❓ Treasurer Ripper addresses the state budget's underlying position, citing lower petroleum royalties, reduced Commonwealth grants, and criticising the previous government's financial management and unfunded promises. He also questions the opposition's costed promises.
AnsweredQoN 654Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the forthcoming state budget. What was the underlying position of the State’s finances as the budget was being prepared? Mr E.S. RIPPER
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for her question. The budget task this year has been very difficult and I have warned Western Australians that it will be a tough budget. The Government has had to deal with a number of underlying pressures. One is that the oil price is not expected to be as buoyant next year as it was this year. Consequently, we can expect lower petroleum royalties. The second factor was referred to by the Premier earlier in question time. Commonwealth grants to the State Government are expected to grow by only 0.9 per cent, which is a cut in real terms. That really shows how much or how little John Howard cares for Western Australia, the economic powerhouse of the nation. The third reason - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: It is disorderly to have interchange across the Chamber when the Treasurer is trying to give an answer. Mr E.S. RIPPER: The third reason for this and the previous two budgets being tough is the legacy that this Government inherited from the previous Government. As I already indicated, the previous Government delivered five deficits in eight budgets and it forecast two more in the pre-election forward estimates, which this Government has had to turn around. Even more irritatingly - to put it mildly - the previous Government did not properly fund its commitments. The coalition’s financial projections given at the beginning of the election campaign were rubbery to say the least. One example is the information and communications projects in the Police Service. You will remember, Mr Speaker, that those commitments were embarked upon without full funding. They were based not on the strength of budget plans or estimates, but on a letter of authority given to the Commissioner of Police by the former Premier. That is how the previous Government budgeted; it had IOUs all over the place. I regret to say that members from the previous Government are at it again. They have not learnt from the lessons of their financial mismanagement. We have documented more than $850 million of promises by Liberal and National Party members over the last two years on the basis of their costings. Our estimates put the price tag on their promises in only two and a bit years of being in opposition closer to $1.6 billion. Mr A.D. McRae: What’s for sale? Mr E.S. RIPPER: Exactly, what is for sale because how will the coalition fund these promises? On ABC radio on 2 September 2002, the shadow Minister for the Environment and Heritage said that because of a land clearing ban, the Opposition intended to offer farmers compensation payments totalling approximately $100 million. Does the Leader of the Opposition endorse that promise? Is that part of his financial plan? Mr C.J. Barnett: I will tell you about it in the matter of public interest debate. Mr E.S. RIPPER: He will not confirm or deny that promise made by the shadow minister. What about the promise made by the Leader of the Opposition? On 24 March 2003 the presenter of the ABC North West morning program said - the Leader of the Opposition did not dispute it - that the Leader of the Opposition had made no bones about the fact that he is firmly committed to the development of the Maitland industrial estate as the site for the construction of future industrial projects in the area. Mr C.J. Barnett: Spot on. Mr E.S. RIPPER: That is a promise the Leader of the Opposition intends to keep. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely. Mr E.S. RIPPER: How will the infrastructure costs be funded? Mr C.J. Barnett: Try it on! Would you like to have a debate on it right now? Let us suspend standing orders and I will give you a lesson in economic development. Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Windimurra man! The Kingstream man! The Oakajee man! The Dampier-to-Bunbury natural gas pipeline privatisation man! That man wants to give this Government a lecture on economic development. The man who was the Minister for Energy during the time that the economy contracted by 1.2 per cent wants to give us an economic lesson. What a joke! I will advise the Leader of the Opposition of the infrastructure costs for the development of Maitland. We will see whether he can explain from where he will get $470 million. The Leader of the Opposition has made a promise that would cost $470 million on top of the $100 million promise made by the member for Vasse. Of course, there are other promises - Point of Order Mr B.K. MASTERS: I have been misrepresented by the Treasurer. Certainly I debated the issue that the Treasurer has raised, but there was no promise or commitment. I do not know what course of action I should take. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! There is definitely no point of order. The member can take the issue up with the Clerks later. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition has also made a promise to retain the eastern bypass in Fremantle. Mr C.J. Barnett: Dead right. Mr E.S. RIPPER: How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition is quite happy to own up to that particular promise. If the Leader of the Opposition is getting into policy mode, he should also get into financial planning mode. When he responds to the budget, I would like him to present his financial plan to Parliament. How will the Leader of the Opposition fund his promises valued at $850 million on his costings, let alone the true cost that is closer to $1.6 billion? In November 2002 the Leader of the Opposition said in a position statement that the Liberal Party would reinstate the application of a land tax exemption for owner-occupied family homes owned by a company or trust, the cost of which will be $11 million. How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition has form on this issue; he wants everything but is not prepared to pay for any aspect of his promises. The Leader of the Opposition is the Imelda Marcos of Western Australia politics. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order!
Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: I thank the member for her question. The budget task this year has been very difficult and I have warned Western Australians that it will be a tough budget. The Government has had to deal with a number of underlying pressures. One is that the oil price is not expected to be as buoyant next year as it was this year. Consequently, we can expect lower petroleum royalties. The second factor was referred to by the Premier earlier in question time. Commonwealth grants to the State Government are expected to grow by only 0.9 per cent, which is a cut in real terms. That really shows how much or how little John Howard cares for Western Australia, the economic powerhouse of the nation. The third reason - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: It is disorderly to have interchange across the Chamber when the Treasurer is trying to give an answer. Mr E.S. RIPPER: The third reason for this and the previous two budgets being tough is the legacy that this Government inherited from the previous Government. As I already indicated, the previous Government delivered five deficits in eight budgets and it forecast two more in the pre-election forward estimates, which this Government has had to turn around. Even more irritatingly - to put it mildly - the previous Government did not properly fund its commitments. The coalition’s financial projections given at the beginning of the election campaign were rubbery to say the least. One example is the information and communications projects in the Police Service. You will remember, Mr Speaker, that those commitments were embarked upon without full funding. They were based not on the strength of budget plans or estimates, but on a letter of authority given to the Commissioner of Police by the former Premier. That is how the previous Government budgeted; it had IOUs all over the place. I regret to say that members from the previous Government are at it again. They have not learnt from the lessons of their financial mismanagement. We have documented more than $850 million of promises by Liberal and National Party members over the last two years on the basis of their costings. Our estimates put the price tag on their promises in only two and a bit years of being in opposition closer to $1.6 billion. Mr A.D. McRae: What’s for sale? Mr E.S. RIPPER: Exactly, what is for sale because how will the coalition fund these promises? On ABC radio on 2 September 2002, the shadow Minister for the Environment and Heritage said that because of a land clearing ban, the Opposition intended to offer farmers compensation payments totalling approximately $100 million. Does the Leader of the Opposition endorse that promise? Is that part of his financial plan? Mr C.J. Barnett: I will tell you about it in the matter of public interest debate. Mr E.S. RIPPER: He will not confirm or deny that promise made by the shadow minister. What about the promise made by the Leader of the Opposition? On 24 March 2003 the presenter of the ABC North West morning program said - the Leader of the Opposition did not dispute it - that the Leader of the Opposition had made no bones about the fact that he is firmly committed to the development of the Maitland industrial estate as the site for the construction of future industrial projects in the area. Mr C.J. Barnett: Spot on. Mr E.S. RIPPER: That is a promise the Leader of the Opposition intends to keep. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely. Mr E.S. RIPPER: How will the infrastructure costs be funded? Mr C.J. Barnett: Try it on! Would you like to have a debate on it right now? Let us suspend standing orders and I will give you a lesson in economic development. Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Windimurra man! The Kingstream man! The Oakajee man! The Dampier-to-Bunbury natural gas pipeline privatisation man! That man wants to give this Government a lecture on economic development. The man who was the Minister for Energy during the time that the economy contracted by 1.2 per cent wants to give us an economic lesson. What a joke! I will advise the Leader of the Opposition of the infrastructure costs for the development of Maitland. We will see whether he can explain from where he will get $470 million. The Leader of the Opposition has made a promise that would cost $470 million on top of the $100 million promise made by the member for Vasse. Of course, there are other promises - Point of Order Mr B.K. MASTERS: I have been misrepresented by the Treasurer. Certainly I debated the issue that the Treasurer has raised, but there was no promise or commitment. I do not know what course of action I should take. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! There is definitely no point of order. The member can take the issue up with the Clerks later. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition has also made a promise to retain the eastern bypass in Fremantle. Mr C.J. Barnett: Dead right. Mr E.S. RIPPER: How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition is quite happy to own up to that particular promise. If the Leader of the Opposition is getting into policy mode, he should also get into financial planning mode. When he responds to the budget, I would like him to present his financial plan to Parliament. How will the Leader of the Opposition fund his promises valued at $850 million on his costings, let alone the true cost that is closer to $1.6 billion? In November 2002 the Leader of the Opposition said in a position statement that the Liberal Party would reinstate the application of a land tax exemption for owner-occupied family homes owned by a company or trust, the cost of which will be $11 million. How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition has form on this issue; he wants everything but is not prepared to pay for any aspect of his promises. The Leader of the Opposition is the Imelda Marcos of Western Australia politics. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order!
