❓ Mr Redman questions the Treasurer about the impact of high oil prices on WA families and the government's response, particularly regarding GST revenue from fuel and oil royalties. The Treasurer acknowledges concerns but deflects by highlighting vehicle tax comparisons and GST allocation complexities.
AnsweredQoN 488Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the ongoing impact of the record world oil prices on average Western Australian families and industry and the government’s reluctance to address the pain felt by people at the fuel pump. (1) What is the government’s budgeted estimate in 2005-06 for goods and services tax revenues from fuel sales, and on what price per litre is that figure based? (2) Has the Treasurer amended the GST estimate upwards in line with industry predictions that the price is expected to remain above $1.10 per litre for the foreseeable future? (3) What is the figure in the 2005-06 budget for Western Australia’s share from oil production royalties and licences, and on what US dollar amount per barrel is that based? Mr E.S. RIPPER
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(3) The government recognises the cost of travelling for ordinary families, and it has taken steps to reduce the impact it has on the average household. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Vasse. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition ought to recognise that vehicle taxes and charges cost Western Australian families $466 a year, compared with $686 in New South Wales and $729 in the Australian Capital Territory. This government has cut family motor vehicle registrations by $25 and it has frozen third party motor vehicle insurance charges. Western Australia has the best rate of insurance charged for motor vehicle third party insurance of any state in the country. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Carine to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The government has made two decisions this year to reduce the cost to families of running a motor vehicle. I will answer the specific questions asked by the member for Stirling. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Nedlands to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member for Stirling might like to hear the answer to his question, and it will be hard to answer it over the voice of the member for Nedlands if she continues to interject. I will explain to the member for Stirling that the states receive GST revenue from the commonwealth government. The commonwealth prepares the GST revenue estimates but it does not provide a categorical breakdown of the GST or any petrol pricing assumptions it uses. The GST revenue base includes total household consumption, and increased revenue for higher fuel spending may be offset by the impact of reduced spending elsewhere. That is a point the Prime Minister himself has made. I do not often find myself agreeing with the Prime Minister. However, he made the valid point that increased spending on fuel may result in reduced spending on other items, and therefore there will be no change in the GST take. The commonwealth has not advised the states of revisions to its GST revenue estimates for 2005-06. We would expect to receive those revisions in the commonwealth government’s midyear budget review, which will be released in November this year. Western Australians must worry not so much about where the GST is going in total as about what the Commonwealth Grants Commission will do to the state’s share of GST. I am concerned when Treasury talks to me about the possibility of a $100 million a year cut in the state’s share of GST distributions because the grants commission punishes this state for its economic performance. I refer now to the question of oil prices. In budget paper No 3, the government has forecast total petroleum royalties of $532 million in 2005-06. The oil price assumption is an average $US40 a barrel. Of course people will say that the price of oil is much higher at the moment. However, the important point to note is the average price of oil over the financial year. The royalties the state receives from liquefied natural gas is important also. There has always been the assumption in debate in this chamber that oil and liquefied natural gas prices track each other very closely. That assumption must be questioned. Given that we receive a lot of our royalties from LNG, what is important is the LNG price for that section of the royalties, not the oil price. Unfortunately, I cannot provide the member with a breakdown of the allocation of royalties from oil and other petroleum products, because the information we receive from companies is covered by confidentiality clauses. I point out that the oil price is one thing. What is important today is the average oil price, and, as well as the average oil price, we are also interested in the average LNG price, because that will determine the ultimate royalty that is returned to the state. On top of that, the Commonwealth Grants Commission always punishes us no matter what we get. We must accept that, in the end, 90 per cent of the royalties flow to other states. Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory all receive a share of our oil royalties. They should be very pleased with the economic performance of this state under the Gallop government.
(1) What is the government’s budgeted estimate in 2005-06 for goods and services tax revenues from fuel sales, and on what price per litre is that figure based? (2) Has the Treasurer amended the GST estimate upwards in line with industry predictions that the price is expected to remain above $1.10 per litre for the foreseeable future? (3) What is the figure in the 2005-06 budget for Western Australia’s share from oil production royalties and licences, and on what US dollar amount per barrel is that based? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(3) The government recognises the cost of travelling for ordinary families, and it has taken steps to reduce the impact it has on the average household. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Vasse. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition ought to recognise that vehicle taxes and charges cost Western Australian families $466 a year, compared with $686 in New South Wales and $729 in the Australian Capital Territory. This government has cut family motor vehicle registrations by $25 and it has frozen third party motor vehicle insurance charges. Western Australia has the best rate of insurance charged for motor vehicle third party insurance of any state in the country. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Carine to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The government has made two decisions this year to reduce the cost to families of running a motor vehicle. I will answer the specific questions asked by the member for Stirling. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Nedlands to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member for Stirling might like to hear the answer to his question, and it will be hard to answer it over the voice of the member for Nedlands if she continues to interject. I will explain to the member for Stirling that the states receive GST revenue from the commonwealth government. The commonwealth prepares the GST revenue estimates but it does not provide a categorical breakdown of the GST or any petrol pricing assumptions it uses. The GST revenue base includes total household consumption, and increased revenue for higher fuel spending may be offset by the impact of reduced spending elsewhere. That is a point the Prime Minister himself has made. I do not often find myself agreeing with the Prime Minister. However, he made the valid point that increased spending on fuel may result in reduced spending on other items, and therefore there will be no change in the GST take. The commonwealth has not advised the states of revisions to its GST revenue estimates for 2005-06. We would expect to receive those revisions in the commonwealth government’s midyear budget review, which will be released in November this year. Western Australians must worry not so much about where the GST is going in total as about what the Commonwealth Grants Commission will do to the state’s share of GST. I am concerned when Treasury talks to me about the possibility of a $100 million a year cut in the state’s share of GST distributions because the grants commission punishes this state for its economic performance. I refer now to the question of oil prices. In budget paper No 3, the government has forecast total petroleum royalties of $532 million in 2005-06. The oil price assumption is an average $US40 a barrel. Of course people will say that the price of oil is much higher at the moment. However, the important point to note is the average price of oil over the financial year. The royalties the state receives from liquefied natural gas is important also. There has always been the assumption in debate in this chamber that oil and liquefied natural gas prices track each other very closely. That assumption must be questioned. Given that we receive a lot of our royalties from LNG, what is important is the LNG price for that section of the royalties, not the oil price. Unfortunately, I cannot provide the member with a breakdown of the allocation of royalties from oil and other petroleum products, because the information we receive from companies is covered by confidentiality clauses. I point out that the oil price is one thing. What is important today is the average oil price, and, as well as the average oil price, we are also interested in the average LNG price, because that will determine the ultimate royalty that is returned to the state. On top of that, the Commonwealth Grants Commission always punishes us no matter what we get. We must accept that, in the end, 90 per cent of the royalties flow to other states. Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory all receive a share of our oil royalties. They should be very pleased with the economic performance of this state under the Gallop government.
(2) Has the Treasurer amended the GST estimate upwards in line with industry predictions that the price is expected to remain above $1.10 per litre for the foreseeable future? (3) What is the figure in the 2005-06 budget for Western Australia’s share from oil production royalties and licences, and on what US dollar amount per barrel is that based? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(3) The government recognises the cost of travelling for ordinary families, and it has taken steps to reduce the impact it has on the average household. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Vasse. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition ought to recognise that vehicle taxes and charges cost Western Australian families $466 a year, compared with $686 in New South Wales and $729 in the Australian Capital Territory. This government has cut family motor vehicle registrations by $25 and it has frozen third party motor vehicle insurance charges. Western Australia has the best rate of insurance charged for motor vehicle third party insurance of any state in the country. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Carine to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The government has made two decisions this year to reduce the cost to families of running a motor vehicle. I will answer the specific questions asked by the member for Stirling. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Nedlands to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member for Stirling might like to hear the answer to his question, and it will be hard to answer it over the voice of the member for Nedlands if she continues to interject. I will explain to the member for Stirling that the states receive GST revenue from the commonwealth government. The commonwealth prepares the GST revenue estimates but it does not provide a categorical breakdown of the GST or any petrol pricing assumptions it uses. The GST revenue base includes total household consumption, and increased revenue for higher fuel spending may be offset by the impact of reduced spending elsewhere. That is a point the Prime Minister himself has made. I do not often find myself agreeing with the Prime Minister. However, he made the valid point that increased spending on fuel may result in reduced spending on other items, and therefore there will be no change in the GST take. The commonwealth has not advised the states of revisions to its GST revenue estimates for 2005-06. We would expect to receive those revisions in the commonwealth government’s midyear budget review, which will be released in November this year. Western Australians must worry not so much about where the GST is going in total as about what the Commonwealth Grants Commission will do to the state’s share of GST. I am concerned when Treasury talks to me about the possibility of a $100 million a year cut in the state’s share of GST distributions because the grants commission punishes this state for its economic performance. I refer now to the question of oil prices. In budget paper No 3, the government has forecast total petroleum royalties of $532 million in 2005-06. The oil price assumption is an average $US40 a barrel. Of course people will say that the price of oil is much higher at the moment. However, the important point to note is the average price of oil over the financial year. The royalties the state receives from liquefied natural gas is important also. There has always been the assumption in debate in this chamber that oil and liquefied natural gas prices track each other very closely. That assumption must be questioned. Given that we receive a lot of our royalties from LNG, what is important is the LNG price for that section of the royalties, not the oil price. Unfortunately, I cannot provide the member with a breakdown of the allocation of royalties from oil and other petroleum products, because the information we receive from companies is covered by confidentiality clauses. I point out that the oil price is one thing. What is important today is the average oil price, and, as well as the average oil price, we are also interested in the average LNG price, because that will determine the ultimate royalty that is returned to the state. On top of that, the Commonwealth Grants Commission always punishes us no matter what we get. We must accept that, in the end, 90 per cent of the royalties flow to other states. Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory all receive a share of our oil royalties. They should be very pleased with the economic performance of this state under the Gallop government.
