❓ Treasurer Ripper affirms the government's commitment to infrastructure investment and debt repayment, highlighting its importance for sustainable economic growth and future generations, while criticising the opposition's stance.
AnsweredQoN 259Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
WESTERN AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY - INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT
Does the Treasurer agree with the editor of The Australian newspaper that infrastructure investment is the key to sustaining growth in Western Australia’s economy? Mr E.S. RIPPER
Does the Treasurer agree with the editor of The Australian newspaper that infrastructure investment is the key to sustaining growth in Western Australia’s economy? Mr E.S. RIPPER
AnswerView source ↗
Thank goodness someone on our side is game enough to ask me a question about the budget in the first question time following its delivery. With our infrastructure program, this government is building for the future. It is good to see a newspaper of substance agree with our view. It has understood that we need to budget not just for today, but also for tomorrow. All booms, even the great ones in our history, have come to an end. This government must build on the boom to support Western Australian growth once the heat goes out of our commodity markets. We are investing in the critical infrastructure that will assist our exporters to get their products to international markets. I am very pleased with the way in which The Australian editorialised on the budget. It stated - . . . overall, the state that experiences the infrastructure bottlenecks and skills shortages most closely seems to be taking the right approach to making sure that, with some old-fashioned hard yakka, the manna will continue. Well done to The Australian newspaper for understanding the need to budget for the future. However, the government is investing not only in the economy of the future, but also in the services of the future: new hospitals, new schools, new police stations and new public transport infrastructure. Every single dollar of our surpluses goes to new infrastructure or to debt repayment, and with our debt-free Mandurah railway line, we are doing both. What is the opposition’s reaction? It calls paying off $1.3 billion worth of debt a political smokescreen and a stunt. That is its attitude. I am not sure whether the opposition opposes debt repayment in general or just this piece of debt repayment. However, I will deal with both questions and tell the opposition why debt repayment is good in general and why it is good in this case. Debt repayment eases the burden on future generations of taxpayers. Seventy-five million dollars a year of interest payments will be saved on this project alone every year for future taxpayers. Debt repayment builds budget resilience and budget flexibility for the future. If the member for Vasse would just remain silent for a moment and use his two ears rather than his one mouth, he would learn something. He would learn that our general government sector - schools, hospitals, police stations and all those other things that are provided for in the general government sector - is net debt free. We have positive financial assets in our general government sector. The debt is with our trading enterprises. Almost all of them are profitable and entirely able to service their debt commercially. However, one big trading enterprise, by the very nature of its business, will not operate on a fully commercial basis at any one time, and that is the Public Transport Authority. If the government did not pay off the specific debt of New MetroRail, we would have to subsidise the Public Transport Authority by $75 million each year, because it does not operate on a fully commercial basis. The decision to pay off the New MetroRail debt was a good one in general and entirely sensible and logical in particular. It is the right decision for now and it is the right decision for future generations of Western Australians. It is irresponsible for the opposition to describe it as a stunt. A debt repayment of $1.3 billion is not a stunt.
Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: Thank goodness someone on our side is game enough to ask me a question about the budget in the first question time following its delivery. With our infrastructure program, this government is building for the future. It is good to see a newspaper of substance agree with our view. It has understood that we need to budget not just for today, but also for tomorrow. All booms, even the great ones in our history, have come to an end. This government must build on the boom to support Western Australian growth once the heat goes out of our commodity markets. We are investing in the critical infrastructure that will assist our exporters to get their products to international markets. I am very pleased with the way in which The Australian editorialised on the budget. It stated - . . . overall, the state that experiences the infrastructure bottlenecks and skills shortages most closely seems to be taking the right approach to making sure that, with some old-fashioned hard yakka, the manna will continue. Well done to The Australian newspaper for understanding the need to budget for the future. However, the government is investing not only in the economy of the future, but also in the services of the future: new hospitals, new schools, new police stations and new public transport infrastructure. Every single dollar of our surpluses goes to new infrastructure or to debt repayment, and with our debt-free Mandurah railway line, we are doing both. What is the opposition’s reaction? It calls paying off $1.3 billion worth of debt a political smokescreen and a stunt. That is its attitude. I am not sure whether the opposition opposes debt repayment in general or just this piece of debt repayment. However, I will deal with both questions and tell the opposition why debt repayment is good in general and why it is good in this case. Debt repayment eases the burden on future generations of taxpayers. Seventy-five million dollars a year of interest payments will be saved on this project alone every year for future taxpayers. Debt repayment builds budget resilience and budget flexibility for the future. If the member for Vasse would just remain silent for a moment and use his two ears rather than his one mouth, he would learn something. He would learn that our general government sector - schools, hospitals, police stations and all those other things that are provided for in the general government sector - is net debt free. We have positive financial assets in our general government sector. The debt is with our trading enterprises. Almost all of them are profitable and entirely able to service their debt commercially. However, one big trading enterprise, by the very nature of its business, will not operate on a fully commercial basis at any one time, and that is the Public Transport Authority. If the government did not pay off the specific debt of New MetroRail, we would have to subsidise the Public Transport Authority by $75 million each year, because it does not operate on a fully commercial basis. The decision to pay off the New MetroRail debt was a good one in general and entirely sensible and logical in particular. It is the right decision for now and it is the right decision for future generations of Western Australians. It is irresponsible for the opposition to describe it as a stunt. A debt repayment of $1.3 billion is not a stunt.
