❓ Opposition Leader Barnett questions the Treasurer's inclusion of a freeze on charges as revenue relief, accusing the government of misleading the public. The Treasurer defends the decision, highlighting the government's efforts to keep household charges below inflation and contrasting their record with the previous government's.
AnsweredQoN 238Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer the Treasurer to last week’s budget announcement that Western Australians will enjoy $133 million worth of tax concessions in this financial year. (1) Given that the Government has increased charges in its last three budgets, but has failed to include those as part of the $400 million increase in taxes in its revenue measures, how has the Treasurer arrived at the conclusion that it is legitimate to include the freezing of taxes and charges as revenue relief worth $20 million? Dr G.I. Gallop interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Does the Premier not follow? (2) Given that this is a freeze on charges at high levels and not a cut at all, does the Treasurer concede that including this as part of his so-called revenue relief package is both misleading and deceptive? (3) Will the Treasurer admit that this is simply Labor spin at its worst and that he has deliberately overestimated the revenue relief by $20 million? Mr E.S. RIPPER
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(3) There sits a man who was on the Cabinet Budget Committee of the previous Government, which belted the battlers of this State in budget after budget. In every budget we work hard to try to keep those key household charges below the rate of inflation. Members can see what has been the impact after four years. There have been three years of below-inflation increases, and in the fourth year there has been a freeze. The real reduction in charges as a result of those efforts over the four budgets is $86 a year for the representative household. Members should compare that with what happened under the coalition. Under the model that we all use to measure the impact of the most basic fees and charges on the household, the previous Government put up charges by $296 in four of its years in government. I make no apology for including a freeze on household fees and charges in our communication about what we have done in the budget. I regard the attempts that we have made to keep down the impact of household fees and charges as a very important aspect of our budgeting, not only in this budget, but also in the three previous budgets. If the Leader of the Opposition would like, I will bring in the headlines about the Court budgets - budget after budget contained huge increases in fees that affected the average household. Fees and charges were increased by $296 in real terms under the previous Government, but they have been reduced by $86 in real terms under our Government. That speaks for itself. Of course it should have been included in the budget communication.
(1) Given that the Government has increased charges in its last three budgets, but has failed to include those as part of the $400 million increase in taxes in its revenue measures, how has the Treasurer arrived at the conclusion that it is legitimate to include the freezing of taxes and charges as revenue relief worth $20 million? Dr G.I. Gallop interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Does the Premier not follow? (2) Given that this is a freeze on charges at high levels and not a cut at all, does the Treasurer concede that including this as part of his so-called revenue relief package is both misleading and deceptive? (3) Will the Treasurer admit that this is simply Labor spin at its worst and that he has deliberately overestimated the revenue relief by $20 million? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(3) There sits a man who was on the Cabinet Budget Committee of the previous Government, which belted the battlers of this State in budget after budget. In every budget we work hard to try to keep those key household charges below the rate of inflation. Members can see what has been the impact after four years. There have been three years of below-inflation increases, and in the fourth year there has been a freeze. The real reduction in charges as a result of those efforts over the four budgets is $86 a year for the representative household. Members should compare that with what happened under the coalition. Under the model that we all use to measure the impact of the most basic fees and charges on the household, the previous Government put up charges by $296 in four of its years in government. I make no apology for including a freeze on household fees and charges in our communication about what we have done in the budget. I regard the attempts that we have made to keep down the impact of household fees and charges as a very important aspect of our budgeting, not only in this budget, but also in the three previous budgets. If the Leader of the Opposition would like, I will bring in the headlines about the Court budgets - budget after budget contained huge increases in fees that affected the average household. Fees and charges were increased by $296 in real terms under the previous Government, but they have been reduced by $86 in real terms under our Government. That speaks for itself. Of course it should have been included in the budget communication.
