❓ Treasurer Ripper expresses outrage at the Commonwealth Government's breach of the intergovernmental agreement, predicting significant revenue loss for Western Australia and criticising the opposition's response.
AnsweredQoN 829Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the Commonwealth Government’s breach of the intergovernmental agreement on the reform of commonwealth-state financial relations. Has the Treasurer any further advice on the impact of this decision on Western Australia? Mr RIPPER
AnswerView source ↗
This is a very important question. The Commonwealth Government’s decision to cut funding to the States and Territories is an outrage. The Commonwealth Government has torn up an agreement with the States and Territories that it signed in 1999. If the Commonwealth Government can go back on that aspect of the agreement, what else can it do? The effect on Western Australia will be a reduction in revenue of $18.3 million next year and a total of between $60 million and $70 million over the next five years, which is the equivalent of four primary schools next year alone. All the state Premiers and territory Chief Ministers will be taking up this matter with the Prime Minister at the Council of Australian Governments meeting next month. The Commonwealth Government has committed a monumental breach of faith. We have a Leader of the Opposition who will not stand up for this State but sells out the State. He says, “Do not worry about the $18.3 million. That it is not very much money.” The Leader of the Opposition should look at what is happening in New South Wales, because I bet that many of his colleagues are eyeing very closely what is happening with Kerry Chikarovski and will be learning some lessons about the way in which dud leaders are dealt with in New South Wales. I return to the issue of the breach of faith. In 1999 Richard Court signed up Western Australia to the intergovernmental agreement. In return for accepting the goods and services tax, the State had to forgo various revenue streams, such as financial institutions duty and stamp duty on listed shares. There was no scope for a comeback if those revenue streams did better than forecast. Everyone knew that what was lost on the swings would have to be gained on the roundabouts. The basis for the agreement had one underlying principle. It was highlighted by Mr Court in the media statement released after the agreement was signed. He said - The new agreement re-affirms the Commonwealth’s undertaking that no State will be worse off under the new financial arrangements. We are worse off. Unfortunately, the agreement is not worth the paper it is written on. Members may recall that, before the federal election, there was controversy about whether the federal Government would change the GST arrangements. There was a risk that the GST would be put up or that the base would be enlarged. In an interview with Neil Mitchell on 3AW on 7 November 2001 Mr Costello said - Neil, there’s an intergovernmental agreement between the Commonwealth and the States which I negotiated which says that any change to the rate or base of the GST requires unanimous agreement of the States, the Territories and the Commonwealth. What is the worth of that guarantee given that he has now torn up that aspect of the intergovernmental agreement that relates to guaranteed minimum payments to the State? If he has torn up that aspect of the agreement, what is the worth of the agreement when it comes to the rate or base of the GST? The Opposition has sold out the State’s interests. Instead of defending the State’s interests and presenting a united front with the Government to Peter Costello’s complete lack of integrity on this agreement, what does the Leader of the Opposition say? He says that $18.3 million is not very much. I have a prediction: I think he is going the way of the New South Wales Liberal leader.