I thank the member for her question. The budget task this year has been very difficult and I have warned Western Australians that it will be a tough budget. The Government has had to deal with a number of underlying pressures. One is that the oil price is not expected to be as buoyant next year as it was this year. Consequently, we can expect lower petroleum royalties. The second factor was referred to by the Premier earlier in question time. Commonwealth grants to the State Government are expected to grow by only 0.9 per cent, which is a cut in real terms. That really shows how much or how little John Howard cares for Western Australia, the economic powerhouse of the nation. The third reason - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: It is disorderly to have interchange across the Chamber when the Treasurer is trying to give an answer. Mr E.S. RIPPER: The third reason for this and the previous two budgets being tough is the legacy that this Government inherited from the previous Government. As I already indicated, the previous Government delivered five deficits in eight budgets and it forecast two more in the pre-election forward estimates, which this Government has had to turn around. Even more irritatingly - to put it mildly - the previous Government did not properly fund its commitments. The coalition’s financial projections given at the beginning of the election campaign were rubbery to say the least. One example is the information and communications projects in the Police Service. You will remember, Mr Speaker, that those commitments were embarked upon without full funding. They were based not on the strength of budget plans or estimates, but on a letter of authority given to the Commissioner of Police by the former Premier. That is how the previous Government budgeted; it had IOUs all over the place. I regret to say that members from the previous Government are at it again. They have not learnt from the lessons of their financial mismanagement. We have documented more than $850 million of promises by Liberal and National Party members over the last two years on the basis of their costings. Our estimates put the price tag on their promises in only two and a bit years of being in opposition closer to $1.6 billion. Mr A.D. McRae: What’s for sale? Mr E.S. RIPPER: Exactly, what is for sale because how will the coalition fund these promises? On ABC radio on 2 September 2002, the shadow Minister for the Environment and Heritage said that because of a land clearing ban, the Opposition intended to offer farmers compensation payments totalling approximately $100 million. Does the Leader of the Opposition endorse that promise? Is that part of his financial plan? Mr C.J. Barnett: I will tell you about it in the matter of public interest debate. Mr E.S. RIPPER: He will not confirm or deny that promise made by the shadow minister. What about the promise made by the Leader of the Opposition? On 24 March 2003 the presenter of the ABC North West morning program said - the Leader of the Opposition did not dispute it - that the Leader of the Opposition had made no bones about the fact that he is firmly committed to the development of the Maitland industrial estate as the site for the construction of future industrial projects in the area. Mr C.J. Barnett: Spot on. Mr E.S. RIPPER: That is a promise the Leader of the Opposition intends to keep. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely. Mr E.S. RIPPER: How will the infrastructure costs be funded? Mr C.J. Barnett: Try it on! Would you like to have a debate on it right now? Let us suspend standing orders and I will give you a lesson in economic development. Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Windimurra man! The Kingstream man! The Oakajee man! The Dampier-to-Bunbury natural gas pipeline privatisation man! That man wants to give this Government a lecture on economic development. The man who was the Minister for Energy during the time that the economy contracted by 1.2 per cent wants to give us an economic lesson. What a joke! I will advise the Leader of the Opposition of the infrastructure costs for the development of Maitland. We will see whether he can explain from where he will get $470 million. The Leader of the Opposition has made a promise that would cost $470 million on top of the $100 million promise made by the member for Vasse. Of course, there are other promises - Point of Order Mr B.K. MASTERS: I have been misrepresented by the Treasurer. Certainly I debated the issue that the Treasurer has raised, but there was no promise or commitment. I do not know what course of action I should take. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! There is definitely no point of order. The member can take the issue up with the Clerks later. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition has also made a promise to retain the eastern bypass in Fremantle. Mr C.J. Barnett: Dead right. Mr E.S. RIPPER: How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition is quite happy to own up to that particular promise. If the Leader of the Opposition is getting into policy mode, he should also get into financial planning mode. When he responds to the budget, I would like him to present his financial plan to Parliament. How will the Leader of the Opposition fund his promises valued at $850 million on his costings, let alone the true cost that is closer to $1.6 billion? In November 2002 the Leader of the Opposition said in a position statement that the Liberal Party would reinstate the application of a land tax exemption for owner-occupied family homes owned by a company or trust, the cost of which will be $11 million. How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition has form on this issue; he wants everything but is not prepared to pay for any aspect of his promises. The Leader of the Opposition is the Imelda Marcos of Western Australia politics. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order!