Dr G.I. Gallop interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Does the Premier not follow? (2) Given that this is a freeze on charges at high levels and not a cut at all, does the Treasurer concede that including this as part of his so-called revenue relief package is both misleading and deceptive? (3) Will the Treasurer admit that this is simply Labor spin at its worst and that he has deliberately overestimated the revenue relief by $20 million? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(3) There sits a man who was on the Cabinet Budget Committee of the previous Government, which belted the battlers of this State in budget after budget. In every budget we work hard to try to keep those key household charges below the rate of inflation. Members can see what has been the impact after four years. There have been three years of below-inflation increases, and in the fourth year there has been a freeze. The real reduction in charges as a result of those efforts over the four budgets is $86 a year for the representative household. Members should compare that with what happened under the coalition. Under the model that we all use to measure the impact of the most basic fees and charges on the household, the previous Government put up charges by $296 in four of its years in government. I make no apology for including a freeze on household fees and charges in our communication about what we have done in the budget. I regard the attempts that we have made to keep down the impact of household fees and charges as a very important aspect of our budgeting, not only in this budget, but also in the three previous budgets. If the Leader of the Opposition would like, I will bring in the headlines about the Court budgets - budget after budget contained huge increases in fees that affected the average household. Fees and charges were increased by $296 in real terms under the previous Government, but they have been reduced by $86 in real terms under our Government. That speaks for itself. Of course it should have been included in the budget communication.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: Does the Premier not follow? (2) Given that this is a freeze on charges at high levels and not a cut at all, does the Treasurer concede that including this as part of his so-called revenue relief package is both misleading and deceptive? (3) Will the Treasurer admit that this is simply Labor spin at its worst and that he has deliberately overestimated the revenue relief by $20 million? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(3) There sits a man who was on the Cabinet Budget Committee of the previous Government, which belted the battlers of this State in budget after budget. In every budget we work hard to try to keep those key household charges below the rate of inflation. Members can see what has been the impact after four years. There have been three years of below-inflation increases, and in the fourth year there has been a freeze. The real reduction in charges as a result of those efforts over the four budgets is $86 a year for the representative household. Members should compare that with what happened under the coalition. Under the model that we all use to measure the impact of the most basic fees and charges on the household, the previous Government put up charges by $296 in four of its years in government. I make no apology for including a freeze on household fees and charges in our communication about what we have done in the budget. I regard the attempts that we have made to keep down the impact of household fees and charges as a very important aspect of our budgeting, not only in this budget, but also in the three previous budgets. If the Leader of the Opposition would like, I will bring in the headlines about the Court budgets - budget after budget contained huge increases in fees that affected the average household. Fees and charges were increased by $296 in real terms under the previous Government, but they have been reduced by $86 in real terms under our Government. That speaks for itself. Of course it should have been included in the budget communication.
(2) Given that this is a freeze on charges at high levels and not a cut at all, does the Treasurer concede that including this as part of his so-called revenue relief package is both misleading and deceptive? (3) Will the Treasurer admit that this is simply Labor spin at its worst and that he has deliberately overestimated the revenue relief by $20 million? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(3) There sits a man who was on the Cabinet Budget Committee of the previous Government, which belted the battlers of this State in budget after budget. In every budget we work hard to try to keep those key household charges below the rate of inflation. Members can see what has been the impact after four years. There have been three years of below-inflation increases, and in the fourth year there has been a freeze. The real reduction in charges as a result of those efforts over the four budgets is $86 a year for the representative household. Members should compare that with what happened under the coalition. Under the model that we all use to measure the impact of the most basic fees and charges on the household, the previous Government put up charges by $296 in four of its years in government. I make no apology for including a freeze on household fees and charges in our communication about what we have done in the budget. I regard the attempts that we have made to keep down the impact of household fees and charges as a very important aspect of our budgeting, not only in this budget, but also in the three previous budgets. If the Leader of the Opposition would like, I will bring in the headlines about the Court budgets - budget after budget contained huge increases in fees that affected the average household. Fees and charges were increased by $296 in real terms under the previous Government, but they have been reduced by $86 in real terms under our Government. That speaks for itself. Of course it should have been included in the budget communication.