Mr RIPPER replied: This is a very important question. The Commonwealth Government’s decision to cut funding to the States and Territories is an outrage. The Commonwealth Government has torn up an agreement with the States and Territories that it signed in 1999. If the Commonwealth Government can go back on that aspect of the agreement, what else can it do? The effect on Western Australia will be a reduction in revenue of $18.3 million next year and a total of between $60 million and $70 million over the next five years, which is the equivalent of four primary schools next year alone. All the state Premiers and territory Chief Ministers will be taking up this matter with the Prime Minister at the Council of Australian Governments meeting next month. The Commonwealth Government has committed a monumental breach of faith. We have a Leader of the Opposition who will not stand up for this State but sells out the State. He says, “Do not worry about the $18.3 million. That it is not very much money.” The Leader of the Opposition should look at what is happening in New South Wales, because I bet that many of his colleagues are eyeing very closely what is happening with Kerry Chikarovski and will be learning some lessons about the way in which dud leaders are dealt with in New South Wales. I return to the issue of the breach of faith. In 1999 Richard Court signed up Western Australia to the intergovernmental agreement. In return for accepting the goods and services tax, the State had to forgo various revenue streams, such as financial institutions duty and stamp duty on listed shares. There was no scope for a comeback if those revenue streams did better than forecast. Everyone knew that what was lost on the swings would have to be gained on the roundabouts. The basis for the agreement had one underlying principle. It was highlighted by Mr Court in the media statement released after the agreement was signed. He said - The new agreement re-affirms the Commonwealth’s undertaking that no State will be worse off under the new financial arrangements. We are worse off. Unfortunately, the agreement is not worth the paper it is written on. Members may recall that, before the federal election, there was controversy about whether the federal Government would change the GST arrangements. There was a risk that the GST would be put up or that the base would be enlarged. In an interview with Neil Mitchell on 3AW on 7 November 2001 Mr Costello said - Neil, there’s an intergovernmental agreement between the Commonwealth and the States which I negotiated which says that any change to the rate or base of the GST requires unanimous agreement of the States, the Territories and the Commonwealth. What is the worth of that guarantee given that he has now torn up that aspect of the intergovernmental agreement that relates to guaranteed minimum payments to the State? If he has torn up that aspect of the agreement, what is the worth of the agreement when it comes to the rate or base of the GST? The Opposition has sold out the State’s interests. Instead of defending the State’s interests and presenting a united front with the Government to Peter Costello’s complete lack of integrity on this agreement, what does the Leader of the Opposition say? He says that $18.3 million is not very much. I have a prediction: I think he is going the way of the New South Wales Liberal leader.
This is a very important question. The Commonwealth Government’s decision to cut funding to the States and Territories is an outrage. The Commonwealth Government has torn up an agreement with the States and Territories that it signed in 1999. If the Commonwealth Government can go back on that aspect of the agreement, what else can it do? The effect on Western Australia will be a reduction in revenue of $18.3 million next year and a total of between $60 million and $70 million over the next five years, which is the equivalent of four primary schools next year alone. All the state Premiers and territory Chief Ministers will be taking up this matter with the Prime Minister at the Council of Australian Governments meeting next month. The Commonwealth Government has committed a monumental breach of faith. We have a Leader of the Opposition who will not stand up for this State but sells out the State. He says, “Do not worry about the $18.3 million. That it is not very much money.” The Leader of the Opposition should look at what is happening in New South Wales, because I bet that many of his colleagues are eyeing very closely what is happening with Kerry Chikarovski and will be learning some lessons about the way in which dud leaders are dealt with in New South Wales. I return to the issue of the breach of faith. In 1999 Richard Court signed up Western Australia to the intergovernmental agreement. In return for accepting the goods and services tax, the State had to forgo various revenue streams, such as financial institutions duty and stamp duty on listed shares. There was no scope for a comeback if those revenue streams did better than forecast. Everyone knew that what was lost on the swings would have to be gained on the roundabouts. The basis for the agreement had one underlying principle. It was highlighted by Mr Court in the media statement released after the agreement was signed. He said - The new agreement re-affirms the Commonwealth’s undertaking that no State will be worse off under the new financial arrangements. We are worse off. Unfortunately, the agreement is not worth the paper it is written on. Members may recall that, before the federal election, there was controversy about whether the federal Government would change the GST arrangements. There was a risk that the GST would be put up or that the base would be enlarged. In an interview with Neil Mitchell on 3AW on 7 November 2001 Mr Costello said - Neil, there’s an intergovernmental agreement between the Commonwealth and the States which I negotiated which says that any change to the rate or base of the GST requires unanimous agreement of the States, the Territories and the Commonwealth. What is the worth of that guarantee given that he has now torn up that aspect of the intergovernmental agreement that relates to guaranteed minimum payments to the State? If he has torn up that aspect of the agreement, what is the worth of the agreement when it comes to the rate or base of the GST? The Opposition has sold out the State’s interests. Instead of defending the State’s interests and presenting a united front with the Government to Peter Costello’s complete lack of integrity on this agreement, what does the Leader of the Opposition say? He says that $18.3 million is not very much. I have a prediction: I think he is going the way of the New South Wales Liberal leader.
