleanly. It attracts a premium price in the international market. The price of oil in the intervening 21 years has been as low as $8 a barrel, I think. What is the price of oil today? I think it is something like $120 a barrel, is it not? Therefore, an incentive was put in place 21 years ago to encourage people into the oil and gas industry in this state. In the intervening period, the price of light crude has been as low as $8 to $10 a barrel. Today it is in excess of $120 a barrel. Does anybody seriously believe that anywhere in the world oil companies require those sorts of tax exemptions to encourage them into the industry? The door is being knocked down by companies wanting to invest in the WA oil and gas industry. There we go. As far as the impact on the state budget goes, we have been given an assurance that we will be fully compensated for any impact that may occur as a result of the removal of the exemption on the condensate. I congratulate Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd on delivering a budget that is about building the nation of Australia. What a turnaround to finally get some investment into higher education and training. The investment in the long-term productivity of the nation was absolutely ignored by the previous federal government. Members should look at the trend lines on spending on higher education and training under the previous government. It is an international disgrace that effectively the federal government of Australia withdrew from investing in higher education and training and scientific research. There has been a turnaround in this nation. It was brought about because of the anticipation that such a turnaround was possible. We had a change of government, in the first place, and it is off to a very good start.
Mr J.E. McGrath interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : Any time the member for South Perth wants to pursue that matter, he should let me know. I heard what he said. Mr C.J. Barnett : Threats across the chamber? Mr A.J. CARPENTER : No. I am quite happy to have a conversation with the member for South Perth. The member for Cottesloe should not sink. It was a federal Liberal government and a state Liberal government that delivered the current model for the GST. Richard Court signed up to it against the protestations, as I recall, of the state Labor Party at the time. What we are trying to do now is have the model changed, so that the Commonwealth Grants Commission can change the distribution model for GST payments in order that Western Australia is not disadvantaged. That is our objective. The last time the grants commission completed the review of the GST arrangements, it increased Western Australia’s base by $250 million as a result of pressure by the WA government. The grants commission is visiting WA in June as part of the next review to be completed by 2010, and we will be putting further pressure on it then to reassess the distribution model that potentially disadvantaged Western Australia to an extent that is unacceptable. To go to the broader point, does anybody seriously put the position that last night’s budget was not good for Western Australia? Does anybody seriously put that position? Mr B.J. Grylls interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The regional partnership fund was something like $250 million over five years, was it not? It was used in a most disgraceful pork-barrelling way by the former federal government. That is a fact. Everybody acknowledges that. Even members of the former government acknowledge that. Here we go. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER : What both sides of politics have been doing is trying to make sure that the federal government, no matter which political party is in power federally, gives some recognition to the fact that Western Australia needs assistance from the federal government for the provision of strategic economic infrastructure. This is the first time in a very long time, if not ever, that there has been any serious recognition of that fact. We have a federal government that has heard our pleas about assistance for the provision of economic infrastructure and has acknowledged that the provision of strategic economic infrastructure in Western Australia is in the national interest. Not only do we now have a situation in which last night an $80 million allocation was made to Western Australia for economic infrastructure—a one-off allocation of $80 million—in advance of the $100 million-plus potentially a year from the Pluto and Gorgon royalties, but also we have the opportunity to put our case for access to the $21 billion fund for economic infrastructure. Bearing in mind that Western Australia plays a disproportionately large role in the nation’s economic fortunes, I would have thought that we have a very good case to put in attempting to access moneys from that fund. Last night’s federal budget was a breath of fresh air. What we have, to the surprise of many of the critics of the observers of politics, is a federal political party that has pulled its head out of the pork barrel and made decisions in the long-term national interest. It is a federal budget that builds the nation. It is a federal budget that has its eye on the long-term benefit of the Australian nation and its people. It has been a long time since we have had a federal budget that we could categorise in that way. We have had a series of federal budgets, particularly the last few delivered by Peter Costello and John Howard, that were nothing more than giveaways to buy votes, and any serious observer of Australian economics and politics knows that that is the case. They let the country down badly in the pursuit of prolonged time in office. What we had last night was a completely different approach. We had a federal government that said it is going to invest in the long-term interests of the nation. It is going to have a $21 billion economic infrastructure fund, an $11 billion higher education and training fund and a $10 billion, I think it was—I might have the $11 billion and the $10 billion around the wrong way—health infrastructure fund, from which I have absolutely no doubt we will benefit. Therefore, does anybody seriously support the proposition that last night’s federal budget was not good for Western Australia? I will deal with the tax on condensate—condensate is effectively, in Western Australia anyway, something of a by-product of the liquefied natural gas industry. The tax on condensate, which most Western Australians would have no idea even existed, was put in place about 21 years ago as an incentive for the industry, if we take the time line back to that period. It is basically high-quality light crude. It burns cleanly. It attracts a premium price in the international market. The price of oil in the intervening 21 years has been as low as $8 a barrel, I think. What is the price of oil today? I think it is something like $120 a barrel, is it not? Therefore, an incentive was put in place 21 years ago to encourage people into the oil and gas industry in this state. In the intervening period, the price of light crude has been as low as $8 to $10 a barrel. Today it is in excess of $120 a barrel. Does anybody seriously believe that anywhere in the world oil companies require those sorts of tax exemptions to encourage them into the industry? The door is being knocked down by companies wanting to invest in the WA oil and gas industry. There we go. As far as the impact on the state budget goes, we have been given an assurance that we will be fully compensated for any impact that may occur as a result of the removal of the exemption on the condensate. I congratulate Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd on delivering a budget that is about building the nation of Australia. What a turnaround to finally get some investment into higher education and training. The investment in the long-term productivity of the nation was absolutely ignored by the previous federal government. Members should look at the trend lines on spending on higher education and training under the previous government. It is an international disgrace that effectively the federal government of Australia withdrew from investing in higher education and training and scientific research. There has been a turnaround in this nation. It was brought about because of the anticipation that such a turnaround was possible. We had a change of government, in the first place, and it is off to a very good start.
Mr A.J. CARPENTER : Any time the member for South Perth wants to pursue that matter, he should let me know. I heard what he said. Mr C.J. Barnett : Threats across the chamber? Mr A.J. CARPENTER : No. I am quite happy to have a conversation with the member for South Perth. The member for Cottesloe should not sink. It was a federal Liberal government and a state Liberal government that delivered the current model for the GST. Richard Court signed up to it against the protestations, as I recall, of the state Labor Party at the time. What we are trying to do now is have the model changed, so that the Commonwealth Grants Commission can change the distribution model for GST payments in order that Western Australia is not disadvantaged. That is our objective. The last time the grants commission completed the review of the GST arrangements, it increased Western Australia’s base by $250 million as a result of pressure by the WA government. The grants commission is visiting WA in June as part of the next review to be completed by 2010, and we will be putting further pressure on it then to reassess the distribution model that potentially disadvantaged Western Australia to an extent that is unacceptable. To go to the broader point, does anybody seriously put the position that last night’s budget was not good for Western Australia? Does anybody seriously put that position? Mr B.J. Grylls interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The regional partnership fund was something like $250 million over five years, was it not? It was used in a most disgraceful pork-barrelling way by the former federal government. That is a fact. Everybody acknowledges that. Even members of the former government acknowledge that. Here we go. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER : What both sides of politics have been doing is trying to make sure that the federal government, no matter which political party is in power federally, gives some recognition to the fact that Western Australia needs assistance from the federal government for the provision of strategic economic infrastructure. This is the first time in a very long time, if not ever, that there has been any serious recognition of that fact. We have a federal government that has heard our pleas about assistance for the provision of economic infrastructure and has acknowledged that the provision of strategic economic infrastructure in Western Australia is in the national interest. Not only do we now have a situation in which last night an $80 million allocation was made to Western Australia for economic infrastructure—a one-off allocation of $80 million—in advance of the $100 million-plus potentially a year from the Pluto and Gorgon royalties, but also we have the opportunity to put our case for access to the $21 billion fund for economic infrastructure. Bearing in mind that Western Australia plays a disproportionately large role in the nation’s economic fortunes, I would have thought that we have a very good case to put in attempting to access moneys from that fund. Last night’s federal budget was a breath of fresh air. What we have, to the surprise of many of the critics of the observers of politics, is a federal political party that has pulled its head out of the pork barrel and made decisions in the long-term national interest. It is a federal budget that builds the nation. It is a federal budget that has its eye on the long-term benefit of the Australian nation and its people. It has been a long time since we have had a federal budget that we could categorise in that way. We have had a series of federal budgets, particularly the last few delivered by Peter Costello and John Howard, that were nothing more than giveaways to buy votes, and any serious observer of Australian economics and politics knows that that is the case. They let the country down badly in the pursuit of prolonged time in office. What we had last night was a completely different approach. We had a federal government that said it is going to invest in the long-term interests of the nation. It is going to have a $21 billion economic infrastructure fund, an $11 billion higher education and training fund and a $10 billion, I think it was—I might have the $11 billion and the $10 billion around the wrong way—health infrastructure fund, from which I have absolutely no doubt we will benefit. Therefore, does anybody seriously support the proposition that last night’s federal budget was not good for Western Australia? I will deal with the tax on condensate—condensate is effectively, in Western Australia anyway, something of a by-product of the liquefied natural gas industry. The tax on condensate, which most Western Australians would have no idea even existed, was put in place about 21 years ago as an incentive for the industry, if we take the time line back to that period. It is basically high-quality light crude. It burns cleanly. It attracts a premium price in the international market. The price of oil in the intervening 21 years has been as low as $8 a barrel, I think. What is the price of oil today? I think it is something like $120 a barrel, is it not? Therefore, an incentive was put in place 21 years ago to encourage people into the oil and gas industry in this state. In the intervening period, the price of light crude has been as low as $8 to $10 a barrel. Today it is in excess of $120 a barrel. Does anybody seriously believe that anywhere in the world oil companies require those sorts of tax exemptions to encourage them into the industry? The door is being knocked down by companies wanting to invest in the WA oil and gas industry. There we go. As far as the impact on the state budget goes, we have been given an assurance that we will be fully compensated for any impact that may occur as a result of the removal of the exemption on the condensate. I congratulate Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd on delivering a budget that is about building the nation of Australia. What a turnaround to finally get some investment into higher education and training. The investment in the long-term productivity of the nation was absolutely ignored by the previous federal government. Members should look at the trend lines on spending on higher education and training under the previous government. It is an international disgrace that effectively the federal government of Australia withdrew from investing in higher education and training and scientific research. There has been a turnaround in this nation. It was brought about because of the anticipation that such a turnaround was possible. We had a change of government, in the first place, and it is off to a very good start.
Mr C.J. Barnett : Threats across the chamber? Mr A.J. CARPENTER : No. I am quite happy to have a conversation with the member for South Perth. The member for Cottesloe should not sink. It was a federal Liberal government and a state Liberal government that delivered the current model for the GST. Richard Court signed up to it against the protestations, as I recall, of the state Labor Party at the time. What we are trying to do now is have the model changed, so that the Commonwealth Grants Commission can change the distribution model for GST payments in order that Western Australia is not disadvantaged. That is our objective. The last time the grants commission completed the review of the GST arrangements, it increased Western Australia’s base by $250 million as a result of pressure by the WA government. The grants commission is visiting WA in June as part of the next review to be completed by 2010, and we will be putting further pressure on it then to reassess the distribution model that potentially disadvantaged Western Australia to an extent that is unacceptable. To go to the broader point, does anybody seriously put the position that last night’s budget was not good for Western Australia? Does anybody seriously put that position? Mr B.J. Grylls interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The regional partnership fund was something like $250 million over five years, was it not? It was used in a most disgraceful pork-barrelling way by the former federal government. That is a fact. Everybody acknowledges that. Even members of the former government acknowledge that. Here we go. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER : What both sides of politics have been doing is trying to make sure that the federal government, no matter which political party is in power federally, gives some recognition to the fact that Western Australia needs assistance from the federal government for the provision of strategic economic infrastructure. This is the first time in a very long time, if not ever, that there has been any serious recognition of that fact. We have a federal government that has heard our pleas about assistance for the provision of economic infrastructure and has acknowledged that the provision of strategic economic infrastructure in Western Australia is in the national interest. Not only do we now have a situation in which last night an $80 million allocation was made to Western Australia for economic infrastructure—a one-off allocation of $80 million—in advance of the $100 million-plus potentially a year from the Pluto and Gorgon royalties, but also we have the opportunity to put our case for access to the $21 billion fund for economic infrastructure. Bearing in mind that Western Australia plays a disproportionately large role in the nation’s economic fortunes, I would have thought that we have a very good case to put in attempting to access moneys from that fund. Last night’s federal budget was a breath of fresh air. What we have, to the surprise of many of the critics of the observers of politics, is a federal political party that has pulled its head out of the pork barrel and made decisions in the long-term national interest. It is a federal budget that builds the nation. It is a federal budget that has its eye on the long-term benefit of the Australian nation and its people. It has been a long time since we have had a federal budget that we could categorise in that way. We have had a series of federal budgets, particularly the last few delivered by Peter Costello and John Howard, that were nothing more than giveaways to buy votes, and any serious observer of Australian economics and politics knows that that is the case. They let the country down badly in the pursuit of prolonged time in office. What we had last night was a completely different approach. We had a federal government that said it is going to invest in the long-term interests of the nation. It is going to have a $21 billion economic infrastructure fund, an $11 billion higher education and training fund and a $10 billion, I think it was—I might have the $11 billion and the $10 billion around the wrong way—health infrastructure fund, from which I have absolutely no doubt we will benefit. Therefore, does anybody seriously support the proposition that last night’s federal budget was not good for Western Australia? I will deal with the tax on condensate—condensate is effectively, in Western Australia anyway, something of a by-product of the liquefied natural gas industry. The tax on condensate, which most Western Australians would have no idea even existed, was put in place about 21 years ago as an incentive for the industry, if we take the time line back to that period. It is basically high-quality light crude. It burns cleanly. It attracts a premium price in the international market. The price of oil in the intervening 21 years has been as low as $8 a barrel, I think. What is the price of oil today? I think it is something like $120 a barrel, is it not? Therefore, an incentive was put in place 21 years ago to encourage people into the oil and gas industry in this state. In the intervening period, the price of light crude has been as low as $8 to $10 a barrel. Today it is in excess of $120 a barrel. Does anybody seriously believe that anywhere in the world oil companies require those sorts of tax exemptions to encourage them into the industry? The door is being knocked down by companies wanting to invest in the WA oil and gas industry. There we go. As far as the impact on the state budget goes, we have been given an assurance that we will be fully compensated for any impact that may occur as a result of the removal of the exemption on the condensate. I congratulate Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd on delivering a budget that is about building the nation of Australia. What a turnaround to finally get some investment into higher education and training. The investment in the long-term productivity of the nation was absolutely ignored by the previous federal government. Members should look at the trend lines on spending on higher education and training under the previous government. It is an international disgrace that effectively the federal government of Australia withdrew from investing in higher education and training and scientific research. There has been a turnaround in this nation. It was brought about because of the anticipation that such a turnaround was possible. We had a change of government, in the first place, and it is off to a very good start.
Mr A.J. CARPENTER : No. I am quite happy to have a conversation with the member for South Perth. The member for Cottesloe should not sink. It was a federal Liberal government and a state Liberal government that delivered the current model for the GST. Richard Court signed up to it against the protestations, as I recall, of the state Labor Party at the time. What we are trying to do now is have the model changed, so that the Commonwealth Grants Commission can change the distribution model for GST payments in order that Western Australia is not disadvantaged. That is our objective. The last time the grants commission completed the review of the GST arrangements, it increased Western Australia’s base by $250 million as a result of pressure by the WA government. The grants commission is visiting WA in June as part of the next review to be completed by 2010, and we will be putting further pressure on it then to reassess the distribution model that potentially disadvantaged Western Australia to an extent that is unacceptable. To go to the broader point, does anybody seriously put the position that last night’s budget was not good for Western Australia? Does anybody seriously put that position? Mr B.J. Grylls interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The regional partnership fund was something like $250 million over five years, was it not? It was used in a most disgraceful pork-barrelling way by the former federal government. That is a fact. Everybody acknowledges that. Even members of the former government acknowledge that. Here we go. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER : What both sides of politics have been doing is trying to make sure that the federal government, no matter which political party is in power federally, gives some recognition to the fact that Western Australia needs assistance from the federal government for the provision of strategic economic infrastructure. This is the first time in a very long time, if not ever, that there has been any serious recognition of that fact. We have a federal government that has heard our pleas about assistance for the provision of economic infrastructure and has acknowledged that the provision of strategic economic infrastructure in Western Australia is in the national interest. Not only do we now have a situation in which last night an $80 million allocation was made to Western Australia for economic infrastructure—a one-off allocation of $80 million—in advance of the $100 million-plus potentially a year from the Pluto and Gorgon royalties, but also we have the opportunity to put our case for access to the $21 billion fund for economic infrastructure. Bearing in mind that Western Australia plays a disproportionately large role in the nation’s economic fortunes, I would have thought that we have a very good case to put in attempting to access moneys from that fund. Last night’s federal budget was a breath of fresh air. What we have, to the surprise of many of the critics of the observers of politics, is a federal political party that has pulled its head out of the pork barrel and made decisions in the long-term national interest. It is a federal budget that builds the nation. It is a federal budget that has its eye on the long-term benefit of the Australian nation and its people. It has been a long time since we have had a federal budget that we could categorise in that way. We have had a series of federal budgets, particularly the last few delivered by Peter Costello and John Howard, that were nothing more than giveaways to buy votes, and any serious observer of Australian economics and politics knows that that is the case. They let the country down badly in the pursuit of prolonged time in office. What we had last night was a completely different approach. We had a federal government that said it is going to invest in the long-term interests of the nation. It is going to have a $21 billion economic infrastructure fund, an $11 billion higher education and training fund and a $10 billion, I think it was—I might have the $11 billion and the $10 billion around the wrong way—health infrastructure fund, from which I have absolutely no doubt we will benefit. Therefore, does anybody seriously support the proposition that last night’s federal budget was not good for Western Australia? I will deal with the tax on condensate—condensate is effectively, in Western Australia anyway, something of a by-product of the liquefied natural gas industry. The tax on condensate, which most Western Australians would have no idea even existed, was put in place about 21 years ago as an incentive for the industry, if we take the time line back to that period. It is basically high-quality light crude. It burns cleanly. It attracts a premium price in the international market. The price of oil in the intervening 21 years has been as low as $8 a barrel, I think. What is the price of oil today? I think it is something like $120 a barrel, is it not? Therefore, an incentive was put in place 21 years ago to encourage people into the oil and gas industry in this state. In the intervening period, the price of light crude has been as low as $8 to $10 a barrel. Today it is in excess of $120 a barrel. Does anybody seriously believe that anywhere in the world oil companies require those sorts of tax exemptions to encourage them into the industry? The door is being knocked down by companies wanting to invest in the WA oil and gas industry. There we go. As far as the impact on the state budget goes, we have been given an assurance that we will be fully compensated for any impact that may occur as a result of the removal of the exemption on the condensate. I congratulate Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd on delivering a budget that is about building the nation of Australia. What a turnaround to finally get some investment into higher education and training. The investment in the long-term productivity of the nation was absolutely ignored by the previous federal government. Members should look at the trend lines on spending on higher education and training under the previous government. It is an international disgrace that effectively the federal government of Australia withdrew from investing in higher education and training and scientific research. There has been a turnaround in this nation. It was brought about because of the anticipation that such a turnaround was possible. We had a change of government, in the first place, and it is off to a very good start.