(3) Will the Treasurer admit that this is simply Labor spin at its worst and that he has deliberately overestimated the revenue relief by $20 million? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(3) There sits a man who was on the Cabinet Budget Committee of the previous Government, which belted the battlers of this State in budget after budget. In every budget we work hard to try to keep those key household charges below the rate of inflation. Members can see what has been the impact after four years. There have been three years of below-inflation increases, and in the fourth year there has been a freeze. The real reduction in charges as a result of those efforts over the four budgets is $86 a year for the representative household. Members should compare that with what happened under the coalition. Under the model that we all use to measure the impact of the most basic fees and charges on the household, the previous Government put up charges by $296 in four of its years in government. I make no apology for including a freeze on household fees and charges in our communication about what we have done in the budget. I regard the attempts that we have made to keep down the impact of household fees and charges as a very important aspect of our budgeting, not only in this budget, but also in the three previous budgets. If the Leader of the Opposition would like, I will bring in the headlines about the Court budgets - budget after budget contained huge increases in fees that affected the average household. Fees and charges were increased by $296 in real terms under the previous Government, but they have been reduced by $86 in real terms under our Government. That speaks for itself. Of course it should have been included in the budget communication.
Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(3) There sits a man who was on the Cabinet Budget Committee of the previous Government, which belted the battlers of this State in budget after budget. In every budget we work hard to try to keep those key household charges below the rate of inflation. Members can see what has been the impact after four years. There have been three years of below-inflation increases, and in the fourth year there has been a freeze. The real reduction in charges as a result of those efforts over the four budgets is $86 a year for the representative household. Members should compare that with what happened under the coalition. Under the model that we all use to measure the impact of the most basic fees and charges on the household, the previous Government put up charges by $296 in four of its years in government. I make no apology for including a freeze on household fees and charges in our communication about what we have done in the budget. I regard the attempts that we have made to keep down the impact of household fees and charges as a very important aspect of our budgeting, not only in this budget, but also in the three previous budgets. If the Leader of the Opposition would like, I will bring in the headlines about the Court budgets - budget after budget contained huge increases in fees that affected the average household. Fees and charges were increased by $296 in real terms under the previous Government, but they have been reduced by $86 in real terms under our Government. That speaks for itself. Of course it should have been included in the budget communication.
(1)-(3) There sits a man who was on the Cabinet Budget Committee of the previous Government, which belted the battlers of this State in budget after budget. In every budget we work hard to try to keep those key household charges below the rate of inflation. Members can see what has been the impact after four years. There have been three years of below-inflation increases, and in the fourth year there has been a freeze. The real reduction in charges as a result of those efforts over the four budgets is $86 a year for the representative household. Members should compare that with what happened under the coalition. Under the model that we all use to measure the impact of the most basic fees and charges on the household, the previous Government put up charges by $296 in four of its years in government. I make no apology for including a freeze on household fees and charges in our communication about what we have done in the budget. I regard the attempts that we have made to keep down the impact of household fees and charges as a very important aspect of our budgeting, not only in this budget, but also in the three previous budgets. If the Leader of the Opposition would like, I will bring in the headlines about the Court budgets - budget after budget contained huge increases in fees that affected the average household. Fees and charges were increased by $296 in real terms under the previous Government, but they have been reduced by $86 in real terms under our Government. That speaks for itself. Of course it should have been included in the budget communication.
(1) Given that the Government has increased charges in its last three budgets, but has failed to include those as part of the $400 million increase in taxes in its revenue measures, how has the Treasurer arrived at the conclusion that it is legitimate to include the freezing of taxes and charges as revenue relief worth $20 million? Dr G.I. Gallop interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Does the Premier not follow? (2) Given that this is a freeze on charges at high levels and not a cut at all, does the Treasurer concede that including this as part of his so-called revenue relief package is both misleading and deceptive? (3) Will the Treasurer admit that this is simply Labor spin at its worst and that he has deliberately overestimated the revenue relief by $20 million? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(3) There sits a man who was on the Cabinet Budget Committee of the previous Government, which belted the battlers of this State in budget after budget. In every budget we work hard to try to keep those key household charges below the rate of inflation. Members can see what has been the impact after four years. There have been three years of below-inflation increases, and in the fourth year there has been a freeze. The real reduction in charges as a result of those efforts over the four budgets is $86 a year for the representative household. Members should compare that with what happened under the coalition. Under the model that we all use to measure the impact of the most basic fees and charges on the household, the previous Government put up charges by $296 in four of its years in government. I make no apology for including a freeze on household fees and charges in our communication about what we have done in the budget. I regard the attempts that we have made to keep down the impact of household fees and charges as a very important aspect of our budgeting, not only in this budget, but also in the three previous budgets. If the Leader of the Opposition would like, I will bring in the headlines about the Court budgets - budget after budget contained huge increases in fees that affected the average household. Fees and charges were increased by $296 in real terms under the previous Government, but they have been reduced by $86 in real terms under our Government. That speaks for itself. Of course it should have been included in the budget communication.