(3) What is the figure in the 2005-06 budget for Western Australia’s share from oil production royalties and licences, and on what US dollar amount per barrel is that based? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(3) The government recognises the cost of travelling for ordinary families, and it has taken steps to reduce the impact it has on the average household. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Vasse. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition ought to recognise that vehicle taxes and charges cost Western Australian families $466 a year, compared with $686 in New South Wales and $729 in the Australian Capital Territory. This government has cut family motor vehicle registrations by $25 and it has frozen third party motor vehicle insurance charges. Western Australia has the best rate of insurance charged for motor vehicle third party insurance of any state in the country. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Carine to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The government has made two decisions this year to reduce the cost to families of running a motor vehicle. I will answer the specific questions asked by the member for Stirling. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Nedlands to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member for Stirling might like to hear the answer to his question, and it will be hard to answer it over the voice of the member for Nedlands if she continues to interject. I will explain to the member for Stirling that the states receive GST revenue from the commonwealth government. The commonwealth prepares the GST revenue estimates but it does not provide a categorical breakdown of the GST or any petrol pricing assumptions it uses. The GST revenue base includes total household consumption, and increased revenue for higher fuel spending may be offset by the impact of reduced spending elsewhere. That is a point the Prime Minister himself has made. I do not often find myself agreeing with the Prime Minister. However, he made the valid point that increased spending on fuel may result in reduced spending on other items, and therefore there will be no change in the GST take. The commonwealth has not advised the states of revisions to its GST revenue estimates for 2005-06. We would expect to receive those revisions in the commonwealth government’s midyear budget review, which will be released in November this year. Western Australians must worry not so much about where the GST is going in total as about what the Commonwealth Grants Commission will do to the state’s share of GST. I am concerned when Treasury talks to me about the possibility of a $100 million a year cut in the state’s share of GST distributions because the grants commission punishes this state for its economic performance. I refer now to the question of oil prices. In budget paper No 3, the government has forecast total petroleum royalties of $532 million in 2005-06. The oil price assumption is an average $US40 a barrel. Of course people will say that the price of oil is much higher at the moment. However, the important point to note is the average price of oil over the financial year. The royalties the state receives from liquefied natural gas is important also. There has always been the assumption in debate in this chamber that oil and liquefied natural gas prices track each other very closely. That assumption must be questioned. Given that we receive a lot of our royalties from LNG, what is important is the LNG price for that section of the royalties, not the oil price. Unfortunately, I cannot provide the member with a breakdown of the allocation of royalties from oil and other petroleum products, because the information we receive from companies is covered by confidentiality clauses. I point out that the oil price is one thing. What is important today is the average oil price, and, as well as the average oil price, we are also interested in the average LNG price, because that will determine the ultimate royalty that is returned to the state. On top of that, the Commonwealth Grants Commission always punishes us no matter what we get. We must accept that, in the end, 90 per cent of the royalties flow to other states. Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory all receive a share of our oil royalties. They should be very pleased with the economic performance of this state under the Gallop government.
Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(3) The government recognises the cost of travelling for ordinary families, and it has taken steps to reduce the impact it has on the average household. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Vasse. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition ought to recognise that vehicle taxes and charges cost Western Australian families $466 a year, compared with $686 in New South Wales and $729 in the Australian Capital Territory. This government has cut family motor vehicle registrations by $25 and it has frozen third party motor vehicle insurance charges. Western Australia has the best rate of insurance charged for motor vehicle third party insurance of any state in the country. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Carine to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The government has made two decisions this year to reduce the cost to families of running a motor vehicle. I will answer the specific questions asked by the member for Stirling. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Nedlands to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member for Stirling might like to hear the answer to his question, and it will be hard to answer it over the voice of the member for Nedlands if she continues to interject. I will explain to the member for Stirling that the states receive GST revenue from the commonwealth government. The commonwealth prepares the GST revenue estimates but it does not provide a categorical breakdown of the GST or any petrol pricing assumptions it uses. The GST revenue base includes total household consumption, and increased revenue for higher fuel spending may be offset by the impact of reduced spending elsewhere. That is a point the Prime Minister himself has made. I do not often find myself agreeing with the Prime Minister. However, he made the valid point that increased spending on fuel may result in reduced spending on other items, and therefore there will be no change in the GST take. The commonwealth has not advised the states of revisions to its GST revenue estimates for 2005-06. We would expect to receive those revisions in the commonwealth government’s midyear budget review, which will be released in November this year. Western Australians must worry not so much about where the GST is going in total as about what the Commonwealth Grants Commission will do to the state’s share of GST. I am concerned when Treasury talks to me about the possibility of a $100 million a year cut in the state’s share of GST distributions because the grants commission punishes this state for its economic performance. I refer now to the question of oil prices. In budget paper No 3, the government has forecast total petroleum royalties of $532 million in 2005-06. The oil price assumption is an average $US40 a barrel. Of course people will say that the price of oil is much higher at the moment. However, the important point to note is the average price of oil over the financial year. The royalties the state receives from liquefied natural gas is important also. There has always been the assumption in debate in this chamber that oil and liquefied natural gas prices track each other very closely. That assumption must be questioned. Given that we receive a lot of our royalties from LNG, what is important is the LNG price for that section of the royalties, not the oil price. Unfortunately, I cannot provide the member with a breakdown of the allocation of royalties from oil and other petroleum products, because the information we receive from companies is covered by confidentiality clauses. I point out that the oil price is one thing. What is important today is the average oil price, and, as well as the average oil price, we are also interested in the average LNG price, because that will determine the ultimate royalty that is returned to the state. On top of that, the Commonwealth Grants Commission always punishes us no matter what we get. We must accept that, in the end, 90 per cent of the royalties flow to other states. Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory all receive a share of our oil royalties. They should be very pleased with the economic performance of this state under the Gallop government.
(1)-(3) The government recognises the cost of travelling for ordinary families, and it has taken steps to reduce the impact it has on the average household. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Vasse. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition ought to recognise that vehicle taxes and charges cost Western Australian families $466 a year, compared with $686 in New South Wales and $729 in the Australian Capital Territory. This government has cut family motor vehicle registrations by $25 and it has frozen third party motor vehicle insurance charges. Western Australia has the best rate of insurance charged for motor vehicle third party insurance of any state in the country. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Carine to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The government has made two decisions this year to reduce the cost to families of running a motor vehicle. I will answer the specific questions asked by the member for Stirling. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Nedlands to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member for Stirling might like to hear the answer to his question, and it will be hard to answer it over the voice of the member for Nedlands if she continues to interject. I will explain to the member for Stirling that the states receive GST revenue from the commonwealth government. The commonwealth prepares the GST revenue estimates but it does not provide a categorical breakdown of the GST or any petrol pricing assumptions it uses. The GST revenue base includes total household consumption, and increased revenue for higher fuel spending may be offset by the impact of reduced spending elsewhere. That is a point the Prime Minister himself has made. I do not often find myself agreeing with the Prime Minister. However, he made the valid point that increased spending on fuel may result in reduced spending on other items, and therefore there will be no change in the GST take. The commonwealth has not advised the states of revisions to its GST revenue estimates for 2005-06. We would expect to receive those revisions in the commonwealth government’s midyear budget review, which will be released in November this year. Western Australians must worry not so much about where the GST is going in total as about what the Commonwealth Grants Commission will do to the state’s share of GST. I am concerned when Treasury talks to me about the possibility of a $100 million a year cut in the state’s share of GST distributions because the grants commission punishes this state for its economic performance. I refer now to the question of oil prices. In budget paper No 3, the government has forecast total petroleum royalties of $532 million in 2005-06. The oil price assumption is an average $US40 a barrel. Of course people will say that the price of oil is much higher at the moment. However, the important point to note is the average price of oil over the financial year. The royalties the state receives from liquefied natural gas is important also. There has always been the assumption in debate in this chamber that oil and liquefied natural gas prices track each other very closely. That assumption must be questioned. Given that we receive a lot of our royalties from LNG, what is important is the LNG price for that section of the royalties, not the oil price. Unfortunately, I cannot provide the member with a breakdown of the allocation of royalties from oil and other petroleum products, because the information we receive from companies is covered by confidentiality clauses. I point out that the oil price is one thing. What is important today is the average oil price, and, as well as the average oil price, we are also interested in the average LNG price, because that will determine the ultimate royalty that is returned to the state. On top of that, the Commonwealth Grants Commission always punishes us no matter what we get. We must accept that, in the end, 90 per cent of the royalties flow to other states. Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory all receive a share of our oil royalties. They should be very pleased with the economic performance of this state under the Gallop government.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Vasse. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition ought to recognise that vehicle taxes and charges cost Western Australian families $466 a year, compared with $686 in New South Wales and $729 in the Australian Capital Territory. This government has cut family motor vehicle registrations by $25 and it has frozen third party motor vehicle insurance charges. Western Australia has the best rate of insurance charged for motor vehicle third party insurance of any state in the country. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Carine to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The government has made two decisions this year to reduce the cost to families of running a motor vehicle. I will answer the specific questions asked by the member for Stirling. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Nedlands to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member for Stirling might like to hear the answer to his question, and it will be hard to answer it over the voice of the member for Nedlands if she continues to interject. I will explain to the member for Stirling that the states receive GST revenue from the commonwealth government. The commonwealth prepares the GST revenue estimates but it does not provide a categorical breakdown of the GST or any petrol pricing assumptions it uses. The GST revenue base includes total household consumption, and increased revenue for higher fuel spending may be offset by the impact of reduced spending elsewhere. That is a point the Prime Minister himself has made. I do not often find myself agreeing with the Prime Minister. However, he made the valid point that increased spending on fuel may result in reduced spending on other items, and therefore there will be no change in the GST take. The commonwealth has not advised the states of revisions to its GST revenue estimates for 2005-06. We would expect to receive those revisions in the commonwealth government’s midyear budget review, which will be released in November this year. Western Australians must worry not so much about where the GST is going in total as about what the Commonwealth Grants Commission will do to the state’s share of GST. I am concerned when Treasury talks to me about the possibility of a $100 million a year cut in the state’s share of GST distributions because the grants commission punishes this state for its economic performance. I refer now to the question of oil prices. In budget paper No 3, the government has forecast total petroleum royalties of $532 million in 2005-06. The oil price assumption is an average $US40 a barrel. Of course people will say that the price of oil is much higher at the moment. However, the important point to note is the average price of oil over the financial year. The royalties the state receives from liquefied natural gas is important also. There has always been the assumption in debate in this chamber that oil and liquefied natural gas prices track each other very closely. That assumption must be questioned. Given that we receive a lot of our royalties from LNG, what is important is the LNG price for that section of the royalties, not the oil price. Unfortunately, I cannot provide the member with a breakdown of the allocation of royalties from oil and other petroleum products, because the information we receive from companies is covered by confidentiality clauses. I point out that the oil price is one thing. What is important today is the average oil price, and, as well as the average oil price, we are also interested in the average LNG price, because that will determine the ultimate royalty that is returned to the state. On top of that, the Commonwealth Grants Commission always punishes us no matter what we get. We must accept that, in the end, 90 per cent of the royalties flow to other states. Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory all receive a share of our oil royalties. They should be very pleased with the economic performance of this state under the Gallop government.