Thank goodness someone on our side is game enough to ask me a question about the budget in the first question time following its delivery. With our infrastructure program, this government is building for the future. It is good to see a newspaper of substance agree with our view. It has understood that we need to budget not just for today, but also for tomorrow. All booms, even the great ones in our history, have come to an end. This government must build on the boom to support Western Australian growth once the heat goes out of our commodity markets. We are investing in the critical infrastructure that will assist our exporters to get their products to international markets. I am very pleased with the way in which The Australian editorialised on the budget. It stated - . . . overall, the state that experiences the infrastructure bottlenecks and skills shortages most closely seems to be taking the right approach to making sure that, with some old-fashioned hard yakka, the manna will continue. Well done to The Australian newspaper for understanding the need to budget for the future. However, the government is investing not only in the economy of the future, but also in the services of the future: new hospitals, new schools, new police stations and new public transport infrastructure. Every single dollar of our surpluses goes to new infrastructure or to debt repayment, and with our debt-free Mandurah railway line, we are doing both. What is the opposition’s reaction? It calls paying off $1.3 billion worth of debt a political smokescreen and a stunt. That is its attitude. I am not sure whether the opposition opposes debt repayment in general or just this piece of debt repayment. However, I will deal with both questions and tell the opposition why debt repayment is good in general and why it is good in this case. Debt repayment eases the burden on future generations of taxpayers. Seventy-five million dollars a year of interest payments will be saved on this project alone every year for future taxpayers. Debt repayment builds budget resilience and budget flexibility for the future. If the member for Vasse would just remain silent for a moment and use his two ears rather than his one mouth, he would learn something. He would learn that our general government sector - schools, hospitals, police stations and all those other things that are provided for in the general government sector - is net debt free. We have positive financial assets in our general government sector. The debt is with our trading enterprises. Almost all of them are profitable and entirely able to service their debt commercially. However, one big trading enterprise, by the very nature of its business, will not operate on a fully commercial basis at any one time, and that is the Public Transport Authority. If the government did not pay off the specific debt of New MetroRail, we would have to subsidise the Public Transport Authority by $75 million each year, because it does not operate on a fully commercial basis. The decision to pay off the New MetroRail debt was a good one in general and entirely sensible and logical in particular. It is the right decision for now and it is the right decision for future generations of Western Australians. It is irresponsible for the opposition to describe it as a stunt. A debt repayment of $1.3 billion is not a stunt.
However, I will deal with both questions and tell the opposition why debt repayment is good in general and why it is good in this case. Debt repayment eases the burden on future generations of taxpayers. Seventy-five million dollars a year of interest payments will be saved on this project alone every year for future taxpayers. Debt repayment builds budget resilience and budget flexibility for the future. If the member for Vasse would just remain silent for a moment and use his two ears rather than his one mouth, he would learn something. He would learn that our general government sector - schools, hospitals, police stations and all those other things that are provided for in the general government sector - is net debt free. We have positive financial assets in our general government sector. The debt is with our trading enterprises. Almost all of them are profitable and entirely able to service their debt commercially. However, one big trading enterprise, by the very nature of its business, will not operate on a fully commercial basis at any one time, and that is the Public Transport Authority. If the government did not pay off the specific debt of New MetroRail, we would have to subsidise the Public Transport Authority by $75 million each year, because it does not operate on a fully commercial basis. The decision to pay off the New MetroRail debt was a good one in general and entirely sensible and logical in particular. It is the right decision for now and it is the right decision for future generations of Western Australians. It is irresponsible for the opposition to describe it as a stunt. A debt repayment of $1.3 billion is not a stunt.
Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: Thank goodness someone on our side is game enough to ask me a question about the budget in the first question time following its delivery. With our infrastructure program, this government is building for the future. It is good to see a newspaper of substance agree with our view. It has understood that we need to budget not just for today, but also for tomorrow. All booms, even the great ones in our history, have come to an end. This government must build on the boom to support Western Australian growth once the heat goes out of our commodity markets. We are investing in the critical infrastructure that will assist our exporters to get their products to international markets. I am very pleased with the way in which The Australian editorialised on the budget. It stated - . . . overall, the state that experiences the infrastructure bottlenecks and skills shortages most closely seems to be taking the right approach to making sure that, with some old-fashioned hard yakka, the manna will continue. Well done to The Australian newspaper for understanding the need to budget for the future. However, the government is investing not only in the economy of the future, but also in the services of the future: new hospitals, new schools, new police stations and new public transport infrastructure. Every single dollar of our surpluses goes to new infrastructure or to debt repayment, and with our debt-free Mandurah railway line, we are doing both. What is the opposition’s reaction? It calls paying off $1.3 billion worth of debt a political smokescreen and a stunt. That is its attitude. I am not sure whether the opposition opposes debt repayment in general or just this piece of debt repayment. However, I will deal with both questions and tell the opposition why debt repayment is good in general and why it is good in this case. Debt repayment eases the burden on future generations of taxpayers. Seventy-five million dollars a year of interest payments will be saved on this project alone every year for future taxpayers. Debt repayment builds budget resilience and budget flexibility for the future. If the member for Vasse would just remain silent for a moment and use his two ears rather than his one mouth, he would learn something. He would learn that our general government sector - schools, hospitals, police stations and all those other things that are provided for in the general government sector - is net debt free. We have positive financial assets in our general government sector. The debt is with our trading enterprises. Almost all of them are profitable and entirely able to service their debt commercially. However, one big trading enterprise, by the very nature of its business, will not operate on a fully commercial basis at any one time, and that is the Public Transport Authority. If the government did not pay off the specific debt of New MetroRail, we would have to subsidise the Public Transport Authority by $75 million each year, because it does not operate on a fully commercial basis. The decision to pay off the New MetroRail debt was a good one in general and entirely sensible and logical in particular. It is the right decision for now and it is the right decision for future generations of Western Australians. It is irresponsible for the opposition to describe it as a stunt. A debt repayment of $1.3 billion is not a stunt.
Thank goodness someone on our side is game enough to ask me a question about the budget in the first question time following its delivery. With our infrastructure program, this government is building for the future. It is good to see a newspaper of substance agree with our view. It has understood that we need to budget not just for today, but also for tomorrow. All booms, even the great ones in our history, have come to an end. This government must build on the boom to support Western Australian growth once the heat goes out of our commodity markets. We are investing in the critical infrastructure that will assist our exporters to get their products to international markets. I am very pleased with the way in which The Australian editorialised on the budget. It stated - . . . overall, the state that experiences the infrastructure bottlenecks and skills shortages most closely seems to be taking the right approach to making sure that, with some old-fashioned hard yakka, the manna will continue. Well done to The Australian newspaper for understanding the need to budget for the future. However, the government is investing not only in the economy of the future, but also in the services of the future: new hospitals, new schools, new police stations and new public transport infrastructure. Every single dollar of our surpluses goes to new infrastructure or to debt repayment, and with our debt-free Mandurah railway line, we are doing both. What is the opposition’s reaction? It calls paying off $1.3 billion worth of debt a political smokescreen and a stunt. That is its attitude. I am not sure whether the opposition opposes debt repayment in general or just this piece of debt repayment. However, I will deal with both questions and tell the opposition why debt repayment is good in general and why it is good in this case. Debt repayment eases the burden on future generations of taxpayers. Seventy-five million dollars a year of interest payments will be saved on this project alone every year for future taxpayers. Debt repayment builds budget resilience and budget flexibility for the future. If the member for Vasse would just remain silent for a moment and use his two ears rather than his one mouth, he would learn something. He would learn that our general government sector - schools, hospitals, police stations and all those other things that are provided for in the general government sector - is net debt free. We have positive financial assets in our general government sector. The debt is with our trading enterprises. Almost all of them are profitable and entirely able to service their debt commercially. However, one big trading enterprise, by the very nature of its business, will not operate on a fully commercial basis at any one time, and that is the Public Transport Authority. If the government did not pay off the specific debt of New MetroRail, we would have to subsidise the Public Transport Authority by $75 million each year, because it does not operate on a fully commercial basis. The decision to pay off the New MetroRail debt was a good one in general and entirely sensible and logical in particular. It is the right decision for now and it is the right decision for future generations of Western Australians. It is irresponsible for the opposition to describe it as a stunt. A debt repayment of $1.3 billion is not a stunt.
However, I will deal with both questions and tell the opposition why debt repayment is good in general and why it is good in this case. Debt repayment eases the burden on future generations of taxpayers. Seventy-five million dollars a year of interest payments will be saved on this project alone every year for future taxpayers. Debt repayment builds budget resilience and budget flexibility for the future. If the member for Vasse would just remain silent for a moment and use his two ears rather than his one mouth, he would learn something. He would learn that our general government sector - schools, hospitals, police stations and all those other things that are provided for in the general government sector - is net debt free. We have positive financial assets in our general government sector. The debt is with our trading enterprises. Almost all of them are profitable and entirely able to service their debt commercially. However, one big trading enterprise, by the very nature of its business, will not operate on a fully commercial basis at any one time, and that is the Public Transport Authority. If the government did not pay off the specific debt of New MetroRail, we would have to subsidise the Public Transport Authority by $75 million each year, because it does not operate on a fully commercial basis. The decision to pay off the New MetroRail debt was a good one in general and entirely sensible and logical in particular. It is the right decision for now and it is the right decision for future generations of Western Australians. It is irresponsible for the opposition to describe it as a stunt. A debt repayment of $1.3 billion is not a stunt.
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.