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: It is disorderly to have interchange across the Chamber when the Treasurer is trying to give an answer. Mr E.S. RIPPER: The third reason for this and the previous two budgets being tough is the legacy that this Government inherited from the previous Government. As I already indicated, the previous Government delivered five deficits in eight budgets and it forecast two more in the pre-election forward estimates, which this Government has had to turn around. Even more irritatingly - to put it mildly - the previous Government did not properly fund its commitments. The coalition’s financial projections given at the beginning of the election campaign were rubbery to say the least. One example is the information and communications projects in the Police Service. You will remember, Mr Speaker, that those commitments were embarked upon without full funding. They were based not on the strength of budget plans or estimates, but on a letter of authority given to the Commissioner of Police by the former Premier. That is how the previous Government budgeted; it had IOUs all over the place. I regret to say that members from the previous Government are at it again. They have not learnt from the lessons of their financial mismanagement. We have documented more than $850 million of promises by Liberal and National Party members over the last two years on the basis of their costings. Our estimates put the price tag on their promises in only two and a bit years of being in opposition closer to $1.6 billion. Mr A.D. McRae: What’s for sale? Mr E.S. RIPPER: Exactly, what is for sale because how will the coalition fund these promises? On ABC radio on 2 September 2002, the shadow Minister for the Environment and Heritage said that because of a land clearing ban, the Opposition intended to offer farmers compensation payments totalling approximately $100 million. Does the Leader of the Opposition endorse that promise? Is that part of his financial plan? Mr C.J. Barnett: I will tell you about it in the matter of public interest debate. Mr E.S. RIPPER: He will not confirm or deny that promise made by the shadow minister. What about the promise made by the Leader of the Opposition? On 24 March 2003 the presenter of the ABC North West morning program said - the Leader of the Opposition did not dispute it - that the Leader of the Opposition had made no bones about the fact that he is firmly committed to the development of the Maitland industrial estate as the site for the construction of future industrial projects in the area. Mr C.J. Barnett: Spot on. Mr E.S. RIPPER: That is a promise the Leader of the Opposition intends to keep. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely. Mr E.S. RIPPER: How will the infrastructure costs be funded? Mr C.J. Barnett: Try it on! Would you like to have a debate on it right now? Let us suspend standing orders and I will give you a lesson in economic development. Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Windimurra man! The Kingstream man! The Oakajee man! The Dampier-to-Bunbury natural gas pipeline privatisation man! That man wants to give this Government a lecture on economic development. The man who was the Minister for Energy during the time that the economy contracted by 1.2 per cent wants to give us an economic lesson. What a joke! I will advise the Leader of the Opposition of the infrastructure costs for the development of Maitland. We will see whether he can explain from where he will get $470 million. The Leader of the Opposition has made a promise that would cost $470 million on top of the $100 million promise made by the member for Vasse. Of course, there are other promises - Point of Order Mr B.K. MASTERS: I have been misrepresented by the Treasurer. Certainly I debated the issue that the Treasurer has raised, but there was no promise or commitment. I do not know what course of action I should take. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! There is definitely no point of order. The member can take the issue up with the Clerks later. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition has also made a promise to retain the eastern bypass in Fremantle. Mr C.J. Barnett: Dead right. Mr E.S. RIPPER: How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition is quite happy to own up to that particular promise. If the Leader of the Opposition is getting into policy mode, he should also get into financial planning mode. When he responds to the budget, I would like him to present his financial plan to Parliament. How will the Leader of the Opposition fund his promises valued at $850 million on his costings, let alone the true cost that is closer to $1.6 billion? In November 2002 the Leader of the Opposition said in a position statement that the Liberal Party would reinstate the application of a land tax exemption for owner-occupied family homes owned by a company or trust, the cost of which will be $11 million. How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition has form on this issue; he wants everything but is not prepared to pay for any aspect of his promises. The Leader of the Opposition is the Imelda Marcos of Western Australia politics. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order!