It was a federal Liberal government and a state Liberal government that delivered the current model for the GST. Richard Court signed up to it against the protestations, as I recall, of the state Labor Party at the time. What we are trying to do now is have the model changed, so that the Commonwealth Grants Commission can change the distribution model for GST payments in order that Western Australia is not disadvantaged. That is our objective. The last time the grants commission completed the review of the GST arrangements, it increased Western Australia’s base by $250 million as a result of pressure by the WA government. The grants commission is visiting WA in June as part of the next review to be completed by 2010, and we will be putting further pressure on it then to reassess the distribution model that potentially disadvantaged Western Australia to an extent that is unacceptable. To go to the broader point, does anybody seriously put the position that last night’s budget was not good for Western Australia? Does anybody seriously put that position? Mr B.J. Grylls interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The regional partnership fund was something like $250 million over five years, was it not? It was used in a most disgraceful pork-barrelling way by the former federal government. That is a fact. Everybody acknowledges that. Even members of the former government acknowledge that. Here we go. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER : What both sides of politics have been doing is trying to make sure that the federal government, no matter which political party is in power federally, gives some recognition to the fact that Western Australia needs assistance from the federal government for the provision of strategic economic infrastructure. This is the first time in a very long time, if not ever, that there has been any serious recognition of that fact. We have a federal government that has heard our pleas about assistance for the provision of economic infrastructure and has acknowledged that the provision of strategic economic infrastructure in Western Australia is in the national interest. Not only do we now have a situation in which last night an $80 million allocation was made to Western Australia for economic infrastructure—a one-off allocation of $80 million—in advance of the $100 million-plus potentially a year from the Pluto and Gorgon royalties, but also we have the opportunity to put our case for access to the $21 billion fund for economic infrastructure. Bearing in mind that Western Australia plays a disproportionately large role in the nation’s economic fortunes, I would have thought that we have a very good case to put in attempting to access moneys from that fund. Last night’s federal budget was a breath of fresh air. What we have, to the surprise of many of the critics of the observers of politics, is a federal political party that has pulled its head out of the pork barrel and made decisions in the long-term national interest. It is a federal budget that builds the nation. It is a federal budget that has its eye on the long-term benefit of the Australian nation and its people. It has been a long time since we have had a federal budget that we could categorise in that way. We have had a series of federal budgets, particularly the last few delivered by Peter Costello and John Howard, that were nothing more than giveaways to buy votes, and any serious observer of Australian economics and politics knows that that is the case. They let the country down badly in the pursuit of prolonged time in office. What we had last night was a completely different approach. We had a federal government that said it is going to invest in the long-term interests of the nation. It is going to have a $21 billion economic infrastructure fund, an $11 billion higher education and training fund and a $10 billion, I think it was—I might have the $11 billion and the $10 billion around the wrong way—health infrastructure fund, from which I have absolutely no doubt we will benefit. Therefore, does anybody seriously support the proposition that last night’s federal budget was not good for Western Australia? I will deal with the tax on condensate—condensate is effectively, in Western Australia anyway, something of a by-product of the liquefied natural gas industry. The tax on condensate, which most Western Australians would have no idea even existed, was put in place about 21 years ago as an incentive for the industry, if we take the time line back to that period. It is basically high-quality light crude. It burns cleanly. It attracts a premium price in the international market. The price of oil in the intervening 21 years has been as low as $8 a barrel, I think. What is the price of oil today? I think it is something like $120 a barrel, is it not? Therefore, an incentive was put in place 21 years ago to encourage people into the oil and gas industry in this state. In the intervening period, the price of light crude has been as low as $8 to $10 a barrel. Today it is in excess of $120 a barrel. Does anybody seriously believe that anywhere in the world oil companies require those sorts of tax exemptions to encourage them into the industry? The door is being knocked down by companies wanting to invest in the WA oil and gas industry. There we go. As far as the impact on the state budget goes, we have been given an assurance that we will be fully compensated for any impact that may occur as a result of the removal of the exemption on the condensate. I congratulate Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd on delivering a budget that is about building the nation of Australia. What a turnaround to finally get some investment into higher education and training. The investment in the long-term productivity of the nation was absolutely ignored by the previous federal government. Members should look at the trend lines on spending on higher education and training under the previous government. It is an international disgrace that effectively the federal government of Australia withdrew from investing in higher education and training and scientific research. There has been a turnaround in this nation. It was brought about because of the anticipation that such a turnaround was possible. We had a change of government, in the first place, and it is off to a very good start.
To go to the broader point, does anybody seriously put the position that last night’s budget was not good for Western Australia? Does anybody seriously put that position? Mr B.J. Grylls interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The regional partnership fund was something like $250 million over five years, was it not? It was used in a most disgraceful pork-barrelling way by the former federal government. That is a fact. Everybody acknowledges that. Even members of the former government acknowledge that. Here we go. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER : What both sides of politics have been doing is trying to make sure that the federal government, no matter which political party is in power federally, gives some recognition to the fact that Western Australia needs assistance from the federal government for the provision of strategic economic infrastructure. This is the first time in a very long time, if not ever, that there has been any serious recognition of that fact. We have a federal government that has heard our pleas about assistance for the provision of economic infrastructure and has acknowledged that the provision of strategic economic infrastructure in Western Australia is in the national interest. Not only do we now have a situation in which last night an $80 million allocation was made to Western Australia for economic infrastructure—a one-off allocation of $80 million—in advance of the $100 million-plus potentially a year from the Pluto and Gorgon royalties, but also we have the opportunity to put our case for access to the $21 billion fund for economic infrastructure. Bearing in mind that Western Australia plays a disproportionately large role in the nation’s economic fortunes, I would have thought that we have a very good case to put in attempting to access moneys from that fund. Last night’s federal budget was a breath of fresh air. What we have, to the surprise of many of the critics of the observers of politics, is a federal political party that has pulled its head out of the pork barrel and made decisions in the long-term national interest. It is a federal budget that builds the nation. It is a federal budget that has its eye on the long-term benefit of the Australian nation and its people. It has been a long time since we have had a federal budget that we could categorise in that way. We have had a series of federal budgets, particularly the last few delivered by Peter Costello and John Howard, that were nothing more than giveaways to buy votes, and any serious observer of Australian economics and politics knows that that is the case. They let the country down badly in the pursuit of prolonged time in office. What we had last night was a completely different approach. We had a federal government that said it is going to invest in the long-term interests of the nation. It is going to have a $21 billion economic infrastructure fund, an $11 billion higher education and training fund and a $10 billion, I think it was—I might have the $11 billion and the $10 billion around the wrong way—health infrastructure fund, from which I have absolutely no doubt we will benefit. Therefore, does anybody seriously support the proposition that last night’s federal budget was not good for Western Australia? I will deal with the tax on condensate—condensate is effectively, in Western Australia anyway, something of a by-product of the liquefied natural gas industry. The tax on condensate, which most Western Australians would have no idea even existed, was put in place about 21 years ago as an incentive for the industry, if we take the time line back to that period. It is basically high-quality light crude. It burns cleanly. It attracts a premium price in the international market. The price of oil in the intervening 21 years has been as low as $8 a barrel, I think. What is the price of oil today? I think it is something like $120 a barrel, is it not? Therefore, an incentive was put in place 21 years ago to encourage people into the oil and gas industry in this state. In the intervening period, the price of light crude has been as low as $8 to $10 a barrel. Today it is in excess of $120 a barrel. Does anybody seriously believe that anywhere in the world oil companies require those sorts of tax exemptions to encourage them into the industry? The door is being knocked down by companies wanting to invest in the WA oil and gas industry. There we go. As far as the impact on the state budget goes, we have been given an assurance that we will be fully compensated for any impact that may occur as a result of the removal of the exemption on the condensate. I congratulate Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd on delivering a budget that is about building the nation of Australia. What a turnaround to finally get some investment into higher education and training. The investment in the long-term productivity of the nation was absolutely ignored by the previous federal government. Members should look at the trend lines on spending on higher education and training under the previous government. It is an international disgrace that effectively the federal government of Australia withdrew from investing in higher education and training and scientific research. There has been a turnaround in this nation. It was brought about because of the anticipation that such a turnaround was possible. We had a change of government, in the first place, and it is off to a very good start.
Mr B.J. Grylls interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The regional partnership fund was something like $250 million over five years, was it not? It was used in a most disgraceful pork-barrelling way by the former federal government. That is a fact. Everybody acknowledges that. Even members of the former government acknowledge that. Here we go. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER : What both sides of politics have been doing is trying to make sure that the federal government, no matter which political party is in power federally, gives some recognition to the fact that Western Australia needs assistance from the federal government for the provision of strategic economic infrastructure. This is the first time in a very long time, if not ever, that there has been any serious recognition of that fact. We have a federal government that has heard our pleas about assistance for the provision of economic infrastructure and has acknowledged that the provision of strategic economic infrastructure in Western Australia is in the national interest. Not only do we now have a situation in which last night an $80 million allocation was made to Western Australia for economic infrastructure—a one-off allocation of $80 million—in advance of the $100 million-plus potentially a year from the Pluto and Gorgon royalties, but also we have the opportunity to put our case for access to the $21 billion fund for economic infrastructure. Bearing in mind that Western Australia plays a disproportionately large role in the nation’s economic fortunes, I would have thought that we have a very good case to put in attempting to access moneys from that fund. Last night’s federal budget was a breath of fresh air. What we have, to the surprise of many of the critics of the observers of politics, is a federal political party that has pulled its head out of the pork barrel and made decisions in the long-term national interest. It is a federal budget that builds the nation. It is a federal budget that has its eye on the long-term benefit of the Australian nation and its people. It has been a long time since we have had a federal budget that we could categorise in that way. We have had a series of federal budgets, particularly the last few delivered by Peter Costello and John Howard, that were nothing more than giveaways to buy votes, and any serious observer of Australian economics and politics knows that that is the case. They let the country down badly in the pursuit of prolonged time in office. What we had last night was a completely different approach. We had a federal government that said it is going to invest in the long-term interests of the nation. It is going to have a $21 billion economic infrastructure fund, an $11 billion higher education and training fund and a $10 billion, I think it was—I might have the $11 billion and the $10 billion around the wrong way—health infrastructure fund, from which I have absolutely no doubt we will benefit. Therefore, does anybody seriously support the proposition that last night’s federal budget was not good for Western Australia? I will deal with the tax on condensate—condensate is effectively, in Western Australia anyway, something of a by-product of the liquefied natural gas industry. The tax on condensate, which most Western Australians would have no idea even existed, was put in place about 21 years ago as an incentive for the industry, if we take the time line back to that period. It is basically high-quality light crude. It burns cleanly. It attracts a premium price in the international market. The price of oil in the intervening 21 years has been as low as $8 a barrel, I think. What is the price of oil today? I think it is something like $120 a barrel, is it not? Therefore, an incentive was put in place 21 years ago to encourage people into the oil and gas industry in this state. In the intervening period, the price of light crude has been as low as $8 to $10 a barrel. Today it is in excess of $120 a barrel. Does anybody seriously believe that anywhere in the world oil companies require those sorts of tax exemptions to encourage them into the industry? The door is being knocked down by companies wanting to invest in the WA oil and gas industry. There we go. As far as the impact on the state budget goes, we have been given an assurance that we will be fully compensated for any impact that may occur as a result of the removal of the exemption on the condensate. I congratulate Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd on delivering a budget that is about building the nation of Australia. What a turnaround to finally get some investment into higher education and training. The investment in the long-term productivity of the nation was absolutely ignored by the previous federal government. Members should look at the trend lines on spending on higher education and training under the previous government. It is an international disgrace that effectively the federal government of Australia withdrew from investing in higher education and training and scientific research. There has been a turnaround in this nation. It was brought about because of the anticipation that such a turnaround was possible. We had a change of government, in the first place, and it is off to a very good start.
Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The regional partnership fund was something like $250 million over five years, was it not? It was used in a most disgraceful pork-barrelling way by the former federal government. That is a fact. Everybody acknowledges that. Even members of the former government acknowledge that. Here we go. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER : What both sides of politics have been doing is trying to make sure that the federal government, no matter which political party is in power federally, gives some recognition to the fact that Western Australia needs assistance from the federal government for the provision of strategic economic infrastructure. This is the first time in a very long time, if not ever, that there has been any serious recognition of that fact. We have a federal government that has heard our pleas about assistance for the provision of economic infrastructure and has acknowledged that the provision of strategic economic infrastructure in Western Australia is in the national interest. Not only do we now have a situation in which last night an $80 million allocation was made to Western Australia for economic infrastructure—a one-off allocation of $80 million—in advance of the $100 million-plus potentially a year from the Pluto and Gorgon royalties, but also we have the opportunity to put our case for access to the $21 billion fund for economic infrastructure. Bearing in mind that Western Australia plays a disproportionately large role in the nation’s economic fortunes, I would have thought that we have a very good case to put in attempting to access moneys from that fund. Last night’s federal budget was a breath of fresh air. What we have, to the surprise of many of the critics of the observers of politics, is a federal political party that has pulled its head out of the pork barrel and made decisions in the long-term national interest. It is a federal budget that builds the nation. It is a federal budget that has its eye on the long-term benefit of the Australian nation and its people. It has been a long time since we have had a federal budget that we could categorise in that way. We have had a series of federal budgets, particularly the last few delivered by Peter Costello and John Howard, that were nothing more than giveaways to buy votes, and any serious observer of Australian economics and politics knows that that is the case. They let the country down badly in the pursuit of prolonged time in office. What we had last night was a completely different approach. We had a federal government that said it is going to invest in the long-term interests of the nation. It is going to have a $21 billion economic infrastructure fund, an $11 billion higher education and training fund and a $10 billion, I think it was—I might have the $11 billion and the $10 billion around the wrong way—health infrastructure fund, from which I have absolutely no doubt we will benefit. Therefore, does anybody seriously support the proposition that last night’s federal budget was not good for Western Australia? I will deal with the tax on condensate—condensate is effectively, in Western Australia anyway, something of a by-product of the liquefied natural gas industry. The tax on condensate, which most Western Australians would have no idea even existed, was put in place about 21 years ago as an incentive for the industry, if we take the time line back to that period. It is basically high-quality light crude. It burns cleanly. It attracts a premium price in the international market. The price of oil in the intervening 21 years has been as low as $8 a barrel, I think. What is the price of oil today? I think it is something like $120 a barrel, is it not? Therefore, an incentive was put in place 21 years ago to encourage people into the oil and gas industry in this state. In the intervening period, the price of light crude has been as low as $8 to $10 a barrel. Today it is in excess of $120 a barrel. Does anybody seriously believe that anywhere in the world oil companies require those sorts of tax exemptions to encourage them into the industry? The door is being knocked down by companies wanting to invest in the WA oil and gas industry. There we go. As far as the impact on the state budget goes, we have been given an assurance that we will be fully compensated for any impact that may occur as a result of the removal of the exemption on the condensate. I congratulate Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd on delivering a budget that is about building the nation of Australia. What a turnaround to finally get some investment into higher education and training. The investment in the long-term productivity of the nation was absolutely ignored by the previous federal government. Members should look at the trend lines on spending on higher education and training under the previous government. It is an international disgrace that effectively the federal government of Australia withdrew from investing in higher education and training and scientific research. There has been a turnaround in this nation. It was brought about because of the anticipation that such a turnaround was possible. We had a change of government, in the first place, and it is off to a very good start.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER : What both sides of politics have been doing is trying to make sure that the federal government, no matter which political party is in power federally, gives some recognition to the fact that Western Australia needs assistance from the federal government for the provision of strategic economic infrastructure. This is the first time in a very long time, if not ever, that there has been any serious recognition of that fact. We have a federal government that has heard our pleas about assistance for the provision of economic infrastructure and has acknowledged that the provision of strategic economic infrastructure in Western Australia is in the national interest. Not only do we now have a situation in which last night an $80 million allocation was made to Western Australia for economic infrastructure—a one-off allocation of $80 million—in advance of the $100 million-plus potentially a year from the Pluto and Gorgon royalties, but also we have the opportunity to put our case for access to the $21 billion fund for economic infrastructure. Bearing in mind that Western Australia plays a disproportionately large role in the nation’s economic fortunes, I would have thought that we have a very good case to put in attempting to access moneys from that fund. Last night’s federal budget was a breath of fresh air. What we have, to the surprise of many of the critics of the observers of politics, is a federal political party that has pulled its head out of the pork barrel and made decisions in the long-term national interest. It is a federal budget that builds the nation. It is a federal budget that has its eye on the long-term benefit of the Australian nation and its people. It has been a long time since we have had a federal budget that we could categorise in that way. We have had a series of federal budgets, particularly the last few delivered by Peter Costello and John Howard, that were nothing more than giveaways to buy votes, and any serious observer of Australian economics and politics knows that that is the case. They let the country down badly in the pursuit of prolonged time in office. What we had last night was a completely different approach. We had a federal government that said it is going to invest in the long-term interests of the nation. It is going to have a $21 billion economic infrastructure fund, an $11 billion higher education and training fund and a $10 billion, I think it was—I might have the $11 billion and the $10 billion around the wrong way—health infrastructure fund, from which I have absolutely no doubt we will benefit. Therefore, does anybody seriously support the proposition that last night’s federal budget was not good for Western Australia? I will deal with the tax on condensate—condensate is effectively, in Western Australia anyway, something of a by-product of the liquefied natural gas industry. The tax on condensate, which most Western Australians would have no idea even existed, was put in place about 21 years ago as an incentive for the industry, if we take the time line back to that period. It is basically high-quality light crude. It burns cleanly. It attracts a premium price in the international market. The price of oil in the intervening 21 years has been as low as $8 a barrel, I think. What is the price of oil today? I think it is something like $120 a barrel, is it not? Therefore, an incentive was put in place 21 years ago to encourage people into the oil and gas industry in this state. In the intervening period, the price of light crude has been as low as $8 to $10 a barrel. Today it is in excess of $120 a barrel. Does anybody seriously believe that anywhere in the world oil companies require those sorts of tax exemptions to encourage them into the industry? The door is being knocked down by companies wanting to invest in the WA oil and gas industry. There we go. As far as the impact on the state budget goes, we have been given an assurance that we will be fully compensated for any impact that may occur as a result of the removal of the exemption on the condensate. I congratulate Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd on delivering a budget that is about building the nation of Australia. What a turnaround to finally get some investment into higher education and training. The investment in the long-term productivity of the nation was absolutely ignored by the previous federal government. Members should look at the trend lines on spending on higher education and training under the previous government. It is an international disgrace that effectively the federal government of Australia withdrew from investing in higher education and training and scientific research. There has been a turnaround in this nation. It was brought about because of the anticipation that such a turnaround was possible. We had a change of government, in the first place, and it is off to a very good start.
The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER : What both sides of politics have been doing is trying to make sure that the federal government, no matter which political party is in power federally, gives some recognition to the fact that Western Australia needs assistance from the federal government for the provision of strategic economic infrastructure. This is the first time in a very long time, if not ever, that there has been any serious recognition of that fact. We have a federal government that has heard our pleas about assistance for the provision of economic infrastructure and has acknowledged that the provision of strategic economic infrastructure in Western Australia is in the national interest. Not only do we now have a situation in which last night an $80 million allocation was made to Western Australia for economic infrastructure—a one-off allocation of $80 million—in advance of the $100 million-plus potentially a year from the Pluto and Gorgon royalties, but also we have the opportunity to put our case for access to the $21 billion fund for economic infrastructure. Bearing in mind that Western Australia plays a disproportionately large role in the nation’s economic fortunes, I would have thought that we have a very good case to put in attempting to access moneys from that fund. Last night’s federal budget was a breath of fresh air. What we have, to the surprise of many of the critics of the observers of politics, is a federal political party that has pulled its head out of the pork barrel and made decisions in the long-term national interest. It is a federal budget that builds the nation. It is a federal budget that has its eye on the long-term benefit of the Australian nation and its people. It has been a long time since we have had a federal budget that we could categorise in that way. We have had a series of federal budgets, particularly the last few delivered by Peter Costello and John Howard, that were nothing more than giveaways to buy votes, and any serious observer of Australian economics and politics knows that that is the case. They let the country down badly in the pursuit of prolonged time in office. What we had last night was a completely different approach. We had a federal government that said it is going to invest in the long-term interests of the nation. It is going to have a $21 billion economic infrastructure fund, an $11 billion higher education and training fund and a $10 billion, I think it was—I might have the $11 billion and the $10 billion around the wrong way—health infrastructure fund, from which I have absolutely no doubt we will benefit. Therefore, does anybody seriously support the proposition that last night’s federal budget was not good for Western Australia? I will deal with the tax on condensate—condensate is effectively, in Western Australia anyway, something of a by-product of the liquefied natural gas industry. The tax on condensate, which most Western Australians would have no idea even existed, was put in place about 21 years ago as an incentive for the industry, if we take the time line back to that period. It is basically high-quality light crude. It burns cleanly. It attracts a premium price in the international market. The price of oil in the intervening 21 years has been as low as $8 a barrel, I think. What is the price of oil today? I think it is something like $120 a barrel, is it not? Therefore, an incentive was put in place 21 years ago to encourage people into the oil and gas industry in this state. In the intervening period, the price of light crude has been as low as $8 to $10 a barrel. Today it is in excess of $120 a barrel. Does anybody seriously believe that anywhere in the world oil companies require those sorts of tax exemptions to encourage them into the industry? The door is being knocked down by companies wanting to invest in the WA oil and gas industry. There we go. As far as the impact on the state budget goes, we have been given an assurance that we will be fully compensated for any impact that may occur as a result of the removal of the exemption on the condensate. I congratulate Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd on delivering a budget that is about building the nation of Australia. What a turnaround to finally get some investment into higher education and training. The investment in the long-term productivity of the nation was absolutely ignored by the previous federal government. Members should look at the trend lines on spending on higher education and training under the previous government. It is an international disgrace that effectively the federal government of Australia withdrew from investing in higher education and training and scientific research. There has been a turnaround in this nation. It was brought about because of the anticipation that such a turnaround was possible. We had a change of government, in the first place, and it is off to a very good start.