I return to the issue of the breach of faith. In 1999 Richard Court signed up Western Australia to the intergovernmental agreement. In return for accepting the goods and services tax, the State had to forgo various revenue streams, such as financial institutions duty and stamp duty on listed shares. There was no scope for a comeback if those revenue streams did better than forecast. Everyone knew that what was lost on the swings would have to be gained on the roundabouts. The basis for the agreement had one underlying principle. It was highlighted by Mr Court in the media statement released after the agreement was signed. He said - The new agreement re-affirms the Commonwealth’s undertaking that no State will be worse off under the new financial arrangements. We are worse off. Unfortunately, the agreement is not worth the paper it is written on. Members may recall that, before the federal election, there was controversy about whether the federal Government would change the GST arrangements. There was a risk that the GST would be put up or that the base would be enlarged. In an interview with Neil Mitchell on 3AW on 7 November 2001 Mr Costello said - Neil, there’s an intergovernmental agreement between the Commonwealth and the States which I negotiated which says that any change to the rate or base of the GST requires unanimous agreement of the States, the Territories and the Commonwealth. What is the worth of that guarantee given that he has now torn up that aspect of the intergovernmental agreement that relates to guaranteed minimum payments to the State? If he has torn up that aspect of the agreement, what is the worth of the agreement when it comes to the rate or base of the GST? The Opposition has sold out the State’s interests. Instead of defending the State’s interests and presenting a united front with the Government to Peter Costello’s complete lack of integrity on this agreement, what does the Leader of the Opposition say? He says that $18.3 million is not very much. I have a prediction: I think he is going the way of the New South Wales Liberal leader.
Mr RIPPER replied: This is a very important question. The Commonwealth Government’s decision to cut funding to the States and Territories is an outrage. The Commonwealth Government has torn up an agreement with the States and Territories that it signed in 1999. If the Commonwealth Government can go back on that aspect of the agreement, what else can it do? The effect on Western Australia will be a reduction in revenue of $18.3 million next year and a total of between $60 million and $70 million over the next five years, which is the equivalent of four primary schools next year alone. All the state Premiers and territory Chief Ministers will be taking up this matter with the Prime Minister at the Council of Australian Governments meeting next month. The Commonwealth Government has committed a monumental breach of faith. We have a Leader of the Opposition who will not stand up for this State but sells out the State. He says, “Do not worry about the $18.3 million. That it is not very much money.” The Leader of the Opposition should look at what is happening in New South Wales, because I bet that many of his colleagues are eyeing very closely what is happening with Kerry Chikarovski and will be learning some lessons about the way in which dud leaders are dealt with in New South Wales. I return to the issue of the breach of faith. In 1999 Richard Court signed up Western Australia to the intergovernmental agreement. In return for accepting the goods and services tax, the State had to forgo various revenue streams, such as financial institutions duty and stamp duty on listed shares. There was no scope for a comeback if those revenue streams did better than forecast. Everyone knew that what was lost on the swings would have to be gained on the roundabouts. The basis for the agreement had one underlying principle. It was highlighted by Mr Court in the media statement released after the agreement was signed. He said - The new agreement re-affirms the Commonwealth’s undertaking that no State will be worse off under the new financial arrangements. We are worse off. Unfortunately, the agreement is not worth the paper it is written on. Members may recall that, before the federal election, there was controversy about whether the federal Government would change the GST arrangements. There was a risk that the GST would be put up or that the base would be enlarged. In an interview with Neil Mitchell on 3AW on 7 November 2001 Mr Costello said - Neil, there’s an intergovernmental agreement between the Commonwealth and the States which I negotiated which says that any change to the rate or base of the GST requires unanimous agreement of the States, the Territories and the Commonwealth. What is the worth of that guarantee given that he has now torn up that aspect of the intergovernmental agreement that relates to guaranteed minimum payments to the State? If he has torn up that aspect of the agreement, what is the worth of the agreement when it comes to the rate or base of the GST? The Opposition has sold out the State’s interests. Instead of defending the State’s interests and presenting a united front with the Government to Peter Costello’s complete lack of integrity on this agreement, what does the Leader of the Opposition say? He says that $18.3 million is not very much. I have a prediction: I think he is going the way of the New South Wales Liberal leader.