Dr G.I. Gallop interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Does the Premier not follow? (2) Given that this is a freeze on charges at high levels and not a cut at all, does the Treasurer concede that including this as part of his so-called revenue relief package is both misleading and deceptive? (3) Will the Treasurer admit that this is simply Labor spin at its worst and that he has deliberately overestimated the revenue relief by $20 million? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(3) There sits a man who was on the Cabinet Budget Committee of the previous Government, which belted the battlers of this State in budget after budget. In every budget we work hard to try to keep those key household charges below the rate of inflation. Members can see what has been the impact after four years. There have been three years of below-inflation increases, and in the fourth year there has been a freeze. The real reduction in charges as a result of those efforts over the four budgets is $86 a year for the representative household. Members should compare that with what happened under the coalition. Under the model that we all use to measure the impact of the most basic fees and charges on the household, the previous Government put up charges by $296 in four of its years in government. I make no apology for including a freeze on household fees and charges in our communication about what we have done in the budget. I regard the attempts that we have made to keep down the impact of household fees and charges as a very important aspect of our budgeting, not only in this budget, but also in the three previous budgets. If the Leader of the Opposition would like, I will bring in the headlines about the Court budgets - budget after budget contained huge increases in fees that affected the average household. Fees and charges were increased by $296 in real terms under the previous Government, but they have been reduced by $86 in real terms under our Government. That speaks for itself. Of course it should have been included in the budget communication.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: Does the Premier not follow? (2) Given that this is a freeze on charges at high levels and not a cut at all, does the Treasurer concede that including this as part of his so-called revenue relief package is both misleading and deceptive? (3) Will the Treasurer admit that this is simply Labor spin at its worst and that he has deliberately overestimated the revenue relief by $20 million? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(3) There sits a man who was on the Cabinet Budget Committee of the previous Government, which belted the battlers of this State in budget after budget. In every budget we work hard to try to keep those key household charges below the rate of inflation. Members can see what has been the impact after four years. There have been three years of below-inflation increases, and in the fourth year there has been a freeze. The real reduction in charges as a result of those efforts over the four budgets is $86 a year for the representative household. Members should compare that with what happened under the coalition. Under the model that we all use to measure the impact of the most basic fees and charges on the household, the previous Government put up charges by $296 in four of its years in government. I make no apology for including a freeze on household fees and charges in our communication about what we have done in the budget. I regard the attempts that we have made to keep down the impact of household fees and charges as a very important aspect of our budgeting, not only in this budget, but also in the three previous budgets. If the Leader of the Opposition would like, I will bring in the headlines about the Court budgets - budget after budget contained huge increases in fees that affected the average household. Fees and charges were increased by $296 in real terms under the previous Government, but they have been reduced by $86 in real terms under our Government. That speaks for itself. Of course it should have been included in the budget communication.