Mr A.J. CARPENTER : What both sides of politics have been doing is trying to make sure that the federal government, no matter which political party is in power federally, gives some recognition to the fact that Western Australia needs assistance from the federal government for the provision of strategic economic infrastructure. This is the first time in a very long time, if not ever, that there has been any serious recognition of that fact. We have a federal government that has heard our pleas about assistance for the provision of economic infrastructure and has acknowledged that the provision of strategic economic infrastructure in Western Australia is in the national interest. Not only do we now have a situation in which last night an $80 million allocation was made to Western Australia for economic infrastructure—a one-off allocation of $80 million—in advance of the $100 million-plus potentially a year from the Pluto and Gorgon royalties, but also we have the opportunity to put our case for access to the $21 billion fund for economic infrastructure. Bearing in mind that Western Australia plays a disproportionately large role in the nation’s economic fortunes, I would have thought that we have a very good case to put in attempting to access moneys from that fund. Last night’s federal budget was a breath of fresh air. What we have, to the surprise of many of the critics of the observers of politics, is a federal political party that has pulled its head out of the pork barrel and made decisions in the long-term national interest. It is a federal budget that builds the nation. It is a federal budget that has its eye on the long-term benefit of the Australian nation and its people. It has been a long time since we have had a federal budget that we could categorise in that way. We have had a series of federal budgets, particularly the last few delivered by Peter Costello and John Howard, that were nothing more than giveaways to buy votes, and any serious observer of Australian economics and politics knows that that is the case. They let the country down badly in the pursuit of prolonged time in office. What we had last night was a completely different approach. We had a federal government that said it is going to invest in the long-term interests of the nation. It is going to have a $21 billion economic infrastructure fund, an $11 billion higher education and training fund and a $10 billion, I think it was—I might have the $11 billion and the $10 billion around the wrong way—health infrastructure fund, from which I have absolutely no doubt we will benefit. Therefore, does anybody seriously support the proposition that last night’s federal budget was not good for Western Australia? I will deal with the tax on condensate—condensate is effectively, in Western Australia anyway, something of a by-product of the liquefied natural gas industry. The tax on condensate, which most Western Australians would have no idea even existed, was put in place about 21 years ago as an incentive for the industry, if we take the time line back to that period. It is basically high-quality light crude. It burns cleanly. It attracts a premium price in the international market. The price of oil in the intervening 21 years has been as low as $8 a barrel, I think. What is the price of oil today? I think it is something like $120 a barrel, is it not? Therefore, an incentive was put in place 21 years ago to encourage people into the oil and gas industry in this state. In the intervening period, the price of light crude has been as low as $8 to $10 a barrel. Today it is in excess of $120 a barrel. Does anybody seriously believe that anywhere in the world oil companies require those sorts of tax exemptions to encourage them into the industry? The door is being knocked down by companies wanting to invest in the WA oil and gas industry. There we go. As far as the impact on the state budget goes, we have been given an assurance that we will be fully compensated for any impact that may occur as a result of the removal of the exemption on the condensate. I congratulate Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd on delivering a budget that is about building the nation of Australia. What a turnaround to finally get some investment into higher education and training. The investment in the long-term productivity of the nation was absolutely ignored by the previous federal government. Members should look at the trend lines on spending on higher education and training under the previous government. It is an international disgrace that effectively the federal government of Australia withdrew from investing in higher education and training and scientific research. There has been a turnaround in this nation. It was brought about because of the anticipation that such a turnaround was possible. We had a change of government, in the first place, and it is off to a very good start.
Last night’s federal budget was a breath of fresh air. What we have, to the surprise of many of the critics of the observers of politics, is a federal political party that has pulled its head out of the pork barrel and made decisions in the long-term national interest. It is a federal budget that builds the nation. It is a federal budget that has its eye on the long-term benefit of the Australian nation and its people. It has been a long time since we have had a federal budget that we could categorise in that way. We have had a series of federal budgets, particularly the last few delivered by Peter Costello and John Howard, that were nothing more than giveaways to buy votes, and any serious observer of Australian economics and politics knows that that is the case. They let the country down badly in the pursuit of prolonged time in office. What we had last night was a completely different approach. We had a federal government that said it is going to invest in the long-term interests of the nation. It is going to have a $21 billion economic infrastructure fund, an $11 billion higher education and training fund and a $10 billion, I think it was—I might have the $11 billion and the $10 billion around the wrong way—health infrastructure fund, from which I have absolutely no doubt we will benefit. Therefore, does anybody seriously support the proposition that last night’s federal budget was not good for Western Australia? I will deal with the tax on condensate—condensate is effectively, in Western Australia anyway, something of a by-product of the liquefied natural gas industry. The tax on condensate, which most Western Australians would have no idea even existed, was put in place about 21 years ago as an incentive for the industry, if we take the time line back to that period. It is basically high-quality light crude. It burns cleanly. It attracts a premium price in the international market. The price of oil in the intervening 21 years has been as low as $8 a barrel, I think. What is the price of oil today? I think it is something like $120 a barrel, is it not? Therefore, an incentive was put in place 21 years ago to encourage people into the oil and gas industry in this state. In the intervening period, the price of light crude has been as low as $8 to $10 a barrel. Today it is in excess of $120 a barrel. Does anybody seriously believe that anywhere in the world oil companies require those sorts of tax exemptions to encourage them into the industry? The door is being knocked down by companies wanting to invest in the WA oil and gas industry. There we go. As far as the impact on the state budget goes, we have been given an assurance that we will be fully compensated for any impact that may occur as a result of the removal of the exemption on the condensate. I congratulate Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd on delivering a budget that is about building the nation of Australia. What a turnaround to finally get some investment into higher education and training. The investment in the long-term productivity of the nation was absolutely ignored by the previous federal government. Members should look at the trend lines on spending on higher education and training under the previous government. It is an international disgrace that effectively the federal government of Australia withdrew from investing in higher education and training and scientific research. There has been a turnaround in this nation. It was brought about because of the anticipation that such a turnaround was possible. We had a change of government, in the first place, and it is off to a very good start.
I will deal with the tax on condensate—condensate is effectively, in Western Australia anyway, something of a by-product of the liquefied natural gas industry. The tax on condensate, which most Western Australians would have no idea even existed, was put in place about 21 years ago as an incentive for the industry, if we take the time line back to that period. It is basically high-quality light crude. It burns cleanly. It attracts a premium price in the international market. The price of oil in the intervening 21 years has been as low as $8 a barrel, I think. What is the price of oil today? I think it is something like $120 a barrel, is it not? Therefore, an incentive was put in place 21 years ago to encourage people into the oil and gas industry in this state. In the intervening period, the price of light crude has been as low as $8 to $10 a barrel. Today it is in excess of $120 a barrel. Does anybody seriously believe that anywhere in the world oil companies require those sorts of tax exemptions to encourage them into the industry? The door is being knocked down by companies wanting to invest in the WA oil and gas industry. There we go. As far as the impact on the state budget goes, we have been given an assurance that we will be fully compensated for any impact that may occur as a result of the removal of the exemption on the condensate. I congratulate Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd on delivering a budget that is about building the nation of Australia. What a turnaround to finally get some investment into higher education and training. The investment in the long-term productivity of the nation was absolutely ignored by the previous federal government. Members should look at the trend lines on spending on higher education and training under the previous government. It is an international disgrace that effectively the federal government of Australia withdrew from investing in higher education and training and scientific research. There has been a turnaround in this nation. It was brought about because of the anticipation that such a turnaround was possible. We had a change of government, in the first place, and it is off to a very good start.
I congratulate Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd on delivering a budget that is about building the nation of Australia. What a turnaround to finally get some investment into higher education and training. The investment in the long-term productivity of the nation was absolutely ignored by the previous federal government. Members should look at the trend lines on spending on higher education and training under the previous government. It is an international disgrace that effectively the federal government of Australia withdrew from investing in higher education and training and scientific research. There has been a turnaround in this nation. It was brought about because of the anticipation that such a turnaround was possible. We had a change of government, in the first place, and it is off to a very good start.
What a turnaround to finally get some investment into higher education and training. The investment in the long-term productivity of the nation was absolutely ignored by the previous federal government. Members should look at the trend lines on spending on higher education and training under the previous government. It is an international disgrace that effectively the federal government of Australia withdrew from investing in higher education and training and scientific research. There has been a turnaround in this nation. It was brought about because of the anticipation that such a turnaround was possible. We had a change of government, in the first place, and it is off to a very good start.
Mr M.P. Murray interjected. The SPEAKER : It is disorderly to stop a question being asked. I call the member for Collie-Wellington to order for the first time. Mr T. BUSWELL : My question is to the Premier. (1) Does the Premier recall, back in the heady days after the last federal election, talking about a brave new era of federal-state cooperation and the positive results that this would deliver for Western Australia? (2) Is the Premier aware that, according to the federal budget delivered last night, goods and services tax payments from the commonwealth to Western Australia will actually fall by $68 million over the coming year and that, as a result of this, South Australia will receive more GST payments than will Western Australia next year, despite the fact that there are half a million more people living in Western Australia? (3) Is the Premier aware that the federal budget imposes a new tax on oil and gas that will have potentially damaging consequences for one of the most important industries in Western Australia? (4) Is it not the case that, rather than delivering a better deal for Western Australia, wall-to-wall Labor effectively means that the Premier has given up standing up for the interests of this state at a federal level? Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: I thank the member for the question. I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of the year 12 Carmel Adventist College students. I welcome them to Parliament House and give them my best wishes for the year. (1)-(4) As I recall—and my recollection is not too bad—the original GST deal was signed up by a federal Liberal government and a state Liberal government. A federal Liberal government and a state Liberal government delivered the model that has brought about this potentially unfortunate outcome, which we are working assiduously to try to — Mr T. Buswell : You’ve gone very quiet on it, haven’t you, Premier? Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The Leader of the Opposition would be well advised to remain quiet himself, quite frankly. Mr J.E. McGrath interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : Any time the member for South Perth wants to pursue that matter, he should let me know. I heard what he said. Mr C.J. Barnett : Threats across the chamber? Mr A.J. CARPENTER : No. I am quite happy to have a conversation with the member for South Perth. The member for Cottesloe should not sink. It was a federal Liberal government and a state Liberal government that delivered the current model for the GST. Richard Court signed up to it against the protestations, as I recall, of the state Labor Party at the time. What we are trying to do now is have the model changed, so that the Commonwealth Grants Commission can change the distribution model for GST payments in order that Western Australia is not disadvantaged. That is our objective. The last time the grants commission completed the review of the GST arrangements, it increased Western Australia’s base by $250 million as a result of pressure by the WA government. The grants commission is visiting WA in June as part of the next review to be completed by 2010, and we will be putting further pressure on it then to reassess the distribution model that potentially disadvantaged Western Australia to an extent that is unacceptable. To go to the broader point, does anybody seriously put the position that last night’s budget was not good for Western Australia? Does anybody seriously put that position? Mr B.J. Grylls interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The regional partnership fund was something like $250 million over five years, was it not? It was used in a most disgraceful pork-barrelling way by the former federal government. That is a fact. Everybody acknowledges that. Even members of the former government acknowledge that. Here we go. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER : What both sides of politics have been doing is trying to make sure that the federal government, no matter which political party is in power federally, gives some recognition to the fact that Western Australia needs assistance from the federal government for the provision of strategic economic infrastructure. This is the first time in a very long time, if not ever, that there has been any serious recognition of that fact. We have a federal government that has heard our pleas about assistance for the provision of economic infrastructure and has acknowledged that the provision of strategic economic infrastructure in Western Australia is in the national interest. Not only do we now have a situation in which last night an $80 million allocation was made to Western Australia for economic infrastructure—a one-off allocation of $80 million—in advance of the $100 million-plus potentially a year from the Pluto and Gorgon royalties, but also we have the opportunity to put our case for access to the $21 billion fund for economic infrastructure. Bearing in mind that Western Australia plays a disproportionately large role in the nation’s economic fortunes, I would have thought that we have a very good case to put in attempting to access moneys from that fund. Last night’s federal budget was a breath of fresh air. What we have, to the surprise of many of the critics of the observers of politics, is a federal political party that has pulled its head out of the pork barrel and made decisions in the long-term national interest. It is a federal budget that builds the nation. It is a federal budget that has its eye on the long-term benefit of the Australian nation and its people. It has been a long time since we have had a federal budget that we could categorise in that way. We have had a series of federal budgets, particularly the last few delivered by Peter Costello and John Howard, that were nothing more than giveaways to buy votes, and any serious observer of Australian economics and politics knows that that is the case. They let the country down badly in the pursuit of prolonged time in office. What we had last night was a completely different approach. We had a federal government that said it is going to invest in the long-term interests of the nation. It is going to have a $21 billion economic infrastructure fund, an $11 billion higher education and training fund and a $10 billion, I think it was—I might have the $11 billion and the $10 billion around the wrong way—health infrastructure fund, from which I have absolutely no doubt we will benefit. Therefore, does anybody seriously support the proposition that last night’s federal budget was not good for Western Australia? I will deal with the tax on condensate—condensate is effectively, in Western Australia anyway, something of a by-product of the liquefied natural gas industry. The tax on condensate, which most Western Australians would have no idea even existed, was put in place about 21 years ago as an incentive for the industry, if we take the time line back to that period. It is basically high-quality light crude. It burns cleanly. It attracts a premium price in the international market. The price of oil in the intervening 21 years has been as low as $8 a barrel, I think. What is the price of oil today? I think it is something like $120 a barrel, is it not? Therefore, an incentive was put in place 21 years ago to encourage people into the oil and gas industry in this state. In the intervening period, the price of light crude has been as low as $8 to $10 a barrel. Today it is in excess of $120 a barrel. Does anybody seriously believe that anywhere in the world oil companies require those sorts of tax exemptions to encourage them into the industry? The door is being knocked down by companies wanting to invest in the WA oil and gas industry. There we go. As far as the impact on the state budget goes, we have been given an assurance that we will be fully compensated for any impact that may occur as a result of the removal of the exemption on the condensate. I congratulate Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd on delivering a budget that is about building the nation of Australia. What a turnaround to finally get some investment into higher education and training. The investment in the long-term productivity of the nation was absolutely ignored by the previous federal government. Members should look at the trend lines on spending on higher education and training under the previous government. It is an international disgrace that effectively the federal government of Australia withdrew from investing in higher education and training and scientific research. There has been a turnaround in this nation. It was brought about because of the anticipation that such a turnaround was possible. We had a change of government, in the first place, and it is off to a very good start.
The SPEAKER : It is disorderly to stop a question being asked. I call the member for Collie-Wellington to order for the first time. Mr T. BUSWELL : My question is to the Premier. (1) Does the Premier recall, back in the heady days after the last federal election, talking about a brave new era of federal-state cooperation and the positive results that this would deliver for Western Australia? (2) Is the Premier aware that, according to the federal budget delivered last night, goods and services tax payments from the commonwealth to Western Australia will actually fall by $68 million over the coming year and that, as a result of this, South Australia will receive more GST payments than will Western Australia next year, despite the fact that there are half a million more people living in Western Australia? (3) Is the Premier aware that the federal budget imposes a new tax on oil and gas that will have potentially damaging consequences for one of the most important industries in Western Australia? (4) Is it not the case that, rather than delivering a better deal for Western Australia, wall-to-wall Labor effectively means that the Premier has given up standing up for the interests of this state at a federal level? Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: I thank the member for the question. I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of the year 12 Carmel Adventist College students. I welcome them to Parliament House and give them my best wishes for the year. (1)-(4) As I recall—and my recollection is not too bad—the original GST deal was signed up by a federal Liberal government and a state Liberal government. A federal Liberal government and a state Liberal government delivered the model that has brought about this potentially unfortunate outcome, which we are working assiduously to try to — Mr T. Buswell : You’ve gone very quiet on it, haven’t you, Premier? Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The Leader of the Opposition would be well advised to remain quiet himself, quite frankly. Mr J.E. McGrath interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : Any time the member for South Perth wants to pursue that matter, he should let me know. I heard what he said. Mr C.J. Barnett : Threats across the chamber? Mr A.J. CARPENTER : No. I am quite happy to have a conversation with the member for South Perth. The member for Cottesloe should not sink. It was a federal Liberal government and a state Liberal government that delivered the current model for the GST. Richard Court signed up to it against the protestations, as I recall, of the state Labor Party at the time. What we are trying to do now is have the model changed, so that the Commonwealth Grants Commission can change the distribution model for GST payments in order that Western Australia is not disadvantaged. That is our objective. The last time the grants commission completed the review of the GST arrangements, it increased Western Australia’s base by $250 million as a result of pressure by the WA government. The grants commission is visiting WA in June as part of the next review to be completed by 2010, and we will be putting further pressure on it then to reassess the distribution model that potentially disadvantaged Western Australia to an extent that is unacceptable. To go to the broader point, does anybody seriously put the position that last night’s budget was not good for Western Australia? Does anybody seriously put that position? Mr B.J. Grylls interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The regional partnership fund was something like $250 million over five years, was it not? It was used in a most disgraceful pork-barrelling way by the former federal government. That is a fact. Everybody acknowledges that. Even members of the former government acknowledge that. Here we go. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER : What both sides of politics have been doing is trying to make sure that the federal government, no matter which political party is in power federally, gives some recognition to the fact that Western Australia needs assistance from the federal government for the provision of strategic economic infrastructure. This is the first time in a very long time, if not ever, that there has been any serious recognition of that fact. We have a federal government that has heard our pleas about assistance for the provision of economic infrastructure and has acknowledged that the provision of strategic economic infrastructure in Western Australia is in the national interest. Not only do we now have a situation in which last night an $80 million allocation was made to Western Australia for economic infrastructure—a one-off allocation of $80 million—in advance of the $100 million-plus potentially a year from the Pluto and Gorgon royalties, but also we have the opportunity to put our case for access to the $21 billion fund for economic infrastructure. Bearing in mind that Western Australia plays a disproportionately large role in the nation’s economic fortunes, I would have thought that we have a very good case to put in attempting to access moneys from that fund. Last night’s federal budget was a breath of fresh air. What we have, to the surprise of many of the critics of the observers of politics, is a federal political party that has pulled its head out of the pork barrel and made decisions in the long-term national interest. It is a federal budget that builds the nation. It is a federal budget that has its eye on the long-term benefit of the Australian nation and its people. It has been a long time since we have had a federal budget that we could categorise in that way. We have had a series of federal budgets, particularly the last few delivered by Peter Costello and John Howard, that were nothing more than giveaways to buy votes, and any serious observer of Australian economics and politics knows that that is the case. They let the country down badly in the pursuit of prolonged time in office. What we had last night was a completely different approach. We had a federal government that said it is going to invest in the long-term interests of the nation. It is going to have a $21 billion economic infrastructure fund, an $11 billion higher education and training fund and a $10 billion, I think it was—I might have the $11 billion and the $10 billion around the wrong way—health infrastructure fund, from which I have absolutely no doubt we will benefit. Therefore, does anybody seriously support the proposition that last night’s federal budget was not good for Western Australia? I will deal with the tax on condensate—condensate is effectively, in Western Australia anyway, something of a by-product of the liquefied natural gas industry. The tax on condensate, which most Western Australians would have no idea even existed, was put in place about 21 years ago as an incentive for the industry, if we take the time line back to that period. It is basically high-quality light crude. It burns cleanly. It attracts a premium price in the international market. The price of oil in the intervening 21 years has been as low as $8 a barrel, I think. What is the price of oil today? I think it is something like $120 a barrel, is it not? Therefore, an incentive was put in place 21 years ago to encourage people into the oil and gas industry in this state. In the intervening period, the price of light crude has been as low as $8 to $10 a barrel. Today it is in excess of $120 a barrel. Does anybody seriously believe that anywhere in the world oil companies require those sorts of tax exemptions to encourage them into the industry? The door is being knocked down by companies wanting to invest in the WA oil and gas industry. There we go. As far as the impact on the state budget goes, we have been given an assurance that we will be fully compensated for any impact that may occur as a result of the removal of the exemption on the condensate. I congratulate Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd on delivering a budget that is about building the nation of Australia. What a turnaround to finally get some investment into higher education and training. The investment in the long-term productivity of the nation was absolutely ignored by the previous federal government. Members should look at the trend lines on spending on higher education and training under the previous government. It is an international disgrace that effectively the federal government of Australia withdrew from investing in higher education and training and scientific research. There has been a turnaround in this nation. It was brought about because of the anticipation that such a turnaround was possible. We had a change of government, in the first place, and it is off to a very good start.