The SPEAKER : I call to order the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Vasse. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition ought to recognise that vehicle taxes and charges cost Western Australian families $466 a year, compared with $686 in New South Wales and $729 in the Australian Capital Territory. This government has cut family motor vehicle registrations by $25 and it has frozen third party motor vehicle insurance charges. Western Australia has the best rate of insurance charged for motor vehicle third party insurance of any state in the country. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Carine to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The government has made two decisions this year to reduce the cost to families of running a motor vehicle. I will answer the specific questions asked by the member for Stirling. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Nedlands to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member for Stirling might like to hear the answer to his question, and it will be hard to answer it over the voice of the member for Nedlands if she continues to interject. I will explain to the member for Stirling that the states receive GST revenue from the commonwealth government. The commonwealth prepares the GST revenue estimates but it does not provide a categorical breakdown of the GST or any petrol pricing assumptions it uses. The GST revenue base includes total household consumption, and increased revenue for higher fuel spending may be offset by the impact of reduced spending elsewhere. That is a point the Prime Minister himself has made. I do not often find myself agreeing with the Prime Minister. However, he made the valid point that increased spending on fuel may result in reduced spending on other items, and therefore there will be no change in the GST take. The commonwealth has not advised the states of revisions to its GST revenue estimates for 2005-06. We would expect to receive those revisions in the commonwealth government’s midyear budget review, which will be released in November this year. Western Australians must worry not so much about where the GST is going in total as about what the Commonwealth Grants Commission will do to the state’s share of GST. I am concerned when Treasury talks to me about the possibility of a $100 million a year cut in the state’s share of GST distributions because the grants commission punishes this state for its economic performance. I refer now to the question of oil prices. In budget paper No 3, the government has forecast total petroleum royalties of $532 million in 2005-06. The oil price assumption is an average $US40 a barrel. Of course people will say that the price of oil is much higher at the moment. However, the important point to note is the average price of oil over the financial year. The royalties the state receives from liquefied natural gas is important also. There has always been the assumption in debate in this chamber that oil and liquefied natural gas prices track each other very closely. That assumption must be questioned. Given that we receive a lot of our royalties from LNG, what is important is the LNG price for that section of the royalties, not the oil price. Unfortunately, I cannot provide the member with a breakdown of the allocation of royalties from oil and other petroleum products, because the information we receive from companies is covered by confidentiality clauses. I point out that the oil price is one thing. What is important today is the average oil price, and, as well as the average oil price, we are also interested in the average LNG price, because that will determine the ultimate royalty that is returned to the state. On top of that, the Commonwealth Grants Commission always punishes us no matter what we get. We must accept that, in the end, 90 per cent of the royalties flow to other states. Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory all receive a share of our oil royalties. They should be very pleased with the economic performance of this state under the Gallop government.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition ought to recognise that vehicle taxes and charges cost Western Australian families $466 a year, compared with $686 in New South Wales and $729 in the Australian Capital Territory. This government has cut family motor vehicle registrations by $25 and it has frozen third party motor vehicle insurance charges. Western Australia has the best rate of insurance charged for motor vehicle third party insurance of any state in the country. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Carine to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The government has made two decisions this year to reduce the cost to families of running a motor vehicle. I will answer the specific questions asked by the member for Stirling. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Nedlands to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member for Stirling might like to hear the answer to his question, and it will be hard to answer it over the voice of the member for Nedlands if she continues to interject. I will explain to the member for Stirling that the states receive GST revenue from the commonwealth government. The commonwealth prepares the GST revenue estimates but it does not provide a categorical breakdown of the GST or any petrol pricing assumptions it uses. The GST revenue base includes total household consumption, and increased revenue for higher fuel spending may be offset by the impact of reduced spending elsewhere. That is a point the Prime Minister himself has made. I do not often find myself agreeing with the Prime Minister. However, he made the valid point that increased spending on fuel may result in reduced spending on other items, and therefore there will be no change in the GST take. The commonwealth has not advised the states of revisions to its GST revenue estimates for 2005-06. We would expect to receive those revisions in the commonwealth government’s midyear budget review, which will be released in November this year. Western Australians must worry not so much about where the GST is going in total as about what the Commonwealth Grants Commission will do to the state’s share of GST. I am concerned when Treasury talks to me about the possibility of a $100 million a year cut in the state’s share of GST distributions because the grants commission punishes this state for its economic performance. I refer now to the question of oil prices. In budget paper No 3, the government has forecast total petroleum royalties of $532 million in 2005-06. The oil price assumption is an average $US40 a barrel. Of course people will say that the price of oil is much higher at the moment. However, the important point to note is the average price of oil over the financial year. The royalties the state receives from liquefied natural gas is important also. There has always been the assumption in debate in this chamber that oil and liquefied natural gas prices track each other very closely. That assumption must be questioned. Given that we receive a lot of our royalties from LNG, what is important is the LNG price for that section of the royalties, not the oil price. Unfortunately, I cannot provide the member with a breakdown of the allocation of royalties from oil and other petroleum products, because the information we receive from companies is covered by confidentiality clauses. I point out that the oil price is one thing. What is important today is the average oil price, and, as well as the average oil price, we are also interested in the average LNG price, because that will determine the ultimate royalty that is returned to the state. On top of that, the Commonwealth Grants Commission always punishes us no matter what we get. We must accept that, in the end, 90 per cent of the royalties flow to other states. Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory all receive a share of our oil royalties. They should be very pleased with the economic performance of this state under the Gallop government.
Ms K. Hodson-Thomas interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Carine to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The government has made two decisions this year to reduce the cost to families of running a motor vehicle. I will answer the specific questions asked by the member for Stirling. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Nedlands to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member for Stirling might like to hear the answer to his question, and it will be hard to answer it over the voice of the member for Nedlands if she continues to interject. I will explain to the member for Stirling that the states receive GST revenue from the commonwealth government. The commonwealth prepares the GST revenue estimates but it does not provide a categorical breakdown of the GST or any petrol pricing assumptions it uses. The GST revenue base includes total household consumption, and increased revenue for higher fuel spending may be offset by the impact of reduced spending elsewhere. That is a point the Prime Minister himself has made. I do not often find myself agreeing with the Prime Minister. However, he made the valid point that increased spending on fuel may result in reduced spending on other items, and therefore there will be no change in the GST take. The commonwealth has not advised the states of revisions to its GST revenue estimates for 2005-06. We would expect to receive those revisions in the commonwealth government’s midyear budget review, which will be released in November this year. Western Australians must worry not so much about where the GST is going in total as about what the Commonwealth Grants Commission will do to the state’s share of GST. I am concerned when Treasury talks to me about the possibility of a $100 million a year cut in the state’s share of GST distributions because the grants commission punishes this state for its economic performance. I refer now to the question of oil prices. In budget paper No 3, the government has forecast total petroleum royalties of $532 million in 2005-06. The oil price assumption is an average $US40 a barrel. Of course people will say that the price of oil is much higher at the moment. However, the important point to note is the average price of oil over the financial year. The royalties the state receives from liquefied natural gas is important also. There has always been the assumption in debate in this chamber that oil and liquefied natural gas prices track each other very closely. That assumption must be questioned. Given that we receive a lot of our royalties from LNG, what is important is the LNG price for that section of the royalties, not the oil price. Unfortunately, I cannot provide the member with a breakdown of the allocation of royalties from oil and other petroleum products, because the information we receive from companies is covered by confidentiality clauses. I point out that the oil price is one thing. What is important today is the average oil price, and, as well as the average oil price, we are also interested in the average LNG price, because that will determine the ultimate royalty that is returned to the state. On top of that, the Commonwealth Grants Commission always punishes us no matter what we get. We must accept that, in the end, 90 per cent of the royalties flow to other states. Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory all receive a share of our oil royalties. They should be very pleased with the economic performance of this state under the Gallop government.