This is a very important question. The Commonwealth Government’s decision to cut funding to the States and Territories is an outrage. The Commonwealth Government has torn up an agreement with the States and Territories that it signed in 1999. If the Commonwealth Government can go back on that aspect of the agreement, what else can it do? The effect on Western Australia will be a reduction in revenue of $18.3 million next year and a total of between $60 million and $70 million over the next five years, which is the equivalent of four primary schools next year alone. All the state Premiers and territory Chief Ministers will be taking up this matter with the Prime Minister at the Council of Australian Governments meeting next month. The Commonwealth Government has committed a monumental breach of faith. We have a Leader of the Opposition who will not stand up for this State but sells out the State. He says, “Do not worry about the $18.3 million. That it is not very much money.” The Leader of the Opposition should look at what is happening in New South Wales, because I bet that many of his colleagues are eyeing very closely what is happening with Kerry Chikarovski and will be learning some lessons about the way in which dud leaders are dealt with in New South Wales. I return to the issue of the breach of faith. In 1999 Richard Court signed up Western Australia to the intergovernmental agreement. In return for accepting the goods and services tax, the State had to forgo various revenue streams, such as financial institutions duty and stamp duty on listed shares. There was no scope for a comeback if those revenue streams did better than forecast. Everyone knew that what was lost on the swings would have to be gained on the roundabouts. The basis for the agreement had one underlying principle. It was highlighted by Mr Court in the media statement released after the agreement was signed. He said - The new agreement re-affirms the Commonwealth’s undertaking that no State will be worse off under the new financial arrangements. We are worse off. Unfortunately, the agreement is not worth the paper it is written on. Members may recall that, before the federal election, there was controversy about whether the federal Government would change the GST arrangements. There was a risk that the GST would be put up or that the base would be enlarged. In an interview with Neil Mitchell on 3AW on 7 November 2001 Mr Costello said - Neil, there’s an intergovernmental agreement between the Commonwealth and the States which I negotiated which says that any change to the rate or base of the GST requires unanimous agreement of the States, the Territories and the Commonwealth. What is the worth of that guarantee given that he has now torn up that aspect of the intergovernmental agreement that relates to guaranteed minimum payments to the State? If he has torn up that aspect of the agreement, what is the worth of the agreement when it comes to the rate or base of the GST? The Opposition has sold out the State’s interests. Instead of defending the State’s interests and presenting a united front with the Government to Peter Costello’s complete lack of integrity on this agreement, what does the Leader of the Opposition say? He says that $18.3 million is not very much. I have a prediction: I think he is going the way of the New South Wales Liberal leader.
I return to the issue of the breach of faith. In 1999 Richard Court signed up Western Australia to the intergovernmental agreement. In return for accepting the goods and services tax, the State had to forgo various revenue streams, such as financial institutions duty and stamp duty on listed shares. There was no scope for a comeback if those revenue streams did better than forecast. Everyone knew that what was lost on the swings would have to be gained on the roundabouts. The basis for the agreement had one underlying principle. It was highlighted by Mr Court in the media statement released after the agreement was signed. He said - The new agreement re-affirms the Commonwealth’s undertaking that no State will be worse off under the new financial arrangements. We are worse off. Unfortunately, the agreement is not worth the paper it is written on. Members may recall that, before the federal election, there was controversy about whether the federal Government would change the GST arrangements. There was a risk that the GST would be put up or that the base would be enlarged. In an interview with Neil Mitchell on 3AW on 7 November 2001 Mr Costello said - Neil, there’s an intergovernmental agreement between the Commonwealth and the States which I negotiated which says that any change to the rate or base of the GST requires unanimous agreement of the States, the Territories and the Commonwealth. What is the worth of that guarantee given that he has now torn up that aspect of the intergovernmental agreement that relates to guaranteed minimum payments to the State? If he has torn up that aspect of the agreement, what is the worth of the agreement when it comes to the rate or base of the GST? The Opposition has sold out the State’s interests. Instead of defending the State’s interests and presenting a united front with the Government to Peter Costello’s complete lack of integrity on this agreement, what does the Leader of the Opposition say? He says that $18.3 million is not very much. I have a prediction: I think he is going the way of the New South Wales Liberal leader.
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.