Mr T. BUSWELL : My question is to the Premier. (1) Does the Premier recall, back in the heady days after the last federal election, talking about a brave new era of federal-state cooperation and the positive results that this would deliver for Western Australia? (2) Is the Premier aware that, according to the federal budget delivered last night, goods and services tax payments from the commonwealth to Western Australia will actually fall by $68 million over the coming year and that, as a result of this, South Australia will receive more GST payments than will Western Australia next year, despite the fact that there are half a million more people living in Western Australia? (3) Is the Premier aware that the federal budget imposes a new tax on oil and gas that will have potentially damaging consequences for one of the most important industries in Western Australia? (4) Is it not the case that, rather than delivering a better deal for Western Australia, wall-to-wall Labor effectively means that the Premier has given up standing up for the interests of this state at a federal level? Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: I thank the member for the question. I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of the year 12 Carmel Adventist College students. I welcome them to Parliament House and give them my best wishes for the year. (1)-(4) As I recall—and my recollection is not too bad—the original GST deal was signed up by a federal Liberal government and a state Liberal government. A federal Liberal government and a state Liberal government delivered the model that has brought about this potentially unfortunate outcome, which we are working assiduously to try to — Mr T. Buswell : You’ve gone very quiet on it, haven’t you, Premier? Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The Leader of the Opposition would be well advised to remain quiet himself, quite frankly. Mr J.E. McGrath interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : Any time the member for South Perth wants to pursue that matter, he should let me know. I heard what he said. Mr C.J. Barnett : Threats across the chamber? Mr A.J. CARPENTER : No. I am quite happy to have a conversation with the member for South Perth. The member for Cottesloe should not sink. It was a federal Liberal government and a state Liberal government that delivered the current model for the GST. Richard Court signed up to it against the protestations, as I recall, of the state Labor Party at the time. What we are trying to do now is have the model changed, so that the Commonwealth Grants Commission can change the distribution model for GST payments in order that Western Australia is not disadvantaged. That is our objective. The last time the grants commission completed the review of the GST arrangements, it increased Western Australia’s base by $250 million as a result of pressure by the WA government. The grants commission is visiting WA in June as part of the next review to be completed by 2010, and we will be putting further pressure on it then to reassess the distribution model that potentially disadvantaged Western Australia to an extent that is unacceptable. To go to the broader point, does anybody seriously put the position that last night’s budget was not good for Western Australia? Does anybody seriously put that position? Mr B.J. Grylls interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The regional partnership fund was something like $250 million over five years, was it not? It was used in a most disgraceful pork-barrelling way by the former federal government. That is a fact. Everybody acknowledges that. Even members of the former government acknowledge that. Here we go. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER : What both sides of politics have been doing is trying to make sure that the federal government, no matter which political party is in power federally, gives some recognition to the fact that Western Australia needs assistance from the federal government for the provision of strategic economic infrastructure. This is the first time in a very long time, if not ever, that there has been any serious recognition of that fact. We have a federal government that has heard our pleas about assistance for the provision of economic infrastructure and has acknowledged that the provision of strategic economic infrastructure in Western Australia is in the national interest. Not only do we now have a situation in which last night an $80 million allocation was made to Western Australia for economic infrastructure—a one-off allocation of $80 million—in advance of the $100 million-plus potentially a year from the Pluto and Gorgon royalties, but also we have the opportunity to put our case for access to the $21 billion fund for economic infrastructure. Bearing in mind that Western Australia plays a disproportionately large role in the nation’s economic fortunes, I would have thought that we have a very good case to put in attempting to access moneys from that fund. Last night’s federal budget was a breath of fresh air. What we have, to the surprise of many of the critics of the observers of politics, is a federal political party that has pulled its head out of the pork barrel and made decisions in the long-term national interest. It is a federal budget that builds the nation. It is a federal budget that has its eye on the long-term benefit of the Australian nation and its people. It has been a long time since we have had a federal budget that we could categorise in that way. We have had a series of federal budgets, particularly the last few delivered by Peter Costello and John Howard, that were nothing more than giveaways to buy votes, and any serious observer of Australian economics and politics knows that that is the case. They let the country down badly in the pursuit of prolonged time in office. What we had last night was a completely different approach. We had a federal government that said it is going to invest in the long-term interests of the nation. It is going to have a $21 billion economic infrastructure fund, an $11 billion higher education and training fund and a $10 billion, I think it was—I might have the $11 billion and the $10 billion around the wrong way—health infrastructure fund, from which I have absolutely no doubt we will benefit. Therefore, does anybody seriously support the proposition that last night’s federal budget was not good for Western Australia? I will deal with the tax on condensate—condensate is effectively, in Western Australia anyway, something of a by-product of the liquefied natural gas industry. The tax on condensate, which most Western Australians would have no idea even existed, was put in place about 21 years ago as an incentive for the industry, if we take the time line back to that period. It is basically high-quality light crude. It burns cleanly. It attracts a premium price in the international market. The price of oil in the intervening 21 years has been as low as $8 a barrel, I think. What is the price of oil today? I think it is something like $120 a barrel, is it not? Therefore, an incentive was put in place 21 years ago to encourage people into the oil and gas industry in this state. In the intervening period, the price of light crude has been as low as $8 to $10 a barrel. Today it is in excess of $120 a barrel. Does anybody seriously believe that anywhere in the world oil companies require those sorts of tax exemptions to encourage them into the industry? The door is being knocked down by companies wanting to invest in the WA oil and gas industry. There we go. As far as the impact on the state budget goes, we have been given an assurance that we will be fully compensated for any impact that may occur as a result of the removal of the exemption on the condensate. I congratulate Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd on delivering a budget that is about building the nation of Australia. What a turnaround to finally get some investment into higher education and training. The investment in the long-term productivity of the nation was absolutely ignored by the previous federal government. Members should look at the trend lines on spending on higher education and training under the previous government. It is an international disgrace that effectively the federal government of Australia withdrew from investing in higher education and training and scientific research. There has been a turnaround in this nation. It was brought about because of the anticipation that such a turnaround was possible. We had a change of government, in the first place, and it is off to a very good start.
(1) Does the Premier recall, back in the heady days after the last federal election, talking about a brave new era of federal-state cooperation and the positive results that this would deliver for Western Australia? (2) Is the Premier aware that, according to the federal budget delivered last night, goods and services tax payments from the commonwealth to Western Australia will actually fall by $68 million over the coming year and that, as a result of this, South Australia will receive more GST payments than will Western Australia next year, despite the fact that there are half a million more people living in Western Australia? (3) Is the Premier aware that the federal budget imposes a new tax on oil and gas that will have potentially damaging consequences for one of the most important industries in Western Australia? (4) Is it not the case that, rather than delivering a better deal for Western Australia, wall-to-wall Labor effectively means that the Premier has given up standing up for the interests of this state at a federal level? Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: I thank the member for the question. I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of the year 12 Carmel Adventist College students. I welcome them to Parliament House and give them my best wishes for the year. (1)-(4) As I recall—and my recollection is not too bad—the original GST deal was signed up by a federal Liberal government and a state Liberal government. A federal Liberal government and a state Liberal government delivered the model that has brought about this potentially unfortunate outcome, which we are working assiduously to try to — Mr T. Buswell : You’ve gone very quiet on it, haven’t you, Premier? Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The Leader of the Opposition would be well advised to remain quiet himself, quite frankly. Mr J.E. McGrath interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : Any time the member for South Perth wants to pursue that matter, he should let me know. I heard what he said. Mr C.J. Barnett : Threats across the chamber? Mr A.J. CARPENTER : No. I am quite happy to have a conversation with the member for South Perth. The member for Cottesloe should not sink. It was a federal Liberal government and a state Liberal government that delivered the current model for the GST. Richard Court signed up to it against the protestations, as I recall, of the state Labor Party at the time. What we are trying to do now is have the model changed, so that the Commonwealth Grants Commission can change the distribution model for GST payments in order that Western Australia is not disadvantaged. That is our objective. The last time the grants commission completed the review of the GST arrangements, it increased Western Australia’s base by $250 million as a result of pressure by the WA government. The grants commission is visiting WA in June as part of the next review to be completed by 2010, and we will be putting further pressure on it then to reassess the distribution model that potentially disadvantaged Western Australia to an extent that is unacceptable. To go to the broader point, does anybody seriously put the position that last night’s budget was not good for Western Australia? Does anybody seriously put that position? Mr B.J. Grylls interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The regional partnership fund was something like $250 million over five years, was it not? It was used in a most disgraceful pork-barrelling way by the former federal government. That is a fact. Everybody acknowledges that. Even members of the former government acknowledge that. Here we go. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER : What both sides of politics have been doing is trying to make sure that the federal government, no matter which political party is in power federally, gives some recognition to the fact that Western Australia needs assistance from the federal government for the provision of strategic economic infrastructure. This is the first time in a very long time, if not ever, that there has been any serious recognition of that fact. We have a federal government that has heard our pleas about assistance for the provision of economic infrastructure and has acknowledged that the provision of strategic economic infrastructure in Western Australia is in the national interest. Not only do we now have a situation in which last night an $80 million allocation was made to Western Australia for economic infrastructure—a one-off allocation of $80 million—in advance of the $100 million-plus potentially a year from the Pluto and Gorgon royalties, but also we have the opportunity to put our case for access to the $21 billion fund for economic infrastructure. Bearing in mind that Western Australia plays a disproportionately large role in the nation’s economic fortunes, I would have thought that we have a very good case to put in attempting to access moneys from that fund. Last night’s federal budget was a breath of fresh air. What we have, to the surprise of many of the critics of the observers of politics, is a federal political party that has pulled its head out of the pork barrel and made decisions in the long-term national interest. It is a federal budget that builds the nation. It is a federal budget that has its eye on the long-term benefit of the Australian nation and its people. It has been a long time since we have had a federal budget that we could categorise in that way. We have had a series of federal budgets, particularly the last few delivered by Peter Costello and John Howard, that were nothing more than giveaways to buy votes, and any serious observer of Australian economics and politics knows that that is the case. They let the country down badly in the pursuit of prolonged time in office. What we had last night was a completely different approach. We had a federal government that said it is going to invest in the long-term interests of the nation. It is going to have a $21 billion economic infrastructure fund, an $11 billion higher education and training fund and a $10 billion, I think it was—I might have the $11 billion and the $10 billion around the wrong way—health infrastructure fund, from which I have absolutely no doubt we will benefit. Therefore, does anybody seriously support the proposition that last night’s federal budget was not good for Western Australia? I will deal with the tax on condensate—condensate is effectively, in Western Australia anyway, something of a by-product of the liquefied natural gas industry. The tax on condensate, which most Western Australians would have no idea even existed, was put in place about 21 years ago as an incentive for the industry, if we take the time line back to that period. It is basically high-quality light crude. It burns cleanly. It attracts a premium price in the international market. The price of oil in the intervening 21 years has been as low as $8 a barrel, I think. What is the price of oil today? I think it is something like $120 a barrel, is it not? Therefore, an incentive was put in place 21 years ago to encourage people into the oil and gas industry in this state. In the intervening period, the price of light crude has been as low as $8 to $10 a barrel. Today it is in excess of $120 a barrel. Does anybody seriously believe that anywhere in the world oil companies require those sorts of tax exemptions to encourage them into the industry? The door is being knocked down by companies wanting to invest in the WA oil and gas industry. There we go. As far as the impact on the state budget goes, we have been given an assurance that we will be fully compensated for any impact that may occur as a result of the removal of the exemption on the condensate. I congratulate Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd on delivering a budget that is about building the nation of Australia. What a turnaround to finally get some investment into higher education and training. The investment in the long-term productivity of the nation was absolutely ignored by the previous federal government. Members should look at the trend lines on spending on higher education and training under the previous government. It is an international disgrace that effectively the federal government of Australia withdrew from investing in higher education and training and scientific research. There has been a turnaround in this nation. It was brought about because of the anticipation that such a turnaround was possible. We had a change of government, in the first place, and it is off to a very good start.
(2) Is the Premier aware that, according to the federal budget delivered last night, goods and services tax payments from the commonwealth to Western Australia will actually fall by $68 million over the coming year and that, as a result of this, South Australia will receive more GST payments than will Western Australia next year, despite the fact that there are half a million more people living in Western Australia? (3) Is the Premier aware that the federal budget imposes a new tax on oil and gas that will have potentially damaging consequences for one of the most important industries in Western Australia? (4) Is it not the case that, rather than delivering a better deal for Western Australia, wall-to-wall Labor effectively means that the Premier has given up standing up for the interests of this state at a federal level? Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: I thank the member for the question. I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of the year 12 Carmel Adventist College students. I welcome them to Parliament House and give them my best wishes for the year. (1)-(4) As I recall—and my recollection is not too bad—the original GST deal was signed up by a federal Liberal government and a state Liberal government. A federal Liberal government and a state Liberal government delivered the model that has brought about this potentially unfortunate outcome, which we are working assiduously to try to — Mr T. Buswell : You’ve gone very quiet on it, haven’t you, Premier? Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The Leader of the Opposition would be well advised to remain quiet himself, quite frankly. Mr J.E. McGrath interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : Any time the member for South Perth wants to pursue that matter, he should let me know. I heard what he said. Mr C.J. Barnett : Threats across the chamber? Mr A.J. CARPENTER : No. I am quite happy to have a conversation with the member for South Perth. The member for Cottesloe should not sink. It was a federal Liberal government and a state Liberal government that delivered the current model for the GST. Richard Court signed up to it against the protestations, as I recall, of the state Labor Party at the time. What we are trying to do now is have the model changed, so that the Commonwealth Grants Commission can change the distribution model for GST payments in order that Western Australia is not disadvantaged. That is our objective. The last time the grants commission completed the review of the GST arrangements, it increased Western Australia’s base by $250 million as a result of pressure by the WA government. The grants commission is visiting WA in June as part of the next review to be completed by 2010, and we will be putting further pressure on it then to reassess the distribution model that potentially disadvantaged Western Australia to an extent that is unacceptable. To go to the broader point, does anybody seriously put the position that last night’s budget was not good for Western Australia? Does anybody seriously put that position? Mr B.J. Grylls interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The regional partnership fund was something like $250 million over five years, was it not? It was used in a most disgraceful pork-barrelling way by the former federal government. That is a fact. Everybody acknowledges that. Even members of the former government acknowledge that. Here we go. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER : What both sides of politics have been doing is trying to make sure that the federal government, no matter which political party is in power federally, gives some recognition to the fact that Western Australia needs assistance from the federal government for the provision of strategic economic infrastructure. This is the first time in a very long time, if not ever, that there has been any serious recognition of that fact. We have a federal government that has heard our pleas about assistance for the provision of economic infrastructure and has acknowledged that the provision of strategic economic infrastructure in Western Australia is in the national interest. Not only do we now have a situation in which last night an $80 million allocation was made to Western Australia for economic infrastructure—a one-off allocation of $80 million—in advance of the $100 million-plus potentially a year from the Pluto and Gorgon royalties, but also we have the opportunity to put our case for access to the $21 billion fund for economic infrastructure. Bearing in mind that Western Australia plays a disproportionately large role in the nation’s economic fortunes, I would have thought that we have a very good case to put in attempting to access moneys from that fund. Last night’s federal budget was a breath of fresh air. What we have, to the surprise of many of the critics of the observers of politics, is a federal political party that has pulled its head out of the pork barrel and made decisions in the long-term national interest. It is a federal budget that builds the nation. It is a federal budget that has its eye on the long-term benefit of the Australian nation and its people. It has been a long time since we have had a federal budget that we could categorise in that way. We have had a series of federal budgets, particularly the last few delivered by Peter Costello and John Howard, that were nothing more than giveaways to buy votes, and any serious observer of Australian economics and politics knows that that is the case. They let the country down badly in the pursuit of prolonged time in office. What we had last night was a completely different approach. We had a federal government that said it is going to invest in the long-term interests of the nation. It is going to have a $21 billion economic infrastructure fund, an $11 billion higher education and training fund and a $10 billion, I think it was—I might have the $11 billion and the $10 billion around the wrong way—health infrastructure fund, from which I have absolutely no doubt we will benefit. Therefore, does anybody seriously support the proposition that last night’s federal budget was not good for Western Australia? I will deal with the tax on condensate—condensate is effectively, in Western Australia anyway, something of a by-product of the liquefied natural gas industry. The tax on condensate, which most Western Australians would have no idea even existed, was put in place about 21 years ago as an incentive for the industry, if we take the time line back to that period. It is basically high-quality light crude. It burns cleanly. It attracts a premium price in the international market. The price of oil in the intervening 21 years has been as low as $8 a barrel, I think. What is the price of oil today? I think it is something like $120 a barrel, is it not? Therefore, an incentive was put in place 21 years ago to encourage people into the oil and gas industry in this state. In the intervening period, the price of light crude has been as low as $8 to $10 a barrel. Today it is in excess of $120 a barrel. Does anybody seriously believe that anywhere in the world oil companies require those sorts of tax exemptions to encourage them into the industry? The door is being knocked down by companies wanting to invest in the WA oil and gas industry. There we go. As far as the impact on the state budget goes, we have been given an assurance that we will be fully compensated for any impact that may occur as a result of the removal of the exemption on the condensate. I congratulate Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd on delivering a budget that is about building the nation of Australia. What a turnaround to finally get some investment into higher education and training. The investment in the long-term productivity of the nation was absolutely ignored by the previous federal government. Members should look at the trend lines on spending on higher education and training under the previous government. It is an international disgrace that effectively the federal government of Australia withdrew from investing in higher education and training and scientific research. There has been a turnaround in this nation. It was brought about because of the anticipation that such a turnaround was possible. We had a change of government, in the first place, and it is off to a very good start.