The SPEAKER : I call the member for Carine to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The government has made two decisions this year to reduce the cost to families of running a motor vehicle. I will answer the specific questions asked by the member for Stirling. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Nedlands to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member for Stirling might like to hear the answer to his question, and it will be hard to answer it over the voice of the member for Nedlands if she continues to interject. I will explain to the member for Stirling that the states receive GST revenue from the commonwealth government. The commonwealth prepares the GST revenue estimates but it does not provide a categorical breakdown of the GST or any petrol pricing assumptions it uses. The GST revenue base includes total household consumption, and increased revenue for higher fuel spending may be offset by the impact of reduced spending elsewhere. That is a point the Prime Minister himself has made. I do not often find myself agreeing with the Prime Minister. However, he made the valid point that increased spending on fuel may result in reduced spending on other items, and therefore there will be no change in the GST take. The commonwealth has not advised the states of revisions to its GST revenue estimates for 2005-06. We would expect to receive those revisions in the commonwealth government’s midyear budget review, which will be released in November this year. Western Australians must worry not so much about where the GST is going in total as about what the Commonwealth Grants Commission will do to the state’s share of GST. I am concerned when Treasury talks to me about the possibility of a $100 million a year cut in the state’s share of GST distributions because the grants commission punishes this state for its economic performance. I refer now to the question of oil prices. In budget paper No 3, the government has forecast total petroleum royalties of $532 million in 2005-06. The oil price assumption is an average $US40 a barrel. Of course people will say that the price of oil is much higher at the moment. However, the important point to note is the average price of oil over the financial year. The royalties the state receives from liquefied natural gas is important also. There has always been the assumption in debate in this chamber that oil and liquefied natural gas prices track each other very closely. That assumption must be questioned. Given that we receive a lot of our royalties from LNG, what is important is the LNG price for that section of the royalties, not the oil price. Unfortunately, I cannot provide the member with a breakdown of the allocation of royalties from oil and other petroleum products, because the information we receive from companies is covered by confidentiality clauses. I point out that the oil price is one thing. What is important today is the average oil price, and, as well as the average oil price, we are also interested in the average LNG price, because that will determine the ultimate royalty that is returned to the state. On top of that, the Commonwealth Grants Commission always punishes us no matter what we get. We must accept that, in the end, 90 per cent of the royalties flow to other states. Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory all receive a share of our oil royalties. They should be very pleased with the economic performance of this state under the Gallop government.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : The government has made two decisions this year to reduce the cost to families of running a motor vehicle. I will answer the specific questions asked by the member for Stirling. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Nedlands to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member for Stirling might like to hear the answer to his question, and it will be hard to answer it over the voice of the member for Nedlands if she continues to interject. I will explain to the member for Stirling that the states receive GST revenue from the commonwealth government. The commonwealth prepares the GST revenue estimates but it does not provide a categorical breakdown of the GST or any petrol pricing assumptions it uses. The GST revenue base includes total household consumption, and increased revenue for higher fuel spending may be offset by the impact of reduced spending elsewhere. That is a point the Prime Minister himself has made. I do not often find myself agreeing with the Prime Minister. However, he made the valid point that increased spending on fuel may result in reduced spending on other items, and therefore there will be no change in the GST take. The commonwealth has not advised the states of revisions to its GST revenue estimates for 2005-06. We would expect to receive those revisions in the commonwealth government’s midyear budget review, which will be released in November this year. Western Australians must worry not so much about where the GST is going in total as about what the Commonwealth Grants Commission will do to the state’s share of GST. I am concerned when Treasury talks to me about the possibility of a $100 million a year cut in the state’s share of GST distributions because the grants commission punishes this state for its economic performance. I refer now to the question of oil prices. In budget paper No 3, the government has forecast total petroleum royalties of $532 million in 2005-06. The oil price assumption is an average $US40 a barrel. Of course people will say that the price of oil is much higher at the moment. However, the important point to note is the average price of oil over the financial year. The royalties the state receives from liquefied natural gas is important also. There has always been the assumption in debate in this chamber that oil and liquefied natural gas prices track each other very closely. That assumption must be questioned. Given that we receive a lot of our royalties from LNG, what is important is the LNG price for that section of the royalties, not the oil price. Unfortunately, I cannot provide the member with a breakdown of the allocation of royalties from oil and other petroleum products, because the information we receive from companies is covered by confidentiality clauses. I point out that the oil price is one thing. What is important today is the average oil price, and, as well as the average oil price, we are also interested in the average LNG price, because that will determine the ultimate royalty that is returned to the state. On top of that, the Commonwealth Grants Commission always punishes us no matter what we get. We must accept that, in the end, 90 per cent of the royalties flow to other states. Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory all receive a share of our oil royalties. They should be very pleased with the economic performance of this state under the Gallop government.
Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Nedlands to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member for Stirling might like to hear the answer to his question, and it will be hard to answer it over the voice of the member for Nedlands if she continues to interject. I will explain to the member for Stirling that the states receive GST revenue from the commonwealth government. The commonwealth prepares the GST revenue estimates but it does not provide a categorical breakdown of the GST or any petrol pricing assumptions it uses. The GST revenue base includes total household consumption, and increased revenue for higher fuel spending may be offset by the impact of reduced spending elsewhere. That is a point the Prime Minister himself has made. I do not often find myself agreeing with the Prime Minister. However, he made the valid point that increased spending on fuel may result in reduced spending on other items, and therefore there will be no change in the GST take. The commonwealth has not advised the states of revisions to its GST revenue estimates for 2005-06. We would expect to receive those revisions in the commonwealth government’s midyear budget review, which will be released in November this year. Western Australians must worry not so much about where the GST is going in total as about what the Commonwealth Grants Commission will do to the state’s share of GST. I am concerned when Treasury talks to me about the possibility of a $100 million a year cut in the state’s share of GST distributions because the grants commission punishes this state for its economic performance. I refer now to the question of oil prices. In budget paper No 3, the government has forecast total petroleum royalties of $532 million in 2005-06. The oil price assumption is an average $US40 a barrel. Of course people will say that the price of oil is much higher at the moment. However, the important point to note is the average price of oil over the financial year. The royalties the state receives from liquefied natural gas is important also. There has always been the assumption in debate in this chamber that oil and liquefied natural gas prices track each other very closely. That assumption must be questioned. Given that we receive a lot of our royalties from LNG, what is important is the LNG price for that section of the royalties, not the oil price. Unfortunately, I cannot provide the member with a breakdown of the allocation of royalties from oil and other petroleum products, because the information we receive from companies is covered by confidentiality clauses. I point out that the oil price is one thing. What is important today is the average oil price, and, as well as the average oil price, we are also interested in the average LNG price, because that will determine the ultimate royalty that is returned to the state. On top of that, the Commonwealth Grants Commission always punishes us no matter what we get. We must accept that, in the end, 90 per cent of the royalties flow to other states. Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory all receive a share of our oil royalties. They should be very pleased with the economic performance of this state under the Gallop government.
The SPEAKER : I call the member for Nedlands to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member for Stirling might like to hear the answer to his question, and it will be hard to answer it over the voice of the member for Nedlands if she continues to interject. I will explain to the member for Stirling that the states receive GST revenue from the commonwealth government. The commonwealth prepares the GST revenue estimates but it does not provide a categorical breakdown of the GST or any petrol pricing assumptions it uses. The GST revenue base includes total household consumption, and increased revenue for higher fuel spending may be offset by the impact of reduced spending elsewhere. That is a point the Prime Minister himself has made. I do not often find myself agreeing with the Prime Minister. However, he made the valid point that increased spending on fuel may result in reduced spending on other items, and therefore there will be no change in the GST take. The commonwealth has not advised the states of revisions to its GST revenue estimates for 2005-06. We would expect to receive those revisions in the commonwealth government’s midyear budget review, which will be released in November this year. Western Australians must worry not so much about where the GST is going in total as about what the Commonwealth Grants Commission will do to the state’s share of GST. I am concerned when Treasury talks to me about the possibility of a $100 million a year cut in the state’s share of GST distributions because the grants commission punishes this state for its economic performance. I refer now to the question of oil prices. In budget paper No 3, the government has forecast total petroleum royalties of $532 million in 2005-06. The oil price assumption is an average $US40 a barrel. Of course people will say that the price of oil is much higher at the moment. However, the important point to note is the average price of oil over the financial year. The royalties the state receives from liquefied natural gas is important also. There has always been the assumption in debate in this chamber that oil and liquefied natural gas prices track each other very closely. That assumption must be questioned. Given that we receive a lot of our royalties from LNG, what is important is the LNG price for that section of the royalties, not the oil price. Unfortunately, I cannot provide the member with a breakdown of the allocation of royalties from oil and other petroleum products, because the information we receive from companies is covered by confidentiality clauses. I point out that the oil price is one thing. What is important today is the average oil price, and, as well as the average oil price, we are also interested in the average LNG price, because that will determine the ultimate royalty that is returned to the state. On top of that, the Commonwealth Grants Commission always punishes us no matter what we get. We must accept that, in the end, 90 per cent of the royalties flow to other states. Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory all receive a share of our oil royalties. They should be very pleased with the economic performance of this state under the Gallop government.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member for Stirling might like to hear the answer to his question, and it will be hard to answer it over the voice of the member for Nedlands if she continues to interject. I will explain to the member for Stirling that the states receive GST revenue from the commonwealth government. The commonwealth prepares the GST revenue estimates but it does not provide a categorical breakdown of the GST or any petrol pricing assumptions it uses. The GST revenue base includes total household consumption, and increased revenue for higher fuel spending may be offset by the impact of reduced spending elsewhere. That is a point the Prime Minister himself has made. I do not often find myself agreeing with the Prime Minister. However, he made the valid point that increased spending on fuel may result in reduced spending on other items, and therefore there will be no change in the GST take. The commonwealth has not advised the states of revisions to its GST revenue estimates for 2005-06. We would expect to receive those revisions in the commonwealth government’s midyear budget review, which will be released in November this year. Western Australians must worry not so much about where the GST is going in total as about what the Commonwealth Grants Commission will do to the state’s share of GST. I am concerned when Treasury talks to me about the possibility of a $100 million a year cut in the state’s share of GST distributions because the grants commission punishes this state for its economic performance. I refer now to the question of oil prices. In budget paper No 3, the government has forecast total petroleum royalties of $532 million in 2005-06. The oil price assumption is an average $US40 a barrel. Of course people will say that the price of oil is much higher at the moment. However, the important point to note is the average price of oil over the financial year. The royalties the state receives from liquefied natural gas is important also. There has always been the assumption in debate in this chamber that oil and liquefied natural gas prices track each other very closely. That assumption must be questioned. Given that we receive a lot of our royalties from LNG, what is important is the LNG price for that section of the royalties, not the oil price. Unfortunately, I cannot provide the member with a breakdown of the allocation of royalties from oil and other petroleum products, because the information we receive from companies is covered by confidentiality clauses. I point out that the oil price is one thing. What is important today is the average oil price, and, as well as the average oil price, we are also interested in the average LNG price, because that will determine the ultimate royalty that is returned to the state. On top of that, the Commonwealth Grants Commission always punishes us no matter what we get. We must accept that, in the end, 90 per cent of the royalties flow to other states. Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory all receive a share of our oil royalties. They should be very pleased with the economic performance of this state under the Gallop government.
I will explain to the member for Stirling that the states receive GST revenue from the commonwealth government. The commonwealth prepares the GST revenue estimates but it does not provide a categorical breakdown of the GST or any petrol pricing assumptions it uses. The GST revenue base includes total household consumption, and increased revenue for higher fuel spending may be offset by the impact of reduced spending elsewhere. That is a point the Prime Minister himself has made. I do not often find myself agreeing with the Prime Minister. However, he made the valid point that increased spending on fuel may result in reduced spending on other items, and therefore there will be no change in the GST take. The commonwealth has not advised the states of revisions to its GST revenue estimates for 2005-06. We would expect to receive those revisions in the commonwealth government’s midyear budget review, which will be released in November this year. Western Australians must worry not so much about where the GST is going in total as about what the Commonwealth Grants Commission will do to the state’s share of GST. I am concerned when Treasury talks to me about the possibility of a $100 million a year cut in the state’s share of GST distributions because the grants commission punishes this state for its economic performance. I refer now to the question of oil prices. In budget paper No 3, the government has forecast total petroleum royalties of $532 million in 2005-06. The oil price assumption is an average $US40 a barrel. Of course people will say that the price of oil is much higher at the moment. However, the important point to note is the average price of oil over the financial year. The royalties the state receives from liquefied natural gas is important also. There has always been the assumption in debate in this chamber that oil and liquefied natural gas prices track each other very closely. That assumption must be questioned. Given that we receive a lot of our royalties from LNG, what is important is the LNG price for that section of the royalties, not the oil price. Unfortunately, I cannot provide the member with a breakdown of the allocation of royalties from oil and other petroleum products, because the information we receive from companies is covered by confidentiality clauses. I point out that the oil price is one thing. What is important today is the average oil price, and, as well as the average oil price, we are also interested in the average LNG price, because that will determine the ultimate royalty that is returned to the state. On top of that, the Commonwealth Grants Commission always punishes us no matter what we get. We must accept that, in the end, 90 per cent of the royalties flow to other states. Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory all receive a share of our oil royalties. They should be very pleased with the economic performance of this state under the Gallop government.