(2) Given that this is a freeze on charges at high levels and not a cut at all, does the Treasurer concede that including this as part of his so-called revenue relief package is both misleading and deceptive? (3) Will the Treasurer admit that this is simply Labor spin at its worst and that he has deliberately overestimated the revenue relief by $20 million? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(3) There sits a man who was on the Cabinet Budget Committee of the previous Government, which belted the battlers of this State in budget after budget. In every budget we work hard to try to keep those key household charges below the rate of inflation. Members can see what has been the impact after four years. There have been three years of below-inflation increases, and in the fourth year there has been a freeze. The real reduction in charges as a result of those efforts over the four budgets is $86 a year for the representative household. Members should compare that with what happened under the coalition. Under the model that we all use to measure the impact of the most basic fees and charges on the household, the previous Government put up charges by $296 in four of its years in government. I make no apology for including a freeze on household fees and charges in our communication about what we have done in the budget. I regard the attempts that we have made to keep down the impact of household fees and charges as a very important aspect of our budgeting, not only in this budget, but also in the three previous budgets. If the Leader of the Opposition would like, I will bring in the headlines about the Court budgets - budget after budget contained huge increases in fees that affected the average household. Fees and charges were increased by $296 in real terms under the previous Government, but they have been reduced by $86 in real terms under our Government. That speaks for itself. Of course it should have been included in the budget communication.
(3) Will the Treasurer admit that this is simply Labor spin at its worst and that he has deliberately overestimated the revenue relief by $20 million? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(3) There sits a man who was on the Cabinet Budget Committee of the previous Government, which belted the battlers of this State in budget after budget. In every budget we work hard to try to keep those key household charges below the rate of inflation. Members can see what has been the impact after four years. There have been three years of below-inflation increases, and in the fourth year there has been a freeze. The real reduction in charges as a result of those efforts over the four budgets is $86 a year for the representative household. Members should compare that with what happened under the coalition. Under the model that we all use to measure the impact of the most basic fees and charges on the household, the previous Government put up charges by $296 in four of its years in government. I make no apology for including a freeze on household fees and charges in our communication about what we have done in the budget. I regard the attempts that we have made to keep down the impact of household fees and charges as a very important aspect of our budgeting, not only in this budget, but also in the three previous budgets. If the Leader of the Opposition would like, I will bring in the headlines about the Court budgets - budget after budget contained huge increases in fees that affected the average household. Fees and charges were increased by $296 in real terms under the previous Government, but they have been reduced by $86 in real terms under our Government. That speaks for itself. Of course it should have been included in the budget communication.
Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(3) There sits a man who was on the Cabinet Budget Committee of the previous Government, which belted the battlers of this State in budget after budget. In every budget we work hard to try to keep those key household charges below the rate of inflation. Members can see what has been the impact after four years. There have been three years of below-inflation increases, and in the fourth year there has been a freeze. The real reduction in charges as a result of those efforts over the four budgets is $86 a year for the representative household. Members should compare that with what happened under the coalition. Under the model that we all use to measure the impact of the most basic fees and charges on the household, the previous Government put up charges by $296 in four of its years in government. I make no apology for including a freeze on household fees and charges in our communication about what we have done in the budget. I regard the attempts that we have made to keep down the impact of household fees and charges as a very important aspect of our budgeting, not only in this budget, but also in the three previous budgets. If the Leader of the Opposition would like, I will bring in the headlines about the Court budgets - budget after budget contained huge increases in fees that affected the average household. Fees and charges were increased by $296 in real terms under the previous Government, but they have been reduced by $86 in real terms under our Government. That speaks for itself. Of course it should have been included in the budget communication.
(1)-(3) There sits a man who was on the Cabinet Budget Committee of the previous Government, which belted the battlers of this State in budget after budget. In every budget we work hard to try to keep those key household charges below the rate of inflation. Members can see what has been the impact after four years. There have been three years of below-inflation increases, and in the fourth year there has been a freeze. The real reduction in charges as a result of those efforts over the four budgets is $86 a year for the representative household. Members should compare that with what happened under the coalition. Under the model that we all use to measure the impact of the most basic fees and charges on the household, the previous Government put up charges by $296 in four of its years in government. I make no apology for including a freeze on household fees and charges in our communication about what we have done in the budget. I regard the attempts that we have made to keep down the impact of household fees and charges as a very important aspect of our budgeting, not only in this budget, but also in the three previous budgets. If the Leader of the Opposition would like, I will bring in the headlines about the Court budgets - budget after budget contained huge increases in fees that affected the average household. Fees and charges were increased by $296 in real terms under the previous Government, but they have been reduced by $86 in real terms under our Government. That speaks for itself. Of course it should have been included in the budget communication.
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.