(3) Is the Premier aware that the federal budget imposes a new tax on oil and gas that will have potentially damaging consequences for one of the most important industries in Western Australia? (4) Is it not the case that, rather than delivering a better deal for Western Australia, wall-to-wall Labor effectively means that the Premier has given up standing up for the interests of this state at a federal level? Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: I thank the member for the question. I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of the year 12 Carmel Adventist College students. I welcome them to Parliament House and give them my best wishes for the year. (1)-(4) As I recall—and my recollection is not too bad—the original GST deal was signed up by a federal Liberal government and a state Liberal government. A federal Liberal government and a state Liberal government delivered the model that has brought about this potentially unfortunate outcome, which we are working assiduously to try to — Mr T. Buswell : You’ve gone very quiet on it, haven’t you, Premier? Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The Leader of the Opposition would be well advised to remain quiet himself, quite frankly. Mr J.E. McGrath interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : Any time the member for South Perth wants to pursue that matter, he should let me know. I heard what he said. Mr C.J. Barnett : Threats across the chamber? Mr A.J. CARPENTER : No. I am quite happy to have a conversation with the member for South Perth. The member for Cottesloe should not sink. It was a federal Liberal government and a state Liberal government that delivered the current model for the GST. Richard Court signed up to it against the protestations, as I recall, of the state Labor Party at the time. What we are trying to do now is have the model changed, so that the Commonwealth Grants Commission can change the distribution model for GST payments in order that Western Australia is not disadvantaged. That is our objective. The last time the grants commission completed the review of the GST arrangements, it increased Western Australia’s base by $250 million as a result of pressure by the WA government. The grants commission is visiting WA in June as part of the next review to be completed by 2010, and we will be putting further pressure on it then to reassess the distribution model that potentially disadvantaged Western Australia to an extent that is unacceptable. To go to the broader point, does anybody seriously put the position that last night’s budget was not good for Western Australia? Does anybody seriously put that position? Mr B.J. Grylls interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The regional partnership fund was something like $250 million over five years, was it not? It was used in a most disgraceful pork-barrelling way by the former federal government. That is a fact. Everybody acknowledges that. Even members of the former government acknowledge that. Here we go. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER : What both sides of politics have been doing is trying to make sure that the federal government, no matter which political party is in power federally, gives some recognition to the fact that Western Australia needs assistance from the federal government for the provision of strategic economic infrastructure. This is the first time in a very long time, if not ever, that there has been any serious recognition of that fact. We have a federal government that has heard our pleas about assistance for the provision of economic infrastructure and has acknowledged that the provision of strategic economic infrastructure in Western Australia is in the national interest. Not only do we now have a situation in which last night an $80 million allocation was made to Western Australia for economic infrastructure—a one-off allocation of $80 million—in advance of the $100 million-plus potentially a year from the Pluto and Gorgon royalties, but also we have the opportunity to put our case for access to the $21 billion fund for economic infrastructure. Bearing in mind that Western Australia plays a disproportionately large role in the nation’s economic fortunes, I would have thought that we have a very good case to put in attempting to access moneys from that fund. Last night’s federal budget was a breath of fresh air. What we have, to the surprise of many of the critics of the observers of politics, is a federal political party that has pulled its head out of the pork barrel and made decisions in the long-term national interest. It is a federal budget that builds the nation. It is a federal budget that has its eye on the long-term benefit of the Australian nation and its people. It has been a long time since we have had a federal budget that we could categorise in that way. We have had a series of federal budgets, particularly the last few delivered by Peter Costello and John Howard, that were nothing more than giveaways to buy votes, and any serious observer of Australian economics and politics knows that that is the case. They let the country down badly in the pursuit of prolonged time in office. What we had last night was a completely different approach. We had a federal government that said it is going to invest in the long-term interests of the nation. It is going to have a $21 billion economic infrastructure fund, an $11 billion higher education and training fund and a $10 billion, I think it was—I might have the $11 billion and the $10 billion around the wrong way—health infrastructure fund, from which I have absolutely no doubt we will benefit. Therefore, does anybody seriously support the proposition that last night’s federal budget was not good for Western Australia? I will deal with the tax on condensate—condensate is effectively, in Western Australia anyway, something of a by-product of the liquefied natural gas industry. The tax on condensate, which most Western Australians would have no idea even existed, was put in place about 21 years ago as an incentive for the industry, if we take the time line back to that period. It is basically high-quality light crude. It burns cleanly. It attracts a premium price in the international market. The price of oil in the intervening 21 years has been as low as $8 a barrel, I think. What is the price of oil today? I think it is something like $120 a barrel, is it not? Therefore, an incentive was put in place 21 years ago to encourage people into the oil and gas industry in this state. In the intervening period, the price of light crude has been as low as $8 to $10 a barrel. Today it is in excess of $120 a barrel. Does anybody seriously believe that anywhere in the world oil companies require those sorts of tax exemptions to encourage them into the industry? The door is being knocked down by companies wanting to invest in the WA oil and gas industry. There we go. As far as the impact on the state budget goes, we have been given an assurance that we will be fully compensated for any impact that may occur as a result of the removal of the exemption on the condensate. I congratulate Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd on delivering a budget that is about building the nation of Australia. What a turnaround to finally get some investment into higher education and training. The investment in the long-term productivity of the nation was absolutely ignored by the previous federal government. Members should look at the trend lines on spending on higher education and training under the previous government. It is an international disgrace that effectively the federal government of Australia withdrew from investing in higher education and training and scientific research. There has been a turnaround in this nation. It was brought about because of the anticipation that such a turnaround was possible. We had a change of government, in the first place, and it is off to a very good start.
(4) Is it not the case that, rather than delivering a better deal for Western Australia, wall-to-wall Labor effectively means that the Premier has given up standing up for the interests of this state at a federal level? Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: I thank the member for the question. I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of the year 12 Carmel Adventist College students. I welcome them to Parliament House and give them my best wishes for the year. (1)-(4) As I recall—and my recollection is not too bad—the original GST deal was signed up by a federal Liberal government and a state Liberal government. A federal Liberal government and a state Liberal government delivered the model that has brought about this potentially unfortunate outcome, which we are working assiduously to try to — Mr T. Buswell : You’ve gone very quiet on it, haven’t you, Premier? Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The Leader of the Opposition would be well advised to remain quiet himself, quite frankly. Mr J.E. McGrath interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : Any time the member for South Perth wants to pursue that matter, he should let me know. I heard what he said. Mr C.J. Barnett : Threats across the chamber? Mr A.J. CARPENTER : No. I am quite happy to have a conversation with the member for South Perth. The member for Cottesloe should not sink. It was a federal Liberal government and a state Liberal government that delivered the current model for the GST. Richard Court signed up to it against the protestations, as I recall, of the state Labor Party at the time. What we are trying to do now is have the model changed, so that the Commonwealth Grants Commission can change the distribution model for GST payments in order that Western Australia is not disadvantaged. That is our objective. The last time the grants commission completed the review of the GST arrangements, it increased Western Australia’s base by $250 million as a result of pressure by the WA government. The grants commission is visiting WA in June as part of the next review to be completed by 2010, and we will be putting further pressure on it then to reassess the distribution model that potentially disadvantaged Western Australia to an extent that is unacceptable. To go to the broader point, does anybody seriously put the position that last night’s budget was not good for Western Australia? Does anybody seriously put that position? Mr B.J. Grylls interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The regional partnership fund was something like $250 million over five years, was it not? It was used in a most disgraceful pork-barrelling way by the former federal government. That is a fact. Everybody acknowledges that. Even members of the former government acknowledge that. Here we go. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER : What both sides of politics have been doing is trying to make sure that the federal government, no matter which political party is in power federally, gives some recognition to the fact that Western Australia needs assistance from the federal government for the provision of strategic economic infrastructure. This is the first time in a very long time, if not ever, that there has been any serious recognition of that fact. We have a federal government that has heard our pleas about assistance for the provision of economic infrastructure and has acknowledged that the provision of strategic economic infrastructure in Western Australia is in the national interest. Not only do we now have a situation in which last night an $80 million allocation was made to Western Australia for economic infrastructure—a one-off allocation of $80 million—in advance of the $100 million-plus potentially a year from the Pluto and Gorgon royalties, but also we have the opportunity to put our case for access to the $21 billion fund for economic infrastructure. Bearing in mind that Western Australia plays a disproportionately large role in the nation’s economic fortunes, I would have thought that we have a very good case to put in attempting to access moneys from that fund. Last night’s federal budget was a breath of fresh air. What we have, to the surprise of many of the critics of the observers of politics, is a federal political party that has pulled its head out of the pork barrel and made decisions in the long-term national interest. It is a federal budget that builds the nation. It is a federal budget that has its eye on the long-term benefit of the Australian nation and its people. It has been a long time since we have had a federal budget that we could categorise in that way. We have had a series of federal budgets, particularly the last few delivered by Peter Costello and John Howard, that were nothing more than giveaways to buy votes, and any serious observer of Australian economics and politics knows that that is the case. They let the country down badly in the pursuit of prolonged time in office. What we had last night was a completely different approach. We had a federal government that said it is going to invest in the long-term interests of the nation. It is going to have a $21 billion economic infrastructure fund, an $11 billion higher education and training fund and a $10 billion, I think it was—I might have the $11 billion and the $10 billion around the wrong way—health infrastructure fund, from which I have absolutely no doubt we will benefit. Therefore, does anybody seriously support the proposition that last night’s federal budget was not good for Western Australia? I will deal with the tax on condensate—condensate is effectively, in Western Australia anyway, something of a by-product of the liquefied natural gas industry. The tax on condensate, which most Western Australians would have no idea even existed, was put in place about 21 years ago as an incentive for the industry, if we take the time line back to that period. It is basically high-quality light crude. It burns cleanly. It attracts a premium price in the international market. The price of oil in the intervening 21 years has been as low as $8 a barrel, I think. What is the price of oil today? I think it is something like $120 a barrel, is it not? Therefore, an incentive was put in place 21 years ago to encourage people into the oil and gas industry in this state. In the intervening period, the price of light crude has been as low as $8 to $10 a barrel. Today it is in excess of $120 a barrel. Does anybody seriously believe that anywhere in the world oil companies require those sorts of tax exemptions to encourage them into the industry? The door is being knocked down by companies wanting to invest in the WA oil and gas industry. There we go. As far as the impact on the state budget goes, we have been given an assurance that we will be fully compensated for any impact that may occur as a result of the removal of the exemption on the condensate. I congratulate Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd on delivering a budget that is about building the nation of Australia. What a turnaround to finally get some investment into higher education and training. The investment in the long-term productivity of the nation was absolutely ignored by the previous federal government. Members should look at the trend lines on spending on higher education and training under the previous government. It is an international disgrace that effectively the federal government of Australia withdrew from investing in higher education and training and scientific research. There has been a turnaround in this nation. It was brought about because of the anticipation that such a turnaround was possible. We had a change of government, in the first place, and it is off to a very good start.
Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: I thank the member for the question. I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of the year 12 Carmel Adventist College students. I welcome them to Parliament House and give them my best wishes for the year. (1)-(4) As I recall—and my recollection is not too bad—the original GST deal was signed up by a federal Liberal government and a state Liberal government. A federal Liberal government and a state Liberal government delivered the model that has brought about this potentially unfortunate outcome, which we are working assiduously to try to — Mr T. Buswell : You’ve gone very quiet on it, haven’t you, Premier? Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The Leader of the Opposition would be well advised to remain quiet himself, quite frankly. Mr J.E. McGrath interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : Any time the member for South Perth wants to pursue that matter, he should let me know. I heard what he said. Mr C.J. Barnett : Threats across the chamber? Mr A.J. CARPENTER : No. I am quite happy to have a conversation with the member for South Perth. The member for Cottesloe should not sink. It was a federal Liberal government and a state Liberal government that delivered the current model for the GST. Richard Court signed up to it against the protestations, as I recall, of the state Labor Party at the time. What we are trying to do now is have the model changed, so that the Commonwealth Grants Commission can change the distribution model for GST payments in order that Western Australia is not disadvantaged. That is our objective. The last time the grants commission completed the review of the GST arrangements, it increased Western Australia’s base by $250 million as a result of pressure by the WA government. The grants commission is visiting WA in June as part of the next review to be completed by 2010, and we will be putting further pressure on it then to reassess the distribution model that potentially disadvantaged Western Australia to an extent that is unacceptable. To go to the broader point, does anybody seriously put the position that last night’s budget was not good for Western Australia? Does anybody seriously put that position? Mr B.J. Grylls interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The regional partnership fund was something like $250 million over five years, was it not? It was used in a most disgraceful pork-barrelling way by the former federal government. That is a fact. Everybody acknowledges that. Even members of the former government acknowledge that. Here we go. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER : What both sides of politics have been doing is trying to make sure that the federal government, no matter which political party is in power federally, gives some recognition to the fact that Western Australia needs assistance from the federal government for the provision of strategic economic infrastructure. This is the first time in a very long time, if not ever, that there has been any serious recognition of that fact. We have a federal government that has heard our pleas about assistance for the provision of economic infrastructure and has acknowledged that the provision of strategic economic infrastructure in Western Australia is in the national interest. Not only do we now have a situation in which last night an $80 million allocation was made to Western Australia for economic infrastructure—a one-off allocation of $80 million—in advance of the $100 million-plus potentially a year from the Pluto and Gorgon royalties, but also we have the opportunity to put our case for access to the $21 billion fund for economic infrastructure. Bearing in mind that Western Australia plays a disproportionately large role in the nation’s economic fortunes, I would have thought that we have a very good case to put in attempting to access moneys from that fund. Last night’s federal budget was a breath of fresh air. What we have, to the surprise of many of the critics of the observers of politics, is a federal political party that has pulled its head out of the pork barrel and made decisions in the long-term national interest. It is a federal budget that builds the nation. It is a federal budget that has its eye on the long-term benefit of the Australian nation and its people. It has been a long time since we have had a federal budget that we could categorise in that way. We have had a series of federal budgets, particularly the last few delivered by Peter Costello and John Howard, that were nothing more than giveaways to buy votes, and any serious observer of Australian economics and politics knows that that is the case. They let the country down badly in the pursuit of prolonged time in office. What we had last night was a completely different approach. We had a federal government that said it is going to invest in the long-term interests of the nation. It is going to have a $21 billion economic infrastructure fund, an $11 billion higher education and training fund and a $10 billion, I think it was—I might have the $11 billion and the $10 billion around the wrong way—health infrastructure fund, from which I have absolutely no doubt we will benefit. Therefore, does anybody seriously support the proposition that last night’s federal budget was not good for Western Australia? I will deal with the tax on condensate—condensate is effectively, in Western Australia anyway, something of a by-product of the liquefied natural gas industry. The tax on condensate, which most Western Australians would have no idea even existed, was put in place about 21 years ago as an incentive for the industry, if we take the time line back to that period. It is basically high-quality light crude. It burns cleanly. It attracts a premium price in the international market. The price of oil in the intervening 21 years has been as low as $8 a barrel, I think. What is the price of oil today? I think it is something like $120 a barrel, is it not? Therefore, an incentive was put in place 21 years ago to encourage people into the oil and gas industry in this state. In the intervening period, the price of light crude has been as low as $8 to $10 a barrel. Today it is in excess of $120 a barrel. Does anybody seriously believe that anywhere in the world oil companies require those sorts of tax exemptions to encourage them into the industry? The door is being knocked down by companies wanting to invest in the WA oil and gas industry. There we go. As far as the impact on the state budget goes, we have been given an assurance that we will be fully compensated for any impact that may occur as a result of the removal of the exemption on the condensate. I congratulate Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd on delivering a budget that is about building the nation of Australia. What a turnaround to finally get some investment into higher education and training. The investment in the long-term productivity of the nation was absolutely ignored by the previous federal government. Members should look at the trend lines on spending on higher education and training under the previous government. It is an international disgrace that effectively the federal government of Australia withdrew from investing in higher education and training and scientific research. There has been a turnaround in this nation. It was brought about because of the anticipation that such a turnaround was possible. We had a change of government, in the first place, and it is off to a very good start.
I thank the member for the question. I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of the year 12 Carmel Adventist College students. I welcome them to Parliament House and give them my best wishes for the year. (1)-(4) As I recall—and my recollection is not too bad—the original GST deal was signed up by a federal Liberal government and a state Liberal government. A federal Liberal government and a state Liberal government delivered the model that has brought about this potentially unfortunate outcome, which we are working assiduously to try to — Mr T. Buswell : You’ve gone very quiet on it, haven’t you, Premier? Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The Leader of the Opposition would be well advised to remain quiet himself, quite frankly. Mr J.E. McGrath interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : Any time the member for South Perth wants to pursue that matter, he should let me know. I heard what he said. Mr C.J. Barnett : Threats across the chamber? Mr A.J. CARPENTER : No. I am quite happy to have a conversation with the member for South Perth. The member for Cottesloe should not sink. It was a federal Liberal government and a state Liberal government that delivered the current model for the GST. Richard Court signed up to it against the protestations, as I recall, of the state Labor Party at the time. What we are trying to do now is have the model changed, so that the Commonwealth Grants Commission can change the distribution model for GST payments in order that Western Australia is not disadvantaged. That is our objective. The last time the grants commission completed the review of the GST arrangements, it increased Western Australia’s base by $250 million as a result of pressure by the WA government. The grants commission is visiting WA in June as part of the next review to be completed by 2010, and we will be putting further pressure on it then to reassess the distribution model that potentially disadvantaged Western Australia to an extent that is unacceptable. To go to the broader point, does anybody seriously put the position that last night’s budget was not good for Western Australia? Does anybody seriously put that position? Mr B.J. Grylls interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The regional partnership fund was something like $250 million over five years, was it not? It was used in a most disgraceful pork-barrelling way by the former federal government. That is a fact. Everybody acknowledges that. Even members of the former government acknowledge that. Here we go. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER : What both sides of politics have been doing is trying to make sure that the federal government, no matter which political party is in power federally, gives some recognition to the fact that Western Australia needs assistance from the federal government for the provision of strategic economic infrastructure. This is the first time in a very long time, if not ever, that there has been any serious recognition of that fact. We have a federal government that has heard our pleas about assistance for the provision of economic infrastructure and has acknowledged that the provision of strategic economic infrastructure in Western Australia is in the national interest. Not only do we now have a situation in which last night an $80 million allocation was made to Western Australia for economic infrastructure—a one-off allocation of $80 million—in advance of the $100 million-plus potentially a year from the Pluto and Gorgon royalties, but also we have the opportunity to put our case for access to the $21 billion fund for economic infrastructure. Bearing in mind that Western Australia plays a disproportionately large role in the nation’s economic fortunes, I would have thought that we have a very good case to put in attempting to access moneys from that fund. Last night’s federal budget was a breath of fresh air. What we have, to the surprise of many of the critics of the observers of politics, is a federal political party that has pulled its head out of the pork barrel and made decisions in the long-term national interest. It is a federal budget that builds the nation. It is a federal budget that has its eye on the long-term benefit of the Australian nation and its people. It has been a long time since we have had a federal budget that we could categorise in that way. We have had a series of federal budgets, particularly the last few delivered by Peter Costello and John Howard, that were nothing more than giveaways to buy votes, and any serious observer of Australian economics and politics knows that that is the case. They let the country down badly in the pursuit of prolonged time in office. What we had last night was a completely different approach. We had a federal government that said it is going to invest in the long-term interests of the nation. It is going to have a $21 billion economic infrastructure fund, an $11 billion higher education and training fund and a $10 billion, I think it was—I might have the $11 billion and the $10 billion around the wrong way—health infrastructure fund, from which I have absolutely no doubt we will benefit. Therefore, does anybody seriously support the proposition that last night’s federal budget was not good for Western Australia? I will deal with the tax on condensate—condensate is effectively, in Western Australia anyway, something of a by-product of the liquefied natural gas industry. The tax on condensate, which most Western Australians would have no idea even existed, was put in place about 21 years ago as an incentive for the industry, if we take the time line back to that period. It is basically high-quality light crude. It burns cleanly. It attracts a premium price in the international market. The price of oil in the intervening 21 years has been as low as $8 a barrel, I think. What is the price of oil today? I think it is something like $120 a barrel, is it not? Therefore, an incentive was put in place 21 years ago to encourage people into the oil and gas industry in this state. In the intervening period, the price of light crude has been as low as $8 to $10 a barrel. Today it is in excess of $120 a barrel. Does anybody seriously believe that anywhere in the world oil companies require those sorts of tax exemptions to encourage them into the industry? The door is being knocked down by companies wanting to invest in the WA oil and gas industry. There we go. As far as the impact on the state budget goes, we have been given an assurance that we will be fully compensated for any impact that may occur as a result of the removal of the exemption on the condensate. I congratulate Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd on delivering a budget that is about building the nation of Australia. What a turnaround to finally get some investment into higher education and training. The investment in the long-term productivity of the nation was absolutely ignored by the previous federal government. Members should look at the trend lines on spending on higher education and training under the previous government. It is an international disgrace that effectively the federal government of Australia withdrew from investing in higher education and training and scientific research. There has been a turnaround in this nation. It was brought about because of the anticipation that such a turnaround was possible. We had a change of government, in the first place, and it is off to a very good start.