I refer now to the question of oil prices. In budget paper No 3, the government has forecast total petroleum royalties of $532 million in 2005-06. The oil price assumption is an average $US40 a barrel. Of course people will say that the price of oil is much higher at the moment. However, the important point to note is the average price of oil over the financial year. The royalties the state receives from liquefied natural gas is important also. There has always been the assumption in debate in this chamber that oil and liquefied natural gas prices track each other very closely. That assumption must be questioned. Given that we receive a lot of our royalties from LNG, what is important is the LNG price for that section of the royalties, not the oil price. Unfortunately, I cannot provide the member with a breakdown of the allocation of royalties from oil and other petroleum products, because the information we receive from companies is covered by confidentiality clauses. I point out that the oil price is one thing. What is important today is the average oil price, and, as well as the average oil price, we are also interested in the average LNG price, because that will determine the ultimate royalty that is returned to the state. On top of that, the Commonwealth Grants Commission always punishes us no matter what we get. We must accept that, in the end, 90 per cent of the royalties flow to other states. Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory all receive a share of our oil royalties. They should be very pleased with the economic performance of this state under the Gallop government.
(1) What is the government’s budgeted estimate in 2005-06 for goods and services tax revenues from fuel sales, and on what price per litre is that figure based? (2) Has the Treasurer amended the GST estimate upwards in line with industry predictions that the price is expected to remain above $1.10 per litre for the foreseeable future? (3) What is the figure in the 2005-06 budget for Western Australia’s share from oil production royalties and licences, and on what US dollar amount per barrel is that based? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(3) The government recognises the cost of travelling for ordinary families, and it has taken steps to reduce the impact it has on the average household. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Vasse. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition ought to recognise that vehicle taxes and charges cost Western Australian families $466 a year, compared with $686 in New South Wales and $729 in the Australian Capital Territory. This government has cut family motor vehicle registrations by $25 and it has frozen third party motor vehicle insurance charges. Western Australia has the best rate of insurance charged for motor vehicle third party insurance of any state in the country. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Carine to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The government has made two decisions this year to reduce the cost to families of running a motor vehicle. I will answer the specific questions asked by the member for Stirling. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Nedlands to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member for Stirling might like to hear the answer to his question, and it will be hard to answer it over the voice of the member for Nedlands if she continues to interject. I will explain to the member for Stirling that the states receive GST revenue from the commonwealth government. The commonwealth prepares the GST revenue estimates but it does not provide a categorical breakdown of the GST or any petrol pricing assumptions it uses. The GST revenue base includes total household consumption, and increased revenue for higher fuel spending may be offset by the impact of reduced spending elsewhere. That is a point the Prime Minister himself has made. I do not often find myself agreeing with the Prime Minister. However, he made the valid point that increased spending on fuel may result in reduced spending on other items, and therefore there will be no change in the GST take. The commonwealth has not advised the states of revisions to its GST revenue estimates for 2005-06. We would expect to receive those revisions in the commonwealth government’s midyear budget review, which will be released in November this year. Western Australians must worry not so much about where the GST is going in total as about what the Commonwealth Grants Commission will do to the state’s share of GST. I am concerned when Treasury talks to me about the possibility of a $100 million a year cut in the state’s share of GST distributions because the grants commission punishes this state for its economic performance. I refer now to the question of oil prices. In budget paper No 3, the government has forecast total petroleum royalties of $532 million in 2005-06. The oil price assumption is an average $US40 a barrel. Of course people will say that the price of oil is much higher at the moment. However, the important point to note is the average price of oil over the financial year. The royalties the state receives from liquefied natural gas is important also. There has always been the assumption in debate in this chamber that oil and liquefied natural gas prices track each other very closely. That assumption must be questioned. Given that we receive a lot of our royalties from LNG, what is important is the LNG price for that section of the royalties, not the oil price. Unfortunately, I cannot provide the member with a breakdown of the allocation of royalties from oil and other petroleum products, because the information we receive from companies is covered by confidentiality clauses. I point out that the oil price is one thing. What is important today is the average oil price, and, as well as the average oil price, we are also interested in the average LNG price, because that will determine the ultimate royalty that is returned to the state. On top of that, the Commonwealth Grants Commission always punishes us no matter what we get. We must accept that, in the end, 90 per cent of the royalties flow to other states. Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory all receive a share of our oil royalties. They should be very pleased with the economic performance of this state under the Gallop government.
(2) Has the Treasurer amended the GST estimate upwards in line with industry predictions that the price is expected to remain above $1.10 per litre for the foreseeable future? (3) What is the figure in the 2005-06 budget for Western Australia’s share from oil production royalties and licences, and on what US dollar amount per barrel is that based? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(3) The government recognises the cost of travelling for ordinary families, and it has taken steps to reduce the impact it has on the average household. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Vasse. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition ought to recognise that vehicle taxes and charges cost Western Australian families $466 a year, compared with $686 in New South Wales and $729 in the Australian Capital Territory. This government has cut family motor vehicle registrations by $25 and it has frozen third party motor vehicle insurance charges. Western Australia has the best rate of insurance charged for motor vehicle third party insurance of any state in the country. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Carine to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The government has made two decisions this year to reduce the cost to families of running a motor vehicle. I will answer the specific questions asked by the member for Stirling. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Nedlands to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member for Stirling might like to hear the answer to his question, and it will be hard to answer it over the voice of the member for Nedlands if she continues to interject. I will explain to the member for Stirling that the states receive GST revenue from the commonwealth government. The commonwealth prepares the GST revenue estimates but it does not provide a categorical breakdown of the GST or any petrol pricing assumptions it uses. The GST revenue base includes total household consumption, and increased revenue for higher fuel spending may be offset by the impact of reduced spending elsewhere. That is a point the Prime Minister himself has made. I do not often find myself agreeing with the Prime Minister. However, he made the valid point that increased spending on fuel may result in reduced spending on other items, and therefore there will be no change in the GST take. The commonwealth has not advised the states of revisions to its GST revenue estimates for 2005-06. We would expect to receive those revisions in the commonwealth government’s midyear budget review, which will be released in November this year. Western Australians must worry not so much about where the GST is going in total as about what the Commonwealth Grants Commission will do to the state’s share of GST. I am concerned when Treasury talks to me about the possibility of a $100 million a year cut in the state’s share of GST distributions because the grants commission punishes this state for its economic performance. I refer now to the question of oil prices. In budget paper No 3, the government has forecast total petroleum royalties of $532 million in 2005-06. The oil price assumption is an average $US40 a barrel. Of course people will say that the price of oil is much higher at the moment. However, the important point to note is the average price of oil over the financial year. The royalties the state receives from liquefied natural gas is important also. There has always been the assumption in debate in this chamber that oil and liquefied natural gas prices track each other very closely. That assumption must be questioned. Given that we receive a lot of our royalties from LNG, what is important is the LNG price for that section of the royalties, not the oil price. Unfortunately, I cannot provide the member with a breakdown of the allocation of royalties from oil and other petroleum products, because the information we receive from companies is covered by confidentiality clauses. I point out that the oil price is one thing. What is important today is the average oil price, and, as well as the average oil price, we are also interested in the average LNG price, because that will determine the ultimate royalty that is returned to the state. On top of that, the Commonwealth Grants Commission always punishes us no matter what we get. We must accept that, in the end, 90 per cent of the royalties flow to other states. Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory all receive a share of our oil royalties. They should be very pleased with the economic performance of this state under the Gallop government.
(3) What is the figure in the 2005-06 budget for Western Australia’s share from oil production royalties and licences, and on what US dollar amount per barrel is that based? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(3) The government recognises the cost of travelling for ordinary families, and it has taken steps to reduce the impact it has on the average household. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Vasse. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition ought to recognise that vehicle taxes and charges cost Western Australian families $466 a year, compared with $686 in New South Wales and $729 in the Australian Capital Territory. This government has cut family motor vehicle registrations by $25 and it has frozen third party motor vehicle insurance charges. Western Australia has the best rate of insurance charged for motor vehicle third party insurance of any state in the country. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Carine to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The government has made two decisions this year to reduce the cost to families of running a motor vehicle. I will answer the specific questions asked by the member for Stirling. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Nedlands to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member for Stirling might like to hear the answer to his question, and it will be hard to answer it over the voice of the member for Nedlands if she continues to interject. I will explain to the member for Stirling that the states receive GST revenue from the commonwealth government. The commonwealth prepares the GST revenue estimates but it does not provide a categorical breakdown of the GST or any petrol pricing assumptions it uses. The GST revenue base includes total household consumption, and increased revenue for higher fuel spending may be offset by the impact of reduced spending elsewhere. That is a point the Prime Minister himself has made. I do not often find myself agreeing with the Prime Minister. However, he made the valid point that increased spending on fuel may result in reduced spending on other items, and therefore there will be no change in the GST take. The commonwealth has not advised the states of revisions to its GST revenue estimates for 2005-06. We would expect to receive those revisions in the commonwealth government’s midyear budget review, which will be released in November this year. Western Australians must worry not so much about where the GST is going in total as about what the Commonwealth Grants Commission will do to the state’s share of GST. I am concerned when Treasury talks to me about the possibility of a $100 million a year cut in the state’s share of GST distributions because the grants commission punishes this state for its economic performance. I refer now to the question of oil prices. In budget paper No 3, the government has forecast total petroleum royalties of $532 million in 2005-06. The oil price assumption is an average $US40 a barrel. Of course people will say that the price of oil is much higher at the moment. However, the important point to note is the average price of oil over the financial year. The royalties the state receives from liquefied natural gas is important also. There has always been the assumption in debate in this chamber that oil and liquefied natural gas prices track each other very closely. That assumption must be questioned. Given that we receive a lot of our royalties from LNG, what is important is the LNG price for that section of the royalties, not the oil price. Unfortunately, I cannot provide the member with a breakdown of the allocation of royalties from oil and other petroleum products, because the information we receive from companies is covered by confidentiality clauses. I point out that the oil price is one thing. What is important today is the average oil price, and, as well as the average oil price, we are also interested in the average LNG price, because that will determine the ultimate royalty that is returned to the state. On top of that, the Commonwealth Grants Commission always punishes us no matter what we get. We must accept that, in the end, 90 per cent of the royalties flow to other states. Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory all receive a share of our oil royalties. They should be very pleased with the economic performance of this state under the Gallop government.
Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(3) The government recognises the cost of travelling for ordinary families, and it has taken steps to reduce the impact it has on the average household. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Vasse. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition ought to recognise that vehicle taxes and charges cost Western Australian families $466 a year, compared with $686 in New South Wales and $729 in the Australian Capital Territory. This government has cut family motor vehicle registrations by $25 and it has frozen third party motor vehicle insurance charges. Western Australia has the best rate of insurance charged for motor vehicle third party insurance of any state in the country. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Carine to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The government has made two decisions this year to reduce the cost to families of running a motor vehicle. I will answer the specific questions asked by the member for Stirling. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Nedlands to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member for Stirling might like to hear the answer to his question, and it will be hard to answer it over the voice of the member for Nedlands if she continues to interject. I will explain to the member for Stirling that the states receive GST revenue from the commonwealth government. The commonwealth prepares the GST revenue estimates but it does not provide a categorical breakdown of the GST or any petrol pricing assumptions it uses. The GST revenue base includes total household consumption, and increased revenue for higher fuel spending may be offset by the impact of reduced spending elsewhere. That is a point the Prime Minister himself has made. I do not often find myself agreeing with the Prime Minister. However, he made the valid point that increased spending on fuel may result in reduced spending on other items, and therefore there will be no change in the GST take. The commonwealth has not advised the states of revisions to its GST revenue estimates for 2005-06. We would expect to receive those revisions in the commonwealth government’s midyear budget review, which will be released in November this year. Western Australians must worry not so much about where the GST is going in total as about what the Commonwealth Grants Commission will do to the state’s share of GST. I am concerned when Treasury talks to me about the possibility of a $100 million a year cut in the state’s share of GST distributions because the grants commission punishes this state for its economic performance. I refer now to the question of oil prices. In budget paper No 3, the government has forecast total petroleum royalties of $532 million in 2005-06. The oil price assumption is an average $US40 a barrel. Of course people will say that the price of oil is much higher at the moment. However, the important point to note is the average price of oil over the financial year. The royalties the state receives from liquefied natural gas is important also. There has always been the assumption in debate in this chamber that oil and liquefied natural gas prices track each other very closely. That assumption must be questioned. Given that we receive a lot of our royalties from LNG, what is important is the LNG price for that section of the royalties, not the oil price. Unfortunately, I cannot provide the member with a breakdown of the allocation of royalties from oil and other petroleum products, because the information we receive from companies is covered by confidentiality clauses. I point out that the oil price is one thing. What is important today is the average oil price, and, as well as the average oil price, we are also interested in the average LNG price, because that will determine the ultimate royalty that is returned to the state. On top of that, the Commonwealth Grants Commission always punishes us no matter what we get. We must accept that, in the end, 90 per cent of the royalties flow to other states. Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory all receive a share of our oil royalties. They should be very pleased with the economic performance of this state under the Gallop government.
(1)-(3) The government recognises the cost of travelling for ordinary families, and it has taken steps to reduce the impact it has on the average household. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Vasse. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition ought to recognise that vehicle taxes and charges cost Western Australian families $466 a year, compared with $686 in New South Wales and $729 in the Australian Capital Territory. This government has cut family motor vehicle registrations by $25 and it has frozen third party motor vehicle insurance charges. Western Australia has the best rate of insurance charged for motor vehicle third party insurance of any state in the country. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Carine to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The government has made two decisions this year to reduce the cost to families of running a motor vehicle. I will answer the specific questions asked by the member for Stirling. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Nedlands to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member for Stirling might like to hear the answer to his question, and it will be hard to answer it over the voice of the member for Nedlands if she continues to interject. I will explain to the member for Stirling that the states receive GST revenue from the commonwealth government. The commonwealth prepares the GST revenue estimates but it does not provide a categorical breakdown of the GST or any petrol pricing assumptions it uses. The GST revenue base includes total household consumption, and increased revenue for higher fuel spending may be offset by the impact of reduced spending elsewhere. That is a point the Prime Minister himself has made. I do not often find myself agreeing with the Prime Minister. However, he made the valid point that increased spending on fuel may result in reduced spending on other items, and therefore there will be no change in the GST take. The commonwealth has not advised the states of revisions to its GST revenue estimates for 2005-06. We would expect to receive those revisions in the commonwealth government’s midyear budget review, which will be released in November this year. Western Australians must worry not so much about where the GST is going in total as about what the Commonwealth Grants Commission will do to the state’s share of GST. I am concerned when Treasury talks to me about the possibility of a $100 million a year cut in the state’s share of GST distributions because the grants commission punishes this state for its economic performance. I refer now to the question of oil prices. In budget paper No 3, the government has forecast total petroleum royalties of $532 million in 2005-06. The oil price assumption is an average $US40 a barrel. Of course people will say that the price of oil is much higher at the moment. However, the important point to note is the average price of oil over the financial year. The royalties the state receives from liquefied natural gas is important also. There has always been the assumption in debate in this chamber that oil and liquefied natural gas prices track each other very closely. That assumption must be questioned. Given that we receive a lot of our royalties from LNG, what is important is the LNG price for that section of the royalties, not the oil price. Unfortunately, I cannot provide the member with a breakdown of the allocation of royalties from oil and other petroleum products, because the information we receive from companies is covered by confidentiality clauses. I point out that the oil price is one thing. What is important today is the average oil price, and, as well as the average oil price, we are also interested in the average LNG price, because that will determine the ultimate royalty that is returned to the state. On top of that, the Commonwealth Grants Commission always punishes us no matter what we get. We must accept that, in the end, 90 per cent of the royalties flow to other states. Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory all receive a share of our oil royalties. They should be very pleased with the economic performance of this state under the Gallop government.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Vasse. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition ought to recognise that vehicle taxes and charges cost Western Australian families $466 a year, compared with $686 in New South Wales and $729 in the Australian Capital Territory. This government has cut family motor vehicle registrations by $25 and it has frozen third party motor vehicle insurance charges. Western Australia has the best rate of insurance charged for motor vehicle third party insurance of any state in the country. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Carine to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The government has made two decisions this year to reduce the cost to families of running a motor vehicle. I will answer the specific questions asked by the member for Stirling. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Nedlands to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member for Stirling might like to hear the answer to his question, and it will be hard to answer it over the voice of the member for Nedlands if she continues to interject. I will explain to the member for Stirling that the states receive GST revenue from the commonwealth government. The commonwealth prepares the GST revenue estimates but it does not provide a categorical breakdown of the GST or any petrol pricing assumptions it uses. The GST revenue base includes total household consumption, and increased revenue for higher fuel spending may be offset by the impact of reduced spending elsewhere. That is a point the Prime Minister himself has made. I do not often find myself agreeing with the Prime Minister. However, he made the valid point that increased spending on fuel may result in reduced spending on other items, and therefore there will be no change in the GST take. The commonwealth has not advised the states of revisions to its GST revenue estimates for 2005-06. We would expect to receive those revisions in the commonwealth government’s midyear budget review, which will be released in November this year. Western Australians must worry not so much about where the GST is going in total as about what the Commonwealth Grants Commission will do to the state’s share of GST. I am concerned when Treasury talks to me about the possibility of a $100 million a year cut in the state’s share of GST distributions because the grants commission punishes this state for its economic performance. I refer now to the question of oil prices. In budget paper No 3, the government has forecast total petroleum royalties of $532 million in 2005-06. The oil price assumption is an average $US40 a barrel. Of course people will say that the price of oil is much higher at the moment. However, the important point to note is the average price of oil over the financial year. The royalties the state receives from liquefied natural gas is important also. There has always been the assumption in debate in this chamber that oil and liquefied natural gas prices track each other very closely. That assumption must be questioned. Given that we receive a lot of our royalties from LNG, what is important is the LNG price for that section of the royalties, not the oil price. Unfortunately, I cannot provide the member with a breakdown of the allocation of royalties from oil and other petroleum products, because the information we receive from companies is covered by confidentiality clauses. I point out that the oil price is one thing. What is important today is the average oil price, and, as well as the average oil price, we are also interested in the average LNG price, because that will determine the ultimate royalty that is returned to the state. On top of that, the Commonwealth Grants Commission always punishes us no matter what we get. We must accept that, in the end, 90 per cent of the royalties flow to other states. Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory all receive a share of our oil royalties. They should be very pleased with the economic performance of this state under the Gallop government.