(1)-(4) As I recall—and my recollection is not too bad—the original GST deal was signed up by a federal Liberal government and a state Liberal government. A federal Liberal government and a state Liberal government delivered the model that has brought about this potentially unfortunate outcome, which we are working assiduously to try to — Mr T. Buswell : You’ve gone very quiet on it, haven’t you, Premier? Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The Leader of the Opposition would be well advised to remain quiet himself, quite frankly. Mr J.E. McGrath interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : Any time the member for South Perth wants to pursue that matter, he should let me know. I heard what he said. Mr C.J. Barnett : Threats across the chamber? Mr A.J. CARPENTER : No. I am quite happy to have a conversation with the member for South Perth. The member for Cottesloe should not sink. It was a federal Liberal government and a state Liberal government that delivered the current model for the GST. Richard Court signed up to it against the protestations, as I recall, of the state Labor Party at the time. What we are trying to do now is have the model changed, so that the Commonwealth Grants Commission can change the distribution model for GST payments in order that Western Australia is not disadvantaged. That is our objective. The last time the grants commission completed the review of the GST arrangements, it increased Western Australia’s base by $250 million as a result of pressure by the WA government. The grants commission is visiting WA in June as part of the next review to be completed by 2010, and we will be putting further pressure on it then to reassess the distribution model that potentially disadvantaged Western Australia to an extent that is unacceptable. To go to the broader point, does anybody seriously put the position that last night’s budget was not good for Western Australia? Does anybody seriously put that position? Mr B.J. Grylls interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The regional partnership fund was something like $250 million over five years, was it not? It was used in a most disgraceful pork-barrelling way by the former federal government. That is a fact. Everybody acknowledges that. Even members of the former government acknowledge that. Here we go. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER : What both sides of politics have been doing is trying to make sure that the federal government, no matter which political party is in power federally, gives some recognition to the fact that Western Australia needs assistance from the federal government for the provision of strategic economic infrastructure. This is the first time in a very long time, if not ever, that there has been any serious recognition of that fact. We have a federal government that has heard our pleas about assistance for the provision of economic infrastructure and has acknowledged that the provision of strategic economic infrastructure in Western Australia is in the national interest. Not only do we now have a situation in which last night an $80 million allocation was made to Western Australia for economic infrastructure—a one-off allocation of $80 million—in advance of the $100 million-plus potentially a year from the Pluto and Gorgon royalties, but also we have the opportunity to put our case for access to the $21 billion fund for economic infrastructure. Bearing in mind that Western Australia plays a disproportionately large role in the nation’s economic fortunes, I would have thought that we have a very good case to put in attempting to access moneys from that fund. Last night’s federal budget was a breath of fresh air. What we have, to the surprise of many of the critics of the observers of politics, is a federal political party that has pulled its head out of the pork barrel and made decisions in the long-term national interest. It is a federal budget that builds the nation. It is a federal budget that has its eye on the long-term benefit of the Australian nation and its people. It has been a long time since we have had a federal budget that we could categorise in that way. We have had a series of federal budgets, particularly the last few delivered by Peter Costello and John Howard, that were nothing more than giveaways to buy votes, and any serious observer of Australian economics and politics knows that that is the case. They let the country down badly in the pursuit of prolonged time in office. What we had last night was a completely different approach. We had a federal government that said it is going to invest in the long-term interests of the nation. It is going to have a $21 billion economic infrastructure fund, an $11 billion higher education and training fund and a $10 billion, I think it was—I might have the $11 billion and the $10 billion around the wrong way—health infrastructure fund, from which I have absolutely no doubt we will benefit. Therefore, does anybody seriously support the proposition that last night’s federal budget was not good for Western Australia? I will deal with the tax on condensate—condensate is effectively, in Western Australia anyway, something of a by-product of the liquefied natural gas industry. The tax on condensate, which most Western Australians would have no idea even existed, was put in place about 21 years ago as an incentive for the industry, if we take the time line back to that period. It is basically high-quality light crude. It burns cleanly. It attracts a premium price in the international market. The price of oil in the intervening 21 years has been as low as $8 a barrel, I think. What is the price of oil today? I think it is something like $120 a barrel, is it not? Therefore, an incentive was put in place 21 years ago to encourage people into the oil and gas industry in this state. In the intervening period, the price of light crude has been as low as $8 to $10 a barrel. Today it is in excess of $120 a barrel. Does anybody seriously believe that anywhere in the world oil companies require those sorts of tax exemptions to encourage them into the industry? The door is being knocked down by companies wanting to invest in the WA oil and gas industry. There we go. As far as the impact on the state budget goes, we have been given an assurance that we will be fully compensated for any impact that may occur as a result of the removal of the exemption on the condensate. I congratulate Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd on delivering a budget that is about building the nation of Australia. What a turnaround to finally get some investment into higher education and training. The investment in the long-term productivity of the nation was absolutely ignored by the previous federal government. Members should look at the trend lines on spending on higher education and training under the previous government. It is an international disgrace that effectively the federal government of Australia withdrew from investing in higher education and training and scientific research. There has been a turnaround in this nation. It was brought about because of the anticipation that such a turnaround was possible. We had a change of government, in the first place, and it is off to a very good start.
Mr T. Buswell : You’ve gone very quiet on it, haven’t you, Premier? Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The Leader of the Opposition would be well advised to remain quiet himself, quite frankly. Mr J.E. McGrath interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : Any time the member for South Perth wants to pursue that matter, he should let me know. I heard what he said. Mr C.J. Barnett : Threats across the chamber? Mr A.J. CARPENTER : No. I am quite happy to have a conversation with the member for South Perth. The member for Cottesloe should not sink. It was a federal Liberal government and a state Liberal government that delivered the current model for the GST. Richard Court signed up to it against the protestations, as I recall, of the state Labor Party at the time. What we are trying to do now is have the model changed, so that the Commonwealth Grants Commission can change the distribution model for GST payments in order that Western Australia is not disadvantaged. That is our objective. The last time the grants commission completed the review of the GST arrangements, it increased Western Australia’s base by $250 million as a result of pressure by the WA government. The grants commission is visiting WA in June as part of the next review to be completed by 2010, and we will be putting further pressure on it then to reassess the distribution model that potentially disadvantaged Western Australia to an extent that is unacceptable. To go to the broader point, does anybody seriously put the position that last night’s budget was not good for Western Australia? Does anybody seriously put that position? Mr B.J. Grylls interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The regional partnership fund was something like $250 million over five years, was it not? It was used in a most disgraceful pork-barrelling way by the former federal government. That is a fact. Everybody acknowledges that. Even members of the former government acknowledge that. Here we go. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER : What both sides of politics have been doing is trying to make sure that the federal government, no matter which political party is in power federally, gives some recognition to the fact that Western Australia needs assistance from the federal government for the provision of strategic economic infrastructure. This is the first time in a very long time, if not ever, that there has been any serious recognition of that fact. We have a federal government that has heard our pleas about assistance for the provision of economic infrastructure and has acknowledged that the provision of strategic economic infrastructure in Western Australia is in the national interest. Not only do we now have a situation in which last night an $80 million allocation was made to Western Australia for economic infrastructure—a one-off allocation of $80 million—in advance of the $100 million-plus potentially a year from the Pluto and Gorgon royalties, but also we have the opportunity to put our case for access to the $21 billion fund for economic infrastructure. Bearing in mind that Western Australia plays a disproportionately large role in the nation’s economic fortunes, I would have thought that we have a very good case to put in attempting to access moneys from that fund. Last night’s federal budget was a breath of fresh air. What we have, to the surprise of many of the critics of the observers of politics, is a federal political party that has pulled its head out of the pork barrel and made decisions in the long-term national interest. It is a federal budget that builds the nation. It is a federal budget that has its eye on the long-term benefit of the Australian nation and its people. It has been a long time since we have had a federal budget that we could categorise in that way. We have had a series of federal budgets, particularly the last few delivered by Peter Costello and John Howard, that were nothing more than giveaways to buy votes, and any serious observer of Australian economics and politics knows that that is the case. They let the country down badly in the pursuit of prolonged time in office. What we had last night was a completely different approach. We had a federal government that said it is going to invest in the long-term interests of the nation. It is going to have a $21 billion economic infrastructure fund, an $11 billion higher education and training fund and a $10 billion, I think it was—I might have the $11 billion and the $10 billion around the wrong way—health infrastructure fund, from which I have absolutely no doubt we will benefit. Therefore, does anybody seriously support the proposition that last night’s federal budget was not good for Western Australia? I will deal with the tax on condensate—condensate is effectively, in Western Australia anyway, something of a by-product of the liquefied natural gas industry. The tax on condensate, which most Western Australians would have no idea even existed, was put in place about 21 years ago as an incentive for the industry, if we take the time line back to that period. It is basically high-quality light crude. It burns cleanly. It attracts a premium price in the international market. The price of oil in the intervening 21 years has been as low as $8 a barrel, I think. What is the price of oil today? I think it is something like $120 a barrel, is it not? Therefore, an incentive was put in place 21 years ago to encourage people into the oil and gas industry in this state. In the intervening period, the price of light crude has been as low as $8 to $10 a barrel. Today it is in excess of $120 a barrel. Does anybody seriously believe that anywhere in the world oil companies require those sorts of tax exemptions to encourage them into the industry? The door is being knocked down by companies wanting to invest in the WA oil and gas industry. There we go. As far as the impact on the state budget goes, we have been given an assurance that we will be fully compensated for any impact that may occur as a result of the removal of the exemption on the condensate. I congratulate Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd on delivering a budget that is about building the nation of Australia. What a turnaround to finally get some investment into higher education and training. The investment in the long-term productivity of the nation was absolutely ignored by the previous federal government. Members should look at the trend lines on spending on higher education and training under the previous government. It is an international disgrace that effectively the federal government of Australia withdrew from investing in higher education and training and scientific research. There has been a turnaround in this nation. It was brought about because of the anticipation that such a turnaround was possible. We had a change of government, in the first place, and it is off to a very good start.
Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The Leader of the Opposition would be well advised to remain quiet himself, quite frankly. Mr J.E. McGrath interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : Any time the member for South Perth wants to pursue that matter, he should let me know. I heard what he said. Mr C.J. Barnett : Threats across the chamber? Mr A.J. CARPENTER : No. I am quite happy to have a conversation with the member for South Perth. The member for Cottesloe should not sink. It was a federal Liberal government and a state Liberal government that delivered the current model for the GST. Richard Court signed up to it against the protestations, as I recall, of the state Labor Party at the time. What we are trying to do now is have the model changed, so that the Commonwealth Grants Commission can change the distribution model for GST payments in order that Western Australia is not disadvantaged. That is our objective. The last time the grants commission completed the review of the GST arrangements, it increased Western Australia’s base by $250 million as a result of pressure by the WA government. The grants commission is visiting WA in June as part of the next review to be completed by 2010, and we will be putting further pressure on it then to reassess the distribution model that potentially disadvantaged Western Australia to an extent that is unacceptable. To go to the broader point, does anybody seriously put the position that last night’s budget was not good for Western Australia? Does anybody seriously put that position? Mr B.J. Grylls interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The regional partnership fund was something like $250 million over five years, was it not? It was used in a most disgraceful pork-barrelling way by the former federal government. That is a fact. Everybody acknowledges that. Even members of the former government acknowledge that. Here we go. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER : What both sides of politics have been doing is trying to make sure that the federal government, no matter which political party is in power federally, gives some recognition to the fact that Western Australia needs assistance from the federal government for the provision of strategic economic infrastructure. This is the first time in a very long time, if not ever, that there has been any serious recognition of that fact. We have a federal government that has heard our pleas about assistance for the provision of economic infrastructure and has acknowledged that the provision of strategic economic infrastructure in Western Australia is in the national interest. Not only do we now have a situation in which last night an $80 million allocation was made to Western Australia for economic infrastructure—a one-off allocation of $80 million—in advance of the $100 million-plus potentially a year from the Pluto and Gorgon royalties, but also we have the opportunity to put our case for access to the $21 billion fund for economic infrastructure. Bearing in mind that Western Australia plays a disproportionately large role in the nation’s economic fortunes, I would have thought that we have a very good case to put in attempting to access moneys from that fund. Last night’s federal budget was a breath of fresh air. What we have, to the surprise of many of the critics of the observers of politics, is a federal political party that has pulled its head out of the pork barrel and made decisions in the long-term national interest. It is a federal budget that builds the nation. It is a federal budget that has its eye on the long-term benefit of the Australian nation and its people. It has been a long time since we have had a federal budget that we could categorise in that way. We have had a series of federal budgets, particularly the last few delivered by Peter Costello and John Howard, that were nothing more than giveaways to buy votes, and any serious observer of Australian economics and politics knows that that is the case. They let the country down badly in the pursuit of prolonged time in office. What we had last night was a completely different approach. We had a federal government that said it is going to invest in the long-term interests of the nation. It is going to have a $21 billion economic infrastructure fund, an $11 billion higher education and training fund and a $10 billion, I think it was—I might have the $11 billion and the $10 billion around the wrong way—health infrastructure fund, from which I have absolutely no doubt we will benefit. Therefore, does anybody seriously support the proposition that last night’s federal budget was not good for Western Australia? I will deal with the tax on condensate—condensate is effectively, in Western Australia anyway, something of a by-product of the liquefied natural gas industry. The tax on condensate, which most Western Australians would have no idea even existed, was put in place about 21 years ago as an incentive for the industry, if we take the time line back to that period. It is basically high-quality light crude. It burns cleanly. It attracts a premium price in the international market. The price of oil in the intervening 21 years has been as low as $8 a barrel, I think. What is the price of oil today? I think it is something like $120 a barrel, is it not? Therefore, an incentive was put in place 21 years ago to encourage people into the oil and gas industry in this state. In the intervening period, the price of light crude has been as low as $8 to $10 a barrel. Today it is in excess of $120 a barrel. Does anybody seriously believe that anywhere in the world oil companies require those sorts of tax exemptions to encourage them into the industry? The door is being knocked down by companies wanting to invest in the WA oil and gas industry. There we go. As far as the impact on the state budget goes, we have been given an assurance that we will be fully compensated for any impact that may occur as a result of the removal of the exemption on the condensate. I congratulate Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd on delivering a budget that is about building the nation of Australia. What a turnaround to finally get some investment into higher education and training. The investment in the long-term productivity of the nation was absolutely ignored by the previous federal government. Members should look at the trend lines on spending on higher education and training under the previous government. It is an international disgrace that effectively the federal government of Australia withdrew from investing in higher education and training and scientific research. There has been a turnaround in this nation. It was brought about because of the anticipation that such a turnaround was possible. We had a change of government, in the first place, and it is off to a very good start.
Mr J.E. McGrath interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : Any time the member for South Perth wants to pursue that matter, he should let me know. I heard what he said. Mr C.J. Barnett : Threats across the chamber? Mr A.J. CARPENTER : No. I am quite happy to have a conversation with the member for South Perth. The member for Cottesloe should not sink. It was a federal Liberal government and a state Liberal government that delivered the current model for the GST. Richard Court signed up to it against the protestations, as I recall, of the state Labor Party at the time. What we are trying to do now is have the model changed, so that the Commonwealth Grants Commission can change the distribution model for GST payments in order that Western Australia is not disadvantaged. That is our objective. The last time the grants commission completed the review of the GST arrangements, it increased Western Australia’s base by $250 million as a result of pressure by the WA government. The grants commission is visiting WA in June as part of the next review to be completed by 2010, and we will be putting further pressure on it then to reassess the distribution model that potentially disadvantaged Western Australia to an extent that is unacceptable. To go to the broader point, does anybody seriously put the position that last night’s budget was not good for Western Australia? Does anybody seriously put that position? Mr B.J. Grylls interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The regional partnership fund was something like $250 million over five years, was it not? It was used in a most disgraceful pork-barrelling way by the former federal government. That is a fact. Everybody acknowledges that. Even members of the former government acknowledge that. Here we go. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER : What both sides of politics have been doing is trying to make sure that the federal government, no matter which political party is in power federally, gives some recognition to the fact that Western Australia needs assistance from the federal government for the provision of strategic economic infrastructure. This is the first time in a very long time, if not ever, that there has been any serious recognition of that fact. We have a federal government that has heard our pleas about assistance for the provision of economic infrastructure and has acknowledged that the provision of strategic economic infrastructure in Western Australia is in the national interest. Not only do we now have a situation in which last night an $80 million allocation was made to Western Australia for economic infrastructure—a one-off allocation of $80 million—in advance of the $100 million-plus potentially a year from the Pluto and Gorgon royalties, but also we have the opportunity to put our case for access to the $21 billion fund for economic infrastructure. Bearing in mind that Western Australia plays a disproportionately large role in the nation’s economic fortunes, I would have thought that we have a very good case to put in attempting to access moneys from that fund. Last night’s federal budget was a breath of fresh air. What we have, to the surprise of many of the critics of the observers of politics, is a federal political party that has pulled its head out of the pork barrel and made decisions in the long-term national interest. It is a federal budget that builds the nation. It is a federal budget that has its eye on the long-term benefit of the Australian nation and its people. It has been a long time since we have had a federal budget that we could categorise in that way. We have had a series of federal budgets, particularly the last few delivered by Peter Costello and John Howard, that were nothing more than giveaways to buy votes, and any serious observer of Australian economics and politics knows that that is the case. They let the country down badly in the pursuit of prolonged time in office. What we had last night was a completely different approach. We had a federal government that said it is going to invest in the long-term interests of the nation. It is going to have a $21 billion economic infrastructure fund, an $11 billion higher education and training fund and a $10 billion, I think it was—I might have the $11 billion and the $10 billion around the wrong way—health infrastructure fund, from which I have absolutely no doubt we will benefit. Therefore, does anybody seriously support the proposition that last night’s federal budget was not good for Western Australia? I will deal with the tax on condensate—condensate is effectively, in Western Australia anyway, something of a by-product of the liquefied natural gas industry. The tax on condensate, which most Western Australians would have no idea even existed, was put in place about 21 years ago as an incentive for the industry, if we take the time line back to that period. It is basically high-quality light crude. It burns cleanly. It attracts a premium price in the international market. The price of oil in the intervening 21 years has been as low as $8 a barrel, I think. What is the price of oil today? I think it is something like $120 a barrel, is it not? Therefore, an incentive was put in place 21 years ago to encourage people into the oil and gas industry in this state. In the intervening period, the price of light crude has been as low as $8 to $10 a barrel. Today it is in excess of $120 a barrel. Does anybody seriously believe that anywhere in the world oil companies require those sorts of tax exemptions to encourage them into the industry? The door is being knocked down by companies wanting to invest in the WA oil and gas industry. There we go. As far as the impact on the state budget goes, we have been given an assurance that we will be fully compensated for any impact that may occur as a result of the removal of the exemption on the condensate. I congratulate Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd on delivering a budget that is about building the nation of Australia. What a turnaround to finally get some investment into higher education and training. The investment in the long-term productivity of the nation was absolutely ignored by the previous federal government. Members should look at the trend lines on spending on higher education and training under the previous government. It is an international disgrace that effectively the federal government of Australia withdrew from investing in higher education and training and scientific research. There has been a turnaround in this nation. It was brought about because of the anticipation that such a turnaround was possible. We had a change of government, in the first place, and it is off to a very good start.
Mr A.J. CARPENTER : Any time the member for South Perth wants to pursue that matter, he should let me know. I heard what he said. Mr C.J. Barnett : Threats across the chamber? Mr A.J. CARPENTER : No. I am quite happy to have a conversation with the member for South Perth. The member for Cottesloe should not sink. It was a federal Liberal government and a state Liberal government that delivered the current model for the GST. Richard Court signed up to it against the protestations, as I recall, of the state Labor Party at the time. What we are trying to do now is have the model changed, so that the Commonwealth Grants Commission can change the distribution model for GST payments in order that Western Australia is not disadvantaged. That is our objective. The last time the grants commission completed the review of the GST arrangements, it increased Western Australia’s base by $250 million as a result of pressure by the WA government. The grants commission is visiting WA in June as part of the next review to be completed by 2010, and we will be putting further pressure on it then to reassess the distribution model that potentially disadvantaged Western Australia to an extent that is unacceptable. To go to the broader point, does anybody seriously put the position that last night’s budget was not good for Western Australia? Does anybody seriously put that position? Mr B.J. Grylls interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The regional partnership fund was something like $250 million over five years, was it not? It was used in a most disgraceful pork-barrelling way by the former federal government. That is a fact. Everybody acknowledges that. Even members of the former government acknowledge that. Here we go. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER : What both sides of politics have been doing is trying to make sure that the federal government, no matter which political party is in power federally, gives some recognition to the fact that Western Australia needs assistance from the federal government for the provision of strategic economic infrastructure. This is the first time in a very long time, if not ever, that there has been any serious recognition of that fact. We have a federal government that has heard our pleas about assistance for the provision of economic infrastructure and has acknowledged that the provision of strategic economic infrastructure in Western Australia is in the national interest. Not only do we now have a situation in which last night an $80 million allocation was made to Western Australia for economic infrastructure—a one-off allocation of $80 million—in advance of the $100 million-plus potentially a year from the Pluto and Gorgon royalties, but also we have the opportunity to put our case for access to the $21 billion fund for economic infrastructure. Bearing in mind that Western Australia plays a disproportionately large role in the nation’s economic fortunes, I would have thought that we have a very good case to put in attempting to access moneys from that fund. Last night’s federal budget was a breath of fresh air. What we have, to the surprise of many of the critics of the observers of politics, is a federal political party that has pulled its head out of the pork barrel and made decisions in the long-term national interest. It is a federal budget that builds the nation. It is a federal budget that has its eye on the long-term benefit of the Australian nation and its people. It has been a long time since we have had a federal budget that we could categorise in that way. We have had a series of federal budgets, particularly the last few delivered by Peter Costello and John Howard, that were nothing more than giveaways to buy votes, and any serious observer of Australian economics and politics knows that that is the case. They let the country down badly in the pursuit of prolonged time in office. What we had last night was a completely different approach. We had a federal government that said it is going to invest in the long-term interests of the nation. It is going to have a $21 billion economic infrastructure fund, an $11 billion higher education and training fund and a $10 billion, I think it was—I might have the $11 billion and the $10 billion around the wrong way—health infrastructure fund, from which I have absolutely no doubt we will benefit. Therefore, does anybody seriously support the proposition that last night’s federal budget was not good for Western Australia? I will deal with the tax on condensate—condensate is effectively, in Western Australia anyway, something of a by-product of the liquefied natural gas industry. The tax on condensate, which most Western Australians would have no idea even existed, was put in place about 21 years ago as an incentive for the industry, if we take the time line back to that period. It is basically high-quality light crude. It burns cleanly. It attracts a premium price in the international market. The price of oil in the intervening 21 years has been as low as $8 a barrel, I think. What is the price of oil today? I think it is something like $120 a barrel, is it not? Therefore, an incentive was put in place 21 years ago to encourage people into the oil and gas industry in this state. In the intervening period, the price of light crude has been as low as $8 to $10 a barrel. Today it is in excess of $120 a barrel. Does anybody seriously believe that anywhere in the world oil companies require those sorts of tax exemptions to encourage them into the industry? The door is being knocked down by companies wanting to invest in the WA oil and gas industry. There we go. As far as the impact on the state budget goes, we have been given an assurance that we will be fully compensated for any impact that may occur as a result of the removal of the exemption on the condensate. I congratulate Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd on delivering a budget that is about building the nation of Australia. What a turnaround to finally get some investment into higher education and training. The investment in the long-term productivity of the nation was absolutely ignored by the previous federal government. Members should look at the trend lines on spending on higher education and training under the previous government. It is an international disgrace that effectively the federal government of Australia withdrew from investing in higher education and training and scientific research. There has been a turnaround in this nation. It was brought about because of the anticipation that such a turnaround was possible. We had a change of government, in the first place, and it is off to a very good start.
Mr C.J. Barnett : Threats across the chamber? Mr A.J. CARPENTER : No. I am quite happy to have a conversation with the member for South Perth. The member for Cottesloe should not sink. It was a federal Liberal government and a state Liberal government that delivered the current model for the GST. Richard Court signed up to it against the protestations, as I recall, of the state Labor Party at the time. What we are trying to do now is have the model changed, so that the Commonwealth Grants Commission can change the distribution model for GST payments in order that Western Australia is not disadvantaged. That is our objective. The last time the grants commission completed the review of the GST arrangements, it increased Western Australia’s base by $250 million as a result of pressure by the WA government. The grants commission is visiting WA in June as part of the next review to be completed by 2010, and we will be putting further pressure on it then to reassess the distribution model that potentially disadvantaged Western Australia to an extent that is unacceptable. To go to the broader point, does anybody seriously put the position that last night’s budget was not good for Western Australia? Does anybody seriously put that position? Mr B.J. Grylls interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The regional partnership fund was something like $250 million over five years, was it not? It was used in a most disgraceful pork-barrelling way by the former federal government. That is a fact. Everybody acknowledges that. Even members of the former government acknowledge that. Here we go. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER : What both sides of politics have been doing is trying to make sure that the federal government, no matter which political party is in power federally, gives some recognition to the fact that Western Australia needs assistance from the federal government for the provision of strategic economic infrastructure. This is the first time in a very long time, if not ever, that there has been any serious recognition of that fact. We have a federal government that has heard our pleas about assistance for the provision of economic infrastructure and has acknowledged that the provision of strategic economic infrastructure in Western Australia is in the national interest. Not only do we now have a situation in which last night an $80 million allocation was made to Western Australia for economic infrastructure—a one-off allocation of $80 million—in advance of the $100 million-plus potentially a year from the Pluto and Gorgon royalties, but also we have the opportunity to put our case for access to the $21 billion fund for economic infrastructure. Bearing in mind that Western Australia plays a disproportionately large role in the nation’s economic fortunes, I would have thought that we have a very good case to put in attempting to access moneys from that fund. Last night’s federal budget was a breath of fresh air. What we have, to the surprise of many of the critics of the observers of politics, is a federal political party that has pulled its head out of the pork barrel and made decisions in the long-term national interest. It is a federal budget that builds the nation. It is a federal budget that has its eye on the long-term benefit of the Australian nation and its people. It has been a long time since we have had a federal budget that we could categorise in that way. We have had a series of federal budgets, particularly the last few delivered by Peter Costello and John Howard, that were nothing more than giveaways to buy votes, and any serious observer of Australian economics and politics knows that that is the case. They let the country down badly in the pursuit of prolonged time in office. What we had last night was a completely different approach. We had a federal government that said it is going to invest in the long-term interests of the nation. It is going to have a $21 billion economic infrastructure fund, an $11 billion higher education and training fund and a $10 billion, I think it was—I might have the $11 billion and the $10 billion around the wrong way—health infrastructure fund, from which I have absolutely no doubt we will benefit. Therefore, does anybody seriously support the proposition that last night’s federal budget was not good for Western Australia? I will deal with the tax on condensate—condensate is effectively, in Western Australia anyway, something of a by-product of the liquefied natural gas industry. The tax on condensate, which most Western Australians would have no idea even existed, was put in place about 21 years ago as an incentive for the industry, if we take the time line back to that period. It is basically high-quality light crude. It burns cleanly. It attracts a premium price in the international market. The price of oil in the intervening 21 years has been as low as $8 a barrel, I think. What is the price of oil today? I think it is something like $120 a barrel, is it not? Therefore, an incentive was put in place 21 years ago to encourage people into the oil and gas industry in this state. In the intervening period, the price of light crude has been as low as $8 to $10 a barrel. Today it is in excess of $120 a barrel. Does anybody seriously believe that anywhere in the world oil companies require those sorts of tax exemptions to encourage them into the industry? The door is being knocked down by companies wanting to invest in the WA oil and gas industry. There we go. As far as the impact on the state budget goes, we have been given an assurance that we will be fully compensated for any impact that may occur as a result of the removal of the exemption on the condensate. I congratulate Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd on delivering a budget that is about building the nation of Australia. What a turnaround to finally get some investment into higher education and training. The investment in the long-term productivity of the nation was absolutely ignored by the previous federal government. Members should look at the trend lines on spending on higher education and training under the previous government. It is an international disgrace that effectively the federal government of Australia withdrew from investing in higher education and training and scientific research. There has been a turnaround in this nation. It was brought about because of the anticipation that such a turnaround was possible. We had a change of government, in the first place, and it is off to a very good start.
Mr A.J. CARPENTER : No. I am quite happy to have a conversation with the member for South Perth. The member for Cottesloe should not sink. It was a federal Liberal government and a state Liberal government that delivered the current model for the GST. Richard Court signed up to it against the protestations, as I recall, of the state Labor Party at the time. What we are trying to do now is have the model changed, so that the Commonwealth Grants Commission can change the distribution model for GST payments in order that Western Australia is not disadvantaged. That is our objective. The last time the grants commission completed the review of the GST arrangements, it increased Western Australia’s base by $250 million as a result of pressure by the WA government. The grants commission is visiting WA in June as part of the next review to be completed by 2010, and we will be putting further pressure on it then to reassess the distribution model that potentially disadvantaged Western Australia to an extent that is unacceptable. To go to the broader point, does anybody seriously put the position that last night’s budget was not good for Western Australia? Does anybody seriously put that position? Mr B.J. Grylls interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The regional partnership fund was something like $250 million over five years, was it not? It was used in a most disgraceful pork-barrelling way by the former federal government. That is a fact. Everybody acknowledges that. Even members of the former government acknowledge that. Here we go. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER : What both sides of politics have been doing is trying to make sure that the federal government, no matter which political party is in power federally, gives some recognition to the fact that Western Australia needs assistance from the federal government for the provision of strategic economic infrastructure. This is the first time in a very long time, if not ever, that there has been any serious recognition of that fact. We have a federal government that has heard our pleas about assistance for the provision of economic infrastructure and has acknowledged that the provision of strategic economic infrastructure in Western Australia is in the national interest. Not only do we now have a situation in which last night an $80 million allocation was made to Western Australia for economic infrastructure—a one-off allocation of $80 million—in advance of the $100 million-plus potentially a year from the Pluto and Gorgon royalties, but also we have the opportunity to put our case for access to the $21 billion fund for economic infrastructure. Bearing in mind that Western Australia plays a disproportionately large role in the nation’s economic fortunes, I would have thought that we have a very good case to put in attempting to access moneys from that fund. Last night’s federal budget was a breath of fresh air. What we have, to the surprise of many of the critics of the observers of politics, is a federal political party that has pulled its head out of the pork barrel and made decisions in the long-term national interest. It is a federal budget that builds the nation. It is a federal budget that has its eye on the long-term benefit of the Australian nation and its people. It has been a long time since we have had a federal budget that we could categorise in that way. We have had a series of federal budgets, particularly the last few delivered by Peter Costello and John Howard, that were nothing more than giveaways to buy votes, and any serious observer of Australian economics and politics knows that that is the case. They let the country down badly in the pursuit of prolonged time in office. What we had last night was a completely different approach. We had a federal government that said it is going to invest in the long-term interests of the nation. It is going to have a $21 billion economic infrastructure fund, an $11 billion higher education and training fund and a $10 billion, I think it was—I might have the $11 billion and the $10 billion around the wrong way—health infrastructure fund, from which I have absolutely no doubt we will benefit. Therefore, does anybody seriously support the proposition that last night’s federal budget was not good for Western Australia? I will deal with the tax on condensate—condensate is effectively, in Western Australia anyway, something of a by-product of the liquefied natural gas industry. The tax on condensate, which most Western Australians would have no idea even existed, was put in place about 21 years ago as an incentive for the industry, if we take the time line back to that period. It is basically high-quality light crude. It burns cleanly. It attracts a premium price in the international market. The price of oil in the intervening 21 years has been as low as $8 a barrel, I think. What is the price of oil today? I think it is something like $120 a barrel, is it not? Therefore, an incentive was put in place 21 years ago to encourage people into the oil and gas industry in this state. In the intervening period, the price of light crude has been as low as $8 to $10 a barrel. Today it is in excess of $120 a barrel. Does anybody seriously believe that anywhere in the world oil companies require those sorts of tax exemptions to encourage them into the industry? The door is being knocked down by companies wanting to invest in the WA oil and gas industry. There we go. As far as the impact on the state budget goes, we have been given an assurance that we will be fully compensated for any impact that may occur as a result of the removal of the exemption on the condensate. I congratulate Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd on delivering a budget that is about building the nation of Australia. What a turnaround to finally get some investment into higher education and training. The investment in the long-term productivity of the nation was absolutely ignored by the previous federal government. Members should look at the trend lines on spending on higher education and training under the previous government. It is an international disgrace that effectively the federal government of Australia withdrew from investing in higher education and training and scientific research. There has been a turnaround in this nation. It was brought about because of the anticipation that such a turnaround was possible. We had a change of government, in the first place, and it is off to a very good start.
It was a federal Liberal government and a state Liberal government that delivered the current model for the GST. Richard Court signed up to it against the protestations, as I recall, of the state Labor Party at the time. What we are trying to do now is have the model changed, so that the Commonwealth Grants Commission can change the distribution model for GST payments in order that Western Australia is not disadvantaged. That is our objective. The last time the grants commission completed the review of the GST arrangements, it increased Western Australia’s base by $250 million as a result of pressure by the WA government. The grants commission is visiting WA in June as part of the next review to be completed by 2010, and we will be putting further pressure on it then to reassess the distribution model that potentially disadvantaged Western Australia to an extent that is unacceptable. To go to the broader point, does anybody seriously put the position that last night’s budget was not good for Western Australia? Does anybody seriously put that position? Mr B.J. Grylls interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The regional partnership fund was something like $250 million over five years, was it not? It was used in a most disgraceful pork-barrelling way by the former federal government. That is a fact. Everybody acknowledges that. Even members of the former government acknowledge that. Here we go. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER : What both sides of politics have been doing is trying to make sure that the federal government, no matter which political party is in power federally, gives some recognition to the fact that Western Australia needs assistance from the federal government for the provision of strategic economic infrastructure. This is the first time in a very long time, if not ever, that there has been any serious recognition of that fact. We have a federal government that has heard our pleas about assistance for the provision of economic infrastructure and has acknowledged that the provision of strategic economic infrastructure in Western Australia is in the national interest. Not only do we now have a situation in which last night an $80 million allocation was made to Western Australia for economic infrastructure—a one-off allocation of $80 million—in advance of the $100 million-plus potentially a year from the Pluto and Gorgon royalties, but also we have the opportunity to put our case for access to the $21 billion fund for economic infrastructure. Bearing in mind that Western Australia plays a disproportionately large role in the nation’s economic fortunes, I would have thought that we have a very good case to put in attempting to access moneys from that fund. Last night’s federal budget was a breath of fresh air. What we have, to the surprise of many of the critics of the observers of politics, is a federal political party that has pulled its head out of the pork barrel and made decisions in the long-term national interest. It is a federal budget that builds the nation. It is a federal budget that has its eye on the long-term benefit of the Australian nation and its people. It has been a long time since we have had a federal budget that we could categorise in that way. We have had a series of federal budgets, particularly the last few delivered by Peter Costello and John Howard, that were nothing more than giveaways to buy votes, and any serious observer of Australian economics and politics knows that that is the case. They let the country down badly in the pursuit of prolonged time in office. What we had last night was a completely different approach. We had a federal government that said it is going to invest in the long-term interests of the nation. It is going to have a $21 billion economic infrastructure fund, an $11 billion higher education and training fund and a $10 billion, I think it was—I might have the $11 billion and the $10 billion around the wrong way—health infrastructure fund, from which I have absolutely no doubt we will benefit. Therefore, does anybody seriously support the proposition that last night’s federal budget was not good for Western Australia? I will deal with the tax on condensate—condensate is effectively, in Western Australia anyway, something of a by-product of the liquefied natural gas industry. The tax on condensate, which most Western Australians would have no idea even existed, was put in place about 21 years ago as an incentive for the industry, if we take the time line back to that period. It is basically high-quality light crude. It burns cleanly. It attracts a premium price in the international market. The price of oil in the intervening 21 years has been as low as $8 a barrel, I think. What is the price of oil today? I think it is something like $120 a barrel, is it not? Therefore, an incentive was put in place 21 years ago to encourage people into the oil and gas industry in this state. In the intervening period, the price of light crude has been as low as $8 to $10 a barrel. Today it is in excess of $120 a barrel. Does anybody seriously believe that anywhere in the world oil companies require those sorts of tax exemptions to encourage them into the industry? The door is being knocked down by companies wanting to invest in the WA oil and gas industry. There we go. As far as the impact on the state budget goes, we have been given an assurance that we will be fully compensated for any impact that may occur as a result of the removal of the exemption on the condensate. I congratulate Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd on delivering a budget that is about building the nation of Australia. What a turnaround to finally get some investment into higher education and training. The investment in the long-term productivity of the nation was absolutely ignored by the previous federal government. Members should look at the trend lines on spending on higher education and training under the previous government. It is an international disgrace that effectively the federal government of Australia withdrew from investing in higher education and training and scientific research. There has been a turnaround in this nation. It was brought about because of the anticipation that such a turnaround was possible. We had a change of government, in the first place, and it is off to a very good start.
To go to the broader point, does anybody seriously put the position that last night’s budget was not good for Western Australia? Does anybody seriously put that position? Mr B.J. Grylls interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The regional partnership fund was something like $250 million over five years, was it not? It was used in a most disgraceful pork-barrelling way by the former federal government. That is a fact. Everybody acknowledges that. Even members of the former government acknowledge that. Here we go. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER : What both sides of politics have been doing is trying to make sure that the federal government, no matter which political party is in power federally, gives some recognition to the fact that Western Australia needs assistance from the federal government for the provision of strategic economic infrastructure. This is the first time in a very long time, if not ever, that there has been any serious recognition of that fact. We have a federal government that has heard our pleas about assistance for the provision of economic infrastructure and has acknowledged that the provision of strategic economic infrastructure in Western Australia is in the national interest. Not only do we now have a situation in which last night an $80 million allocation was made to Western Australia for economic infrastructure—a one-off allocation of $80 million—in advance of the $100 million-plus potentially a year from the Pluto and Gorgon royalties, but also we have the opportunity to put our case for access to the $21 billion fund for economic infrastructure. Bearing in mind that Western Australia plays a disproportionately large role in the nation’s economic fortunes, I would have thought that we have a very good case to put in attempting to access moneys from that fund. Last night’s federal budget was a breath of fresh air. What we have, to the surprise of many of the critics of the observers of politics, is a federal political party that has pulled its head out of the pork barrel and made decisions in the long-term national interest. It is a federal budget that builds the nation. It is a federal budget that has its eye on the long-term benefit of the Australian nation and its people. It has been a long time since we have had a federal budget that we could categorise in that way. We have had a series of federal budgets, particularly the last few delivered by Peter Costello and John Howard, that were nothing more than giveaways to buy votes, and any serious observer of Australian economics and politics knows that that is the case. They let the country down badly in the pursuit of prolonged time in office. What we had last night was a completely different approach. We had a federal government that said it is going to invest in the long-term interests of the nation. It is going to have a $21 billion economic infrastructure fund, an $11 billion higher education and training fund and a $10 billion, I think it was—I might have the $11 billion and the $10 billion around the wrong way—health infrastructure fund, from which I have absolutely no doubt we will benefit. Therefore, does anybody seriously support the proposition that last night’s federal budget was not good for Western Australia? I will deal with the tax on condensate—condensate is effectively, in Western Australia anyway, something of a by-product of the liquefied natural gas industry. The tax on condensate, which most Western Australians would have no idea even existed, was put in place about 21 years ago as an incentive for the industry, if we take the time line back to that period. It is basically high-quality light crude. It burns cleanly. It attracts a premium price in the international market. The price of oil in the intervening 21 years has been as low as $8 a barrel, I think. What is the price of oil today? I think it is something like $120 a barrel, is it not? Therefore, an incentive was put in place 21 years ago to encourage people into the oil and gas industry in this state. In the intervening period, the price of light crude has been as low as $8 to $10 a barrel. Today it is in excess of $120 a barrel. Does anybody seriously believe that anywhere in the world oil companies require those sorts of tax exemptions to encourage them into the industry? The door is being knocked down by companies wanting to invest in the WA oil and gas industry. There we go. As far as the impact on the state budget goes, we have been given an assurance that we will be fully compensated for any impact that may occur as a result of the removal of the exemption on the condensate. I congratulate Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd on delivering a budget that is about building the nation of Australia. What a turnaround to finally get some investment into higher education and training. The investment in the long-term productivity of the nation was absolutely ignored by the previous federal government. Members should look at the trend lines on spending on higher education and training under the previous government. It is an international disgrace that effectively the federal government of Australia withdrew from investing in higher education and training and scientific research. There has been a turnaround in this nation. It was brought about because of the anticipation that such a turnaround was possible. We had a change of government, in the first place, and it is off to a very good start.