The SPEAKER : I call to order the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Vasse. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition ought to recognise that vehicle taxes and charges cost Western Australian families $466 a year, compared with $686 in New South Wales and $729 in the Australian Capital Territory. This government has cut family motor vehicle registrations by $25 and it has frozen third party motor vehicle insurance charges. Western Australia has the best rate of insurance charged for motor vehicle third party insurance of any state in the country. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Carine to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The government has made two decisions this year to reduce the cost to families of running a motor vehicle. I will answer the specific questions asked by the member for Stirling. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Nedlands to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member for Stirling might like to hear the answer to his question, and it will be hard to answer it over the voice of the member for Nedlands if she continues to interject. I will explain to the member for Stirling that the states receive GST revenue from the commonwealth government. The commonwealth prepares the GST revenue estimates but it does not provide a categorical breakdown of the GST or any petrol pricing assumptions it uses. The GST revenue base includes total household consumption, and increased revenue for higher fuel spending may be offset by the impact of reduced spending elsewhere. That is a point the Prime Minister himself has made. I do not often find myself agreeing with the Prime Minister. However, he made the valid point that increased spending on fuel may result in reduced spending on other items, and therefore there will be no change in the GST take. The commonwealth has not advised the states of revisions to its GST revenue estimates for 2005-06. We would expect to receive those revisions in the commonwealth government’s midyear budget review, which will be released in November this year. Western Australians must worry not so much about where the GST is going in total as about what the Commonwealth Grants Commission will do to the state’s share of GST. I am concerned when Treasury talks to me about the possibility of a $100 million a year cut in the state’s share of GST distributions because the grants commission punishes this state for its economic performance. I refer now to the question of oil prices. In budget paper No 3, the government has forecast total petroleum royalties of $532 million in 2005-06. The oil price assumption is an average $US40 a barrel. Of course people will say that the price of oil is much higher at the moment. However, the important point to note is the average price of oil over the financial year. The royalties the state receives from liquefied natural gas is important also. There has always been the assumption in debate in this chamber that oil and liquefied natural gas prices track each other very closely. That assumption must be questioned. Given that we receive a lot of our royalties from LNG, what is important is the LNG price for that section of the royalties, not the oil price. Unfortunately, I cannot provide the member with a breakdown of the allocation of royalties from oil and other petroleum products, because the information we receive from companies is covered by confidentiality clauses. I point out that the oil price is one thing. What is important today is the average oil price, and, as well as the average oil price, we are also interested in the average LNG price, because that will determine the ultimate royalty that is returned to the state. On top of that, the Commonwealth Grants Commission always punishes us no matter what we get. We must accept that, in the end, 90 per cent of the royalties flow to other states. Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory all receive a share of our oil royalties. They should be very pleased with the economic performance of this state under the Gallop government.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition ought to recognise that vehicle taxes and charges cost Western Australian families $466 a year, compared with $686 in New South Wales and $729 in the Australian Capital Territory. This government has cut family motor vehicle registrations by $25 and it has frozen third party motor vehicle insurance charges. Western Australia has the best rate of insurance charged for motor vehicle third party insurance of any state in the country. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Carine to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The government has made two decisions this year to reduce the cost to families of running a motor vehicle. I will answer the specific questions asked by the member for Stirling. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Nedlands to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member for Stirling might like to hear the answer to his question, and it will be hard to answer it over the voice of the member for Nedlands if she continues to interject. I will explain to the member for Stirling that the states receive GST revenue from the commonwealth government. The commonwealth prepares the GST revenue estimates but it does not provide a categorical breakdown of the GST or any petrol pricing assumptions it uses. The GST revenue base includes total household consumption, and increased revenue for higher fuel spending may be offset by the impact of reduced spending elsewhere. That is a point the Prime Minister himself has made. I do not often find myself agreeing with the Prime Minister. However, he made the valid point that increased spending on fuel may result in reduced spending on other items, and therefore there will be no change in the GST take. The commonwealth has not advised the states of revisions to its GST revenue estimates for 2005-06. We would expect to receive those revisions in the commonwealth government’s midyear budget review, which will be released in November this year. Western Australians must worry not so much about where the GST is going in total as about what the Commonwealth Grants Commission will do to the state’s share of GST. I am concerned when Treasury talks to me about the possibility of a $100 million a year cut in the state’s share of GST distributions because the grants commission punishes this state for its economic performance. I refer now to the question of oil prices. In budget paper No 3, the government has forecast total petroleum royalties of $532 million in 2005-06. The oil price assumption is an average $US40 a barrel. Of course people will say that the price of oil is much higher at the moment. However, the important point to note is the average price of oil over the financial year. The royalties the state receives from liquefied natural gas is important also. There has always been the assumption in debate in this chamber that oil and liquefied natural gas prices track each other very closely. That assumption must be questioned. Given that we receive a lot of our royalties from LNG, what is important is the LNG price for that section of the royalties, not the oil price. Unfortunately, I cannot provide the member with a breakdown of the allocation of royalties from oil and other petroleum products, because the information we receive from companies is covered by confidentiality clauses. I point out that the oil price is one thing. What is important today is the average oil price, and, as well as the average oil price, we are also interested in the average LNG price, because that will determine the ultimate royalty that is returned to the state. On top of that, the Commonwealth Grants Commission always punishes us no matter what we get. We must accept that, in the end, 90 per cent of the royalties flow to other states. Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory all receive a share of our oil royalties. They should be very pleased with the economic performance of this state under the Gallop government.
Ms K. Hodson-Thomas interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Carine to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The government has made two decisions this year to reduce the cost to families of running a motor vehicle. I will answer the specific questions asked by the member for Stirling. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Nedlands to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member for Stirling might like to hear the answer to his question, and it will be hard to answer it over the voice of the member for Nedlands if she continues to interject. I will explain to the member for Stirling that the states receive GST revenue from the commonwealth government. The commonwealth prepares the GST revenue estimates but it does not provide a categorical breakdown of the GST or any petrol pricing assumptions it uses. The GST revenue base includes total household consumption, and increased revenue for higher fuel spending may be offset by the impact of reduced spending elsewhere. That is a point the Prime Minister himself has made. I do not often find myself agreeing with the Prime Minister. However, he made the valid point that increased spending on fuel may result in reduced spending on other items, and therefore there will be no change in the GST take. The commonwealth has not advised the states of revisions to its GST revenue estimates for 2005-06. We would expect to receive those revisions in the commonwealth government’s midyear budget review, which will be released in November this year. Western Australians must worry not so much about where the GST is going in total as about what the Commonwealth Grants Commission will do to the state’s share of GST. I am concerned when Treasury talks to me about the possibility of a $100 million a year cut in the state’s share of GST distributions because the grants commission punishes this state for its economic performance. I refer now to the question of oil prices. In budget paper No 3, the government has forecast total petroleum royalties of $532 million in 2005-06. The oil price assumption is an average $US40 a barrel. Of course people will say that the price of oil is much higher at the moment. However, the important point to note is the average price of oil over the financial year. The royalties the state receives from liquefied natural gas is important also. There has always been the assumption in debate in this chamber that oil and liquefied natural gas prices track each other very closely. That assumption must be questioned. Given that we receive a lot of our royalties from LNG, what is important is the LNG price for that section of the royalties, not the oil price. Unfortunately, I cannot provide the member with a breakdown of the allocation of royalties from oil and other petroleum products, because the information we receive from companies is covered by confidentiality clauses. I point out that the oil price is one thing. What is important today is the average oil price, and, as well as the average oil price, we are also interested in the average LNG price, because that will determine the ultimate royalty that is returned to the state. On top of that, the Commonwealth Grants Commission always punishes us no matter what we get. We must accept that, in the end, 90 per cent of the royalties flow to other states. Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory all receive a share of our oil royalties. They should be very pleased with the economic performance of this state under the Gallop government.
The SPEAKER : I call the member for Carine to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The government has made two decisions this year to reduce the cost to families of running a motor vehicle. I will answer the specific questions asked by the member for Stirling. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Nedlands to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member for Stirling might like to hear the answer to his question, and it will be hard to answer it over the voice of the member for Nedlands if she continues to interject. I will explain to the member for Stirling that the states receive GST revenue from the commonwealth government. The commonwealth prepares the GST revenue estimates but it does not provide a categorical breakdown of the GST or any petrol pricing assumptions it uses. The GST revenue base includes total household consumption, and increased revenue for higher fuel spending may be offset by the impact of reduced spending elsewhere. That is a point the Prime Minister himself has made. I do not often find myself agreeing with the Prime Minister. However, he made the valid point that increased spending on fuel may result in reduced spending on other items, and therefore there will be no change in the GST take. The commonwealth has not advised the states of revisions to its GST revenue estimates for 2005-06. We would expect to receive those revisions in the commonwealth government’s midyear budget review, which will be released in November this year. Western Australians must worry not so much about where the GST is going in total as about what the Commonwealth Grants Commission will do to the state’s share of GST. I am concerned when Treasury talks to me about the possibility of a $100 million a year cut in the state’s share of GST distributions because the grants commission punishes this state for its economic performance. I refer now to the question of oil prices. In budget paper No 3, the government has forecast total petroleum royalties of $532 million in 2005-06. The oil price assumption is an average $US40 a barrel. Of course people will say that the price of oil is much higher at the moment. However, the important point to note is the average price of oil over the financial year. The royalties the state receives from liquefied natural gas is important also. There has always been the assumption in debate in this chamber that oil and liquefied natural gas prices track each other very closely. That assumption must be questioned. Given that we receive a lot of our royalties from LNG, what is important is the LNG price for that section of the royalties, not the oil price. Unfortunately, I cannot provide the member with a breakdown of the allocation of royalties from oil and other petroleum products, because the information we receive from companies is covered by confidentiality clauses. I point out that the oil price is one thing. What is important today is the average oil price, and, as well as the average oil price, we are also interested in the average LNG price, because that will determine the ultimate royalty that is returned to the state. On top of that, the Commonwealth Grants Commission always punishes us no matter what we get. We must accept that, in the end, 90 per cent of the royalties flow to other states. Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory all receive a share of our oil royalties. They should be very pleased with the economic performance of this state under the Gallop government.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : The government has made two decisions this year to reduce the cost to families of running a motor vehicle. I will answer the specific questions asked by the member for Stirling. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Nedlands to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member for Stirling might like to hear the answer to his question, and it will be hard to answer it over the voice of the member for Nedlands if she continues to interject. I will explain to the member for Stirling that the states receive GST revenue from the commonwealth government. The commonwealth prepares the GST revenue estimates but it does not provide a categorical breakdown of the GST or any petrol pricing assumptions it uses. The GST revenue base includes total household consumption, and increased revenue for higher fuel spending may be offset by the impact of reduced spending elsewhere. That is a point the Prime Minister himself has made. I do not often find myself agreeing with the Prime Minister. However, he made the valid point that increased spending on fuel may result in reduced spending on other items, and therefore there will be no change in the GST take. The commonwealth has not advised the states of revisions to its GST revenue estimates for 2005-06. We would expect to receive those revisions in the commonwealth government’s midyear budget review, which will be released in November this year. Western Australians must worry not so much about where the GST is going in total as about what the Commonwealth Grants Commission will do to the state’s share of GST. I am concerned when Treasury talks to me about the possibility of a $100 million a year cut in the state’s share of GST distributions because the grants commission punishes this state for its economic performance. I refer now to the question of oil prices. In budget paper No 3, the government has forecast total petroleum royalties of $532 million in 2005-06. The oil price assumption is an average $US40 a barrel. Of course people will say that the price of oil is much higher at the moment. However, the important point to note is the average price of oil over the financial year. The royalties the state receives from liquefied natural gas is important also. There has always been the assumption in debate in this chamber that oil and liquefied natural gas prices track each other very closely. That assumption must be questioned. Given that we receive a lot of our royalties from LNG, what is important is the LNG price for that section of the royalties, not the oil price. Unfortunately, I cannot provide the member with a breakdown of the allocation of royalties from oil and other petroleum products, because the information we receive from companies is covered by confidentiality clauses. I point out that the oil price is one thing. What is important today is the average oil price, and, as well as the average oil price, we are also interested in the average LNG price, because that will determine the ultimate royalty that is returned to the state. On top of that, the Commonwealth Grants Commission always punishes us no matter what we get. We must accept that, in the end, 90 per cent of the royalties flow to other states. Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory all receive a share of our oil royalties. They should be very pleased with the economic performance of this state under the Gallop government.
Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Nedlands to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member for Stirling might like to hear the answer to his question, and it will be hard to answer it over the voice of the member for Nedlands if she continues to interject. I will explain to the member for Stirling that the states receive GST revenue from the commonwealth government. The commonwealth prepares the GST revenue estimates but it does not provide a categorical breakdown of the GST or any petrol pricing assumptions it uses. The GST revenue base includes total household consumption, and increased revenue for higher fuel spending may be offset by the impact of reduced spending elsewhere. That is a point the Prime Minister himself has made. I do not often find myself agreeing with the Prime Minister. However, he made the valid point that increased spending on fuel may result in reduced spending on other items, and therefore there will be no change in the GST take. The commonwealth has not advised the states of revisions to its GST revenue estimates for 2005-06. We would expect to receive those revisions in the commonwealth government’s midyear budget review, which will be released in November this year. Western Australians must worry not so much about where the GST is going in total as about what the Commonwealth Grants Commission will do to the state’s share of GST. I am concerned when Treasury talks to me about the possibility of a $100 million a year cut in the state’s share of GST distributions because the grants commission punishes this state for its economic performance. I refer now to the question of oil prices. In budget paper No 3, the government has forecast total petroleum royalties of $532 million in 2005-06. The oil price assumption is an average $US40 a barrel. Of course people will say that the price of oil is much higher at the moment. However, the important point to note is the average price of oil over the financial year. The royalties the state receives from liquefied natural gas is important also. There has always been the assumption in debate in this chamber that oil and liquefied natural gas prices track each other very closely. That assumption must be questioned. Given that we receive a lot of our royalties from LNG, what is important is the LNG price for that section of the royalties, not the oil price. Unfortunately, I cannot provide the member with a breakdown of the allocation of royalties from oil and other petroleum products, because the information we receive from companies is covered by confidentiality clauses. I point out that the oil price is one thing. What is important today is the average oil price, and, as well as the average oil price, we are also interested in the average LNG price, because that will determine the ultimate royalty that is returned to the state. On top of that, the Commonwealth Grants Commission always punishes us no matter what we get. We must accept that, in the end, 90 per cent of the royalties flow to other states. Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory all receive a share of our oil royalties. They should be very pleased with the economic performance of this state under the Gallop government.
The SPEAKER : I call the member for Nedlands to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member for Stirling might like to hear the answer to his question, and it will be hard to answer it over the voice of the member for Nedlands if she continues to interject. I will explain to the member for Stirling that the states receive GST revenue from the commonwealth government. The commonwealth prepares the GST revenue estimates but it does not provide a categorical breakdown of the GST or any petrol pricing assumptions it uses. The GST revenue base includes total household consumption, and increased revenue for higher fuel spending may be offset by the impact of reduced spending elsewhere. That is a point the Prime Minister himself has made. I do not often find myself agreeing with the Prime Minister. However, he made the valid point that increased spending on fuel may result in reduced spending on other items, and therefore there will be no change in the GST take. The commonwealth has not advised the states of revisions to its GST revenue estimates for 2005-06. We would expect to receive those revisions in the commonwealth government’s midyear budget review, which will be released in November this year. Western Australians must worry not so much about where the GST is going in total as about what the Commonwealth Grants Commission will do to the state’s share of GST. I am concerned when Treasury talks to me about the possibility of a $100 million a year cut in the state’s share of GST distributions because the grants commission punishes this state for its economic performance. I refer now to the question of oil prices. In budget paper No 3, the government has forecast total petroleum royalties of $532 million in 2005-06. The oil price assumption is an average $US40 a barrel. Of course people will say that the price of oil is much higher at the moment. However, the important point to note is the average price of oil over the financial year. The royalties the state receives from liquefied natural gas is important also. There has always been the assumption in debate in this chamber that oil and liquefied natural gas prices track each other very closely. That assumption must be questioned. Given that we receive a lot of our royalties from LNG, what is important is the LNG price for that section of the royalties, not the oil price. Unfortunately, I cannot provide the member with a breakdown of the allocation of royalties from oil and other petroleum products, because the information we receive from companies is covered by confidentiality clauses. I point out that the oil price is one thing. What is important today is the average oil price, and, as well as the average oil price, we are also interested in the average LNG price, because that will determine the ultimate royalty that is returned to the state. On top of that, the Commonwealth Grants Commission always punishes us no matter what we get. We must accept that, in the end, 90 per cent of the royalties flow to other states. Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory all receive a share of our oil royalties. They should be very pleased with the economic performance of this state under the Gallop government.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member for Stirling might like to hear the answer to his question, and it will be hard to answer it over the voice of the member for Nedlands if she continues to interject. I will explain to the member for Stirling that the states receive GST revenue from the commonwealth government. The commonwealth prepares the GST revenue estimates but it does not provide a categorical breakdown of the GST or any petrol pricing assumptions it uses. The GST revenue base includes total household consumption, and increased revenue for higher fuel spending may be offset by the impact of reduced spending elsewhere. That is a point the Prime Minister himself has made. I do not often find myself agreeing with the Prime Minister. However, he made the valid point that increased spending on fuel may result in reduced spending on other items, and therefore there will be no change in the GST take. The commonwealth has not advised the states of revisions to its GST revenue estimates for 2005-06. We would expect to receive those revisions in the commonwealth government’s midyear budget review, which will be released in November this year. Western Australians must worry not so much about where the GST is going in total as about what the Commonwealth Grants Commission will do to the state’s share of GST. I am concerned when Treasury talks to me about the possibility of a $100 million a year cut in the state’s share of GST distributions because the grants commission punishes this state for its economic performance. I refer now to the question of oil prices. In budget paper No 3, the government has forecast total petroleum royalties of $532 million in 2005-06. The oil price assumption is an average $US40 a barrel. Of course people will say that the price of oil is much higher at the moment. However, the important point to note is the average price of oil over the financial year. The royalties the state receives from liquefied natural gas is important also. There has always been the assumption in debate in this chamber that oil and liquefied natural gas prices track each other very closely. That assumption must be questioned. Given that we receive a lot of our royalties from LNG, what is important is the LNG price for that section of the royalties, not the oil price. Unfortunately, I cannot provide the member with a breakdown of the allocation of royalties from oil and other petroleum products, because the information we receive from companies is covered by confidentiality clauses. I point out that the oil price is one thing. What is important today is the average oil price, and, as well as the average oil price, we are also interested in the average LNG price, because that will determine the ultimate royalty that is returned to the state. On top of that, the Commonwealth Grants Commission always punishes us no matter what we get. We must accept that, in the end, 90 per cent of the royalties flow to other states. Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory all receive a share of our oil royalties. They should be very pleased with the economic performance of this state under the Gallop government.
I will explain to the member for Stirling that the states receive GST revenue from the commonwealth government. The commonwealth prepares the GST revenue estimates but it does not provide a categorical breakdown of the GST or any petrol pricing assumptions it uses. The GST revenue base includes total household consumption, and increased revenue for higher fuel spending may be offset by the impact of reduced spending elsewhere. That is a point the Prime Minister himself has made. I do not often find myself agreeing with the Prime Minister. However, he made the valid point that increased spending on fuel may result in reduced spending on other items, and therefore there will be no change in the GST take. The commonwealth has not advised the states of revisions to its GST revenue estimates for 2005-06. We would expect to receive those revisions in the commonwealth government’s midyear budget review, which will be released in November this year. Western Australians must worry not so much about where the GST is going in total as about what the Commonwealth Grants Commission will do to the state’s share of GST. I am concerned when Treasury talks to me about the possibility of a $100 million a year cut in the state’s share of GST distributions because the grants commission punishes this state for its economic performance. I refer now to the question of oil prices. In budget paper No 3, the government has forecast total petroleum royalties of $532 million in 2005-06. The oil price assumption is an average $US40 a barrel. Of course people will say that the price of oil is much higher at the moment. However, the important point to note is the average price of oil over the financial year. The royalties the state receives from liquefied natural gas is important also. There has always been the assumption in debate in this chamber that oil and liquefied natural gas prices track each other very closely. That assumption must be questioned. Given that we receive a lot of our royalties from LNG, what is important is the LNG price for that section of the royalties, not the oil price. Unfortunately, I cannot provide the member with a breakdown of the allocation of royalties from oil and other petroleum products, because the information we receive from companies is covered by confidentiality clauses. I point out that the oil price is one thing. What is important today is the average oil price, and, as well as the average oil price, we are also interested in the average LNG price, because that will determine the ultimate royalty that is returned to the state. On top of that, the Commonwealth Grants Commission always punishes us no matter what we get. We must accept that, in the end, 90 per cent of the royalties flow to other states. Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory all receive a share of our oil royalties. They should be very pleased with the economic performance of this state under the Gallop government.
I refer now to the question of oil prices. In budget paper No 3, the government has forecast total petroleum royalties of $532 million in 2005-06. The oil price assumption is an average $US40 a barrel. Of course people will say that the price of oil is much higher at the moment. However, the important point to note is the average price of oil over the financial year. The royalties the state receives from liquefied natural gas is important also. There has always been the assumption in debate in this chamber that oil and liquefied natural gas prices track each other very closely. That assumption must be questioned. Given that we receive a lot of our royalties from LNG, what is important is the LNG price for that section of the royalties, not the oil price. Unfortunately, I cannot provide the member with a breakdown of the allocation of royalties from oil and other petroleum products, because the information we receive from companies is covered by confidentiality clauses. I point out that the oil price is one thing. What is important today is the average oil price, and, as well as the average oil price, we are also interested in the average LNG price, because that will determine the ultimate royalty that is returned to the state. On top of that, the Commonwealth Grants Commission always punishes us no matter what we get. We must accept that, in the end, 90 per cent of the royalties flow to other states. Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory all receive a share of our oil royalties. They should be very pleased with the economic performance of this state under the Gallop government.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.