Mr B.J. Grylls interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The regional partnership fund was something like $250 million over five years, was it not? It was used in a most disgraceful pork-barrelling way by the former federal government. That is a fact. Everybody acknowledges that. Even members of the former government acknowledge that. Here we go. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER : What both sides of politics have been doing is trying to make sure that the federal government, no matter which political party is in power federally, gives some recognition to the fact that Western Australia needs assistance from the federal government for the provision of strategic economic infrastructure. This is the first time in a very long time, if not ever, that there has been any serious recognition of that fact. We have a federal government that has heard our pleas about assistance for the provision of economic infrastructure and has acknowledged that the provision of strategic economic infrastructure in Western Australia is in the national interest. Not only do we now have a situation in which last night an $80 million allocation was made to Western Australia for economic infrastructure—a one-off allocation of $80 million—in advance of the $100 million-plus potentially a year from the Pluto and Gorgon royalties, but also we have the opportunity to put our case for access to the $21 billion fund for economic infrastructure. Bearing in mind that Western Australia plays a disproportionately large role in the nation’s economic fortunes, I would have thought that we have a very good case to put in attempting to access moneys from that fund. Last night’s federal budget was a breath of fresh air. What we have, to the surprise of many of the critics of the observers of politics, is a federal political party that has pulled its head out of the pork barrel and made decisions in the long-term national interest. It is a federal budget that builds the nation. It is a federal budget that has its eye on the long-term benefit of the Australian nation and its people. It has been a long time since we have had a federal budget that we could categorise in that way. We have had a series of federal budgets, particularly the last few delivered by Peter Costello and John Howard, that were nothing more than giveaways to buy votes, and any serious observer of Australian economics and politics knows that that is the case. They let the country down badly in the pursuit of prolonged time in office. What we had last night was a completely different approach. We had a federal government that said it is going to invest in the long-term interests of the nation. It is going to have a $21 billion economic infrastructure fund, an $11 billion higher education and training fund and a $10 billion, I think it was—I might have the $11 billion and the $10 billion around the wrong way—health infrastructure fund, from which I have absolutely no doubt we will benefit. Therefore, does anybody seriously support the proposition that last night’s federal budget was not good for Western Australia? I will deal with the tax on condensate—condensate is effectively, in Western Australia anyway, something of a by-product of the liquefied natural gas industry. The tax on condensate, which most Western Australians would have no idea even existed, was put in place about 21 years ago as an incentive for the industry, if we take the time line back to that period. It is basically high-quality light crude. It burns cleanly. It attracts a premium price in the international market. The price of oil in the intervening 21 years has been as low as $8 a barrel, I think. What is the price of oil today? I think it is something like $120 a barrel, is it not? Therefore, an incentive was put in place 21 years ago to encourage people into the oil and gas industry in this state. In the intervening period, the price of light crude has been as low as $8 to $10 a barrel. Today it is in excess of $120 a barrel. Does anybody seriously believe that anywhere in the world oil companies require those sorts of tax exemptions to encourage them into the industry? The door is being knocked down by companies wanting to invest in the WA oil and gas industry. There we go. As far as the impact on the state budget goes, we have been given an assurance that we will be fully compensated for any impact that may occur as a result of the removal of the exemption on the condensate. I congratulate Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd on delivering a budget that is about building the nation of Australia. What a turnaround to finally get some investment into higher education and training. The investment in the long-term productivity of the nation was absolutely ignored by the previous federal government. Members should look at the trend lines on spending on higher education and training under the previous government. It is an international disgrace that effectively the federal government of Australia withdrew from investing in higher education and training and scientific research. There has been a turnaround in this nation. It was brought about because of the anticipation that such a turnaround was possible. We had a change of government, in the first place, and it is off to a very good start.
Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The regional partnership fund was something like $250 million over five years, was it not? It was used in a most disgraceful pork-barrelling way by the former federal government. That is a fact. Everybody acknowledges that. Even members of the former government acknowledge that. Here we go. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER : What both sides of politics have been doing is trying to make sure that the federal government, no matter which political party is in power federally, gives some recognition to the fact that Western Australia needs assistance from the federal government for the provision of strategic economic infrastructure. This is the first time in a very long time, if not ever, that there has been any serious recognition of that fact. We have a federal government that has heard our pleas about assistance for the provision of economic infrastructure and has acknowledged that the provision of strategic economic infrastructure in Western Australia is in the national interest. Not only do we now have a situation in which last night an $80 million allocation was made to Western Australia for economic infrastructure—a one-off allocation of $80 million—in advance of the $100 million-plus potentially a year from the Pluto and Gorgon royalties, but also we have the opportunity to put our case for access to the $21 billion fund for economic infrastructure. Bearing in mind that Western Australia plays a disproportionately large role in the nation’s economic fortunes, I would have thought that we have a very good case to put in attempting to access moneys from that fund. Last night’s federal budget was a breath of fresh air. What we have, to the surprise of many of the critics of the observers of politics, is a federal political party that has pulled its head out of the pork barrel and made decisions in the long-term national interest. It is a federal budget that builds the nation. It is a federal budget that has its eye on the long-term benefit of the Australian nation and its people. It has been a long time since we have had a federal budget that we could categorise in that way. We have had a series of federal budgets, particularly the last few delivered by Peter Costello and John Howard, that were nothing more than giveaways to buy votes, and any serious observer of Australian economics and politics knows that that is the case. They let the country down badly in the pursuit of prolonged time in office. What we had last night was a completely different approach. We had a federal government that said it is going to invest in the long-term interests of the nation. It is going to have a $21 billion economic infrastructure fund, an $11 billion higher education and training fund and a $10 billion, I think it was—I might have the $11 billion and the $10 billion around the wrong way—health infrastructure fund, from which I have absolutely no doubt we will benefit. Therefore, does anybody seriously support the proposition that last night’s federal budget was not good for Western Australia? I will deal with the tax on condensate—condensate is effectively, in Western Australia anyway, something of a by-product of the liquefied natural gas industry. The tax on condensate, which most Western Australians would have no idea even existed, was put in place about 21 years ago as an incentive for the industry, if we take the time line back to that period. It is basically high-quality light crude. It burns cleanly. It attracts a premium price in the international market. The price of oil in the intervening 21 years has been as low as $8 a barrel, I think. What is the price of oil today? I think it is something like $120 a barrel, is it not? Therefore, an incentive was put in place 21 years ago to encourage people into the oil and gas industry in this state. In the intervening period, the price of light crude has been as low as $8 to $10 a barrel. Today it is in excess of $120 a barrel. Does anybody seriously believe that anywhere in the world oil companies require those sorts of tax exemptions to encourage them into the industry? The door is being knocked down by companies wanting to invest in the WA oil and gas industry. There we go. As far as the impact on the state budget goes, we have been given an assurance that we will be fully compensated for any impact that may occur as a result of the removal of the exemption on the condensate. I congratulate Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd on delivering a budget that is about building the nation of Australia. What a turnaround to finally get some investment into higher education and training. The investment in the long-term productivity of the nation was absolutely ignored by the previous federal government. Members should look at the trend lines on spending on higher education and training under the previous government. It is an international disgrace that effectively the federal government of Australia withdrew from investing in higher education and training and scientific research. There has been a turnaround in this nation. It was brought about because of the anticipation that such a turnaround was possible. We had a change of government, in the first place, and it is off to a very good start.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER : What both sides of politics have been doing is trying to make sure that the federal government, no matter which political party is in power federally, gives some recognition to the fact that Western Australia needs assistance from the federal government for the provision of strategic economic infrastructure. This is the first time in a very long time, if not ever, that there has been any serious recognition of that fact. We have a federal government that has heard our pleas about assistance for the provision of economic infrastructure and has acknowledged that the provision of strategic economic infrastructure in Western Australia is in the national interest. Not only do we now have a situation in which last night an $80 million allocation was made to Western Australia for economic infrastructure—a one-off allocation of $80 million—in advance of the $100 million-plus potentially a year from the Pluto and Gorgon royalties, but also we have the opportunity to put our case for access to the $21 billion fund for economic infrastructure. Bearing in mind that Western Australia plays a disproportionately large role in the nation’s economic fortunes, I would have thought that we have a very good case to put in attempting to access moneys from that fund. Last night’s federal budget was a breath of fresh air. What we have, to the surprise of many of the critics of the observers of politics, is a federal political party that has pulled its head out of the pork barrel and made decisions in the long-term national interest. It is a federal budget that builds the nation. It is a federal budget that has its eye on the long-term benefit of the Australian nation and its people. It has been a long time since we have had a federal budget that we could categorise in that way. We have had a series of federal budgets, particularly the last few delivered by Peter Costello and John Howard, that were nothing more than giveaways to buy votes, and any serious observer of Australian economics and politics knows that that is the case. They let the country down badly in the pursuit of prolonged time in office. What we had last night was a completely different approach. We had a federal government that said it is going to invest in the long-term interests of the nation. It is going to have a $21 billion economic infrastructure fund, an $11 billion higher education and training fund and a $10 billion, I think it was—I might have the $11 billion and the $10 billion around the wrong way—health infrastructure fund, from which I have absolutely no doubt we will benefit. Therefore, does anybody seriously support the proposition that last night’s federal budget was not good for Western Australia? I will deal with the tax on condensate—condensate is effectively, in Western Australia anyway, something of a by-product of the liquefied natural gas industry. The tax on condensate, which most Western Australians would have no idea even existed, was put in place about 21 years ago as an incentive for the industry, if we take the time line back to that period. It is basically high-quality light crude. It burns cleanly. It attracts a premium price in the international market. The price of oil in the intervening 21 years has been as low as $8 a barrel, I think. What is the price of oil today? I think it is something like $120 a barrel, is it not? Therefore, an incentive was put in place 21 years ago to encourage people into the oil and gas industry in this state. In the intervening period, the price of light crude has been as low as $8 to $10 a barrel. Today it is in excess of $120 a barrel. Does anybody seriously believe that anywhere in the world oil companies require those sorts of tax exemptions to encourage them into the industry? The door is being knocked down by companies wanting to invest in the WA oil and gas industry. There we go. As far as the impact on the state budget goes, we have been given an assurance that we will be fully compensated for any impact that may occur as a result of the removal of the exemption on the condensate. I congratulate Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd on delivering a budget that is about building the nation of Australia. What a turnaround to finally get some investment into higher education and training. The investment in the long-term productivity of the nation was absolutely ignored by the previous federal government. Members should look at the trend lines on spending on higher education and training under the previous government. It is an international disgrace that effectively the federal government of Australia withdrew from investing in higher education and training and scientific research. There has been a turnaround in this nation. It was brought about because of the anticipation that such a turnaround was possible. We had a change of government, in the first place, and it is off to a very good start.
The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER : What both sides of politics have been doing is trying to make sure that the federal government, no matter which political party is in power federally, gives some recognition to the fact that Western Australia needs assistance from the federal government for the provision of strategic economic infrastructure. This is the first time in a very long time, if not ever, that there has been any serious recognition of that fact. We have a federal government that has heard our pleas about assistance for the provision of economic infrastructure and has acknowledged that the provision of strategic economic infrastructure in Western Australia is in the national interest. Not only do we now have a situation in which last night an $80 million allocation was made to Western Australia for economic infrastructure—a one-off allocation of $80 million—in advance of the $100 million-plus potentially a year from the Pluto and Gorgon royalties, but also we have the opportunity to put our case for access to the $21 billion fund for economic infrastructure. Bearing in mind that Western Australia plays a disproportionately large role in the nation’s economic fortunes, I would have thought that we have a very good case to put in attempting to access moneys from that fund. Last night’s federal budget was a breath of fresh air. What we have, to the surprise of many of the critics of the observers of politics, is a federal political party that has pulled its head out of the pork barrel and made decisions in the long-term national interest. It is a federal budget that builds the nation. It is a federal budget that has its eye on the long-term benefit of the Australian nation and its people. It has been a long time since we have had a federal budget that we could categorise in that way. We have had a series of federal budgets, particularly the last few delivered by Peter Costello and John Howard, that were nothing more than giveaways to buy votes, and any serious observer of Australian economics and politics knows that that is the case. They let the country down badly in the pursuit of prolonged time in office. What we had last night was a completely different approach. We had a federal government that said it is going to invest in the long-term interests of the nation. It is going to have a $21 billion economic infrastructure fund, an $11 billion higher education and training fund and a $10 billion, I think it was—I might have the $11 billion and the $10 billion around the wrong way—health infrastructure fund, from which I have absolutely no doubt we will benefit. Therefore, does anybody seriously support the proposition that last night’s federal budget was not good for Western Australia? I will deal with the tax on condensate—condensate is effectively, in Western Australia anyway, something of a by-product of the liquefied natural gas industry. The tax on condensate, which most Western Australians would have no idea even existed, was put in place about 21 years ago as an incentive for the industry, if we take the time line back to that period. It is basically high-quality light crude. It burns cleanly. It attracts a premium price in the international market. The price of oil in the intervening 21 years has been as low as $8 a barrel, I think. What is the price of oil today? I think it is something like $120 a barrel, is it not? Therefore, an incentive was put in place 21 years ago to encourage people into the oil and gas industry in this state. In the intervening period, the price of light crude has been as low as $8 to $10 a barrel. Today it is in excess of $120 a barrel. Does anybody seriously believe that anywhere in the world oil companies require those sorts of tax exemptions to encourage them into the industry? The door is being knocked down by companies wanting to invest in the WA oil and gas industry. There we go. As far as the impact on the state budget goes, we have been given an assurance that we will be fully compensated for any impact that may occur as a result of the removal of the exemption on the condensate. I congratulate Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd on delivering a budget that is about building the nation of Australia. What a turnaround to finally get some investment into higher education and training. The investment in the long-term productivity of the nation was absolutely ignored by the previous federal government. Members should look at the trend lines on spending on higher education and training under the previous government. It is an international disgrace that effectively the federal government of Australia withdrew from investing in higher education and training and scientific research. There has been a turnaround in this nation. It was brought about because of the anticipation that such a turnaround was possible. We had a change of government, in the first place, and it is off to a very good start.
Mr A.J. CARPENTER : What both sides of politics have been doing is trying to make sure that the federal government, no matter which political party is in power federally, gives some recognition to the fact that Western Australia needs assistance from the federal government for the provision of strategic economic infrastructure. This is the first time in a very long time, if not ever, that there has been any serious recognition of that fact. We have a federal government that has heard our pleas about assistance for the provision of economic infrastructure and has acknowledged that the provision of strategic economic infrastructure in Western Australia is in the national interest. Not only do we now have a situation in which last night an $80 million allocation was made to Western Australia for economic infrastructure—a one-off allocation of $80 million—in advance of the $100 million-plus potentially a year from the Pluto and Gorgon royalties, but also we have the opportunity to put our case for access to the $21 billion fund for economic infrastructure. Bearing in mind that Western Australia plays a disproportionately large role in the nation’s economic fortunes, I would have thought that we have a very good case to put in attempting to access moneys from that fund. Last night’s federal budget was a breath of fresh air. What we have, to the surprise of many of the critics of the observers of politics, is a federal political party that has pulled its head out of the pork barrel and made decisions in the long-term national interest. It is a federal budget that builds the nation. It is a federal budget that has its eye on the long-term benefit of the Australian nation and its people. It has been a long time since we have had a federal budget that we could categorise in that way. We have had a series of federal budgets, particularly the last few delivered by Peter Costello and John Howard, that were nothing more than giveaways to buy votes, and any serious observer of Australian economics and politics knows that that is the case. They let the country down badly in the pursuit of prolonged time in office. What we had last night was a completely different approach. We had a federal government that said it is going to invest in the long-term interests of the nation. It is going to have a $21 billion economic infrastructure fund, an $11 billion higher education and training fund and a $10 billion, I think it was—I might have the $11 billion and the $10 billion around the wrong way—health infrastructure fund, from which I have absolutely no doubt we will benefit. Therefore, does anybody seriously support the proposition that last night’s federal budget was not good for Western Australia? I will deal with the tax on condensate—condensate is effectively, in Western Australia anyway, something of a by-product of the liquefied natural gas industry. The tax on condensate, which most Western Australians would have no idea even existed, was put in place about 21 years ago as an incentive for the industry, if we take the time line back to that period. It is basically high-quality light crude. It burns cleanly. It attracts a premium price in the international market. The price of oil in the intervening 21 years has been as low as $8 a barrel, I think. What is the price of oil today? I think it is something like $120 a barrel, is it not? Therefore, an incentive was put in place 21 years ago to encourage people into the oil and gas industry in this state. In the intervening period, the price of light crude has been as low as $8 to $10 a barrel. Today it is in excess of $120 a barrel. Does anybody seriously believe that anywhere in the world oil companies require those sorts of tax exemptions to encourage them into the industry? The door is being knocked down by companies wanting to invest in the WA oil and gas industry. There we go. As far as the impact on the state budget goes, we have been given an assurance that we will be fully compensated for any impact that may occur as a result of the removal of the exemption on the condensate. I congratulate Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd on delivering a budget that is about building the nation of Australia. What a turnaround to finally get some investment into higher education and training. The investment in the long-term productivity of the nation was absolutely ignored by the previous federal government. Members should look at the trend lines on spending on higher education and training under the previous government. It is an international disgrace that effectively the federal government of Australia withdrew from investing in higher education and training and scientific research. There has been a turnaround in this nation. It was brought about because of the anticipation that such a turnaround was possible. We had a change of government, in the first place, and it is off to a very good start.
Last night’s federal budget was a breath of fresh air. What we have, to the surprise of many of the critics of the observers of politics, is a federal political party that has pulled its head out of the pork barrel and made decisions in the long-term national interest. It is a federal budget that builds the nation. It is a federal budget that has its eye on the long-term benefit of the Australian nation and its people. It has been a long time since we have had a federal budget that we could categorise in that way. We have had a series of federal budgets, particularly the last few delivered by Peter Costello and John Howard, that were nothing more than giveaways to buy votes, and any serious observer of Australian economics and politics knows that that is the case. They let the country down badly in the pursuit of prolonged time in office. What we had last night was a completely different approach. We had a federal government that said it is going to invest in the long-term interests of the nation. It is going to have a $21 billion economic infrastructure fund, an $11 billion higher education and training fund and a $10 billion, I think it was—I might have the $11 billion and the $10 billion around the wrong way—health infrastructure fund, from which I have absolutely no doubt we will benefit. Therefore, does anybody seriously support the proposition that last night’s federal budget was not good for Western Australia? I will deal with the tax on condensate—condensate is effectively, in Western Australia anyway, something of a by-product of the liquefied natural gas industry. The tax on condensate, which most Western Australians would have no idea even existed, was put in place about 21 years ago as an incentive for the industry, if we take the time line back to that period. It is basically high-quality light crude. It burns cleanly. It attracts a premium price in the international market. The price of oil in the intervening 21 years has been as low as $8 a barrel, I think. What is the price of oil today? I think it is something like $120 a barrel, is it not? Therefore, an incentive was put in place 21 years ago to encourage people into the oil and gas industry in this state. In the intervening period, the price of light crude has been as low as $8 to $10 a barrel. Today it is in excess of $120 a barrel. Does anybody seriously believe that anywhere in the world oil companies require those sorts of tax exemptions to encourage them into the industry? The door is being knocked down by companies wanting to invest in the WA oil and gas industry. There we go. As far as the impact on the state budget goes, we have been given an assurance that we will be fully compensated for any impact that may occur as a result of the removal of the exemption on the condensate. I congratulate Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd on delivering a budget that is about building the nation of Australia. What a turnaround to finally get some investment into higher education and training. The investment in the long-term productivity of the nation was absolutely ignored by the previous federal government. Members should look at the trend lines on spending on higher education and training under the previous government. It is an international disgrace that effectively the federal government of Australia withdrew from investing in higher education and training and scientific research. There has been a turnaround in this nation. It was brought about because of the anticipation that such a turnaround was possible. We had a change of government, in the first place, and it is off to a very good start.
I will deal with the tax on condensate—condensate is effectively, in Western Australia anyway, something of a by-product of the liquefied natural gas industry. The tax on condensate, which most Western Australians would have no idea even existed, was put in place about 21 years ago as an incentive for the industry, if we take the time line back to that period. It is basically high-quality light crude. It burns cleanly. It attracts a premium price in the international market. The price of oil in the intervening 21 years has been as low as $8 a barrel, I think. What is the price of oil today? I think it is something like $120 a barrel, is it not? Therefore, an incentive was put in place 21 years ago to encourage people into the oil and gas industry in this state. In the intervening period, the price of light crude has been as low as $8 to $10 a barrel. Today it is in excess of $120 a barrel. Does anybody seriously believe that anywhere in the world oil companies require those sorts of tax exemptions to encourage them into the industry? The door is being knocked down by companies wanting to invest in the WA oil and gas industry. There we go. As far as the impact on the state budget goes, we have been given an assurance that we will be fully compensated for any impact that may occur as a result of the removal of the exemption on the condensate. I congratulate Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd on delivering a budget that is about building the nation of Australia. What a turnaround to finally get some investment into higher education and training. The investment in the long-term productivity of the nation was absolutely ignored by the previous federal government. Members should look at the trend lines on spending on higher education and training under the previous government. It is an international disgrace that effectively the federal government of Australia withdrew from investing in higher education and training and scientific research. There has been a turnaround in this nation. It was brought about because of the anticipation that such a turnaround was possible. We had a change of government, in the first place, and it is off to a very good start.
I congratulate Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd on delivering a budget that is about building the nation of Australia. What a turnaround to finally get some investment into higher education and training. The investment in the long-term productivity of the nation was absolutely ignored by the previous federal government. Members should look at the trend lines on spending on higher education and training under the previous government. It is an international disgrace that effectively the federal government of Australia withdrew from investing in higher education and training and scientific research. There has been a turnaround in this nation. It was brought about because of the anticipation that such a turnaround was possible. We had a change of government, in the first place, and it is off to a very good start.
What a turnaround to finally get some investment into higher education and training. The investment in the long-term productivity of the nation was absolutely ignored by the previous federal government. Members should look at the trend lines on spending on higher education and training under the previous government. It is an international disgrace that effectively the federal government of Australia withdrew from investing in higher education and training and scientific research. There has been a turnaround in this nation. It was brought about because of the anticipation that such a turnaround was possible. We had a change of government, in the first place, and it is off to a very good start.
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.