The SPEAKER: It is disorderly to have interchange across the Chamber when the Treasurer is trying to give an answer. Mr E.S. RIPPER: The third reason for this and the previous two budgets being tough is the legacy that this Government inherited from the previous Government. As I already indicated, the previous Government delivered five deficits in eight budgets and it forecast two more in the pre-election forward estimates, which this Government has had to turn around. Even more irritatingly - to put it mildly - the previous Government did not properly fund its commitments. The coalition’s financial projections given at the beginning of the election campaign were rubbery to say the least. One example is the information and communications projects in the Police Service. You will remember, Mr Speaker, that those commitments were embarked upon without full funding. They were based not on the strength of budget plans or estimates, but on a letter of authority given to the Commissioner of Police by the former Premier. That is how the previous Government budgeted; it had IOUs all over the place. I regret to say that members from the previous Government are at it again. They have not learnt from the lessons of their financial mismanagement. We have documented more than $850 million of promises by Liberal and National Party members over the last two years on the basis of their costings. Our estimates put the price tag on their promises in only two and a bit years of being in opposition closer to $1.6 billion. Mr A.D. McRae: What’s for sale? Mr E.S. RIPPER: Exactly, what is for sale because how will the coalition fund these promises? On ABC radio on 2 September 2002, the shadow Minister for the Environment and Heritage said that because of a land clearing ban, the Opposition intended to offer farmers compensation payments totalling approximately $100 million. Does the Leader of the Opposition endorse that promise? Is that part of his financial plan? Mr C.J. Barnett: I will tell you about it in the matter of public interest debate. Mr E.S. RIPPER: He will not confirm or deny that promise made by the shadow minister. What about the promise made by the Leader of the Opposition? On 24 March 2003 the presenter of the ABC North West morning program said - the Leader of the Opposition did not dispute it - that the Leader of the Opposition had made no bones about the fact that he is firmly committed to the development of the Maitland industrial estate as the site for the construction of future industrial projects in the area. Mr C.J. Barnett: Spot on. Mr E.S. RIPPER: That is a promise the Leader of the Opposition intends to keep. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely. Mr E.S. RIPPER: How will the infrastructure costs be funded? Mr C.J. Barnett: Try it on! Would you like to have a debate on it right now? Let us suspend standing orders and I will give you a lesson in economic development. Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Windimurra man! The Kingstream man! The Oakajee man! The Dampier-to-Bunbury natural gas pipeline privatisation man! That man wants to give this Government a lecture on economic development. The man who was the Minister for Energy during the time that the economy contracted by 1.2 per cent wants to give us an economic lesson. What a joke! I will advise the Leader of the Opposition of the infrastructure costs for the development of Maitland. We will see whether he can explain from where he will get $470 million. The Leader of the Opposition has made a promise that would cost $470 million on top of the $100 million promise made by the member for Vasse. Of course, there are other promises - Point of Order Mr B.K. MASTERS: I have been misrepresented by the Treasurer. Certainly I debated the issue that the Treasurer has raised, but there was no promise or commitment. I do not know what course of action I should take. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! There is definitely no point of order. The member can take the issue up with the Clerks later. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition has also made a promise to retain the eastern bypass in Fremantle. Mr C.J. Barnett: Dead right. Mr E.S. RIPPER: How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition is quite happy to own up to that particular promise. If the Leader of the Opposition is getting into policy mode, he should also get into financial planning mode. When he responds to the budget, I would like him to present his financial plan to Parliament. How will the Leader of the Opposition fund his promises valued at $850 million on his costings, let alone the true cost that is closer to $1.6 billion? In November 2002 the Leader of the Opposition said in a position statement that the Liberal Party would reinstate the application of a land tax exemption for owner-occupied family homes owned by a company or trust, the cost of which will be $11 million. How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition has form on this issue; he wants everything but is not prepared to pay for any aspect of his promises. The Leader of the Opposition is the Imelda Marcos of Western Australia politics. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order!
Mr E.S. RIPPER: The third reason for this and the previous two budgets being tough is the legacy that this Government inherited from the previous Government. As I already indicated, the previous Government delivered five deficits in eight budgets and it forecast two more in the pre-election forward estimates, which this Government has had to turn around. Even more irritatingly - to put it mildly - the previous Government did not properly fund its commitments. The coalition’s financial projections given at the beginning of the election campaign were rubbery to say the least. One example is the information and communications projects in the Police Service. You will remember, Mr Speaker, that those commitments were embarked upon without full funding. They were based not on the strength of budget plans or estimates, but on a letter of authority given to the Commissioner of Police by the former Premier. That is how the previous Government budgeted; it had IOUs all over the place. I regret to say that members from the previous Government are at it again. They have not learnt from the lessons of their financial mismanagement. We have documented more than $850 million of promises by Liberal and National Party members over the last two years on the basis of their costings. Our estimates put the price tag on their promises in only two and a bit years of being in opposition closer to $1.6 billion. Mr A.D. McRae: What’s for sale? Mr E.S. RIPPER: Exactly, what is for sale because how will the coalition fund these promises? On ABC radio on 2 September 2002, the shadow Minister for the Environment and Heritage said that because of a land clearing ban, the Opposition intended to offer farmers compensation payments totalling approximately $100 million. Does the Leader of the Opposition endorse that promise? Is that part of his financial plan? Mr C.J. Barnett: I will tell you about it in the matter of public interest debate. Mr E.S. RIPPER: He will not confirm or deny that promise made by the shadow minister. What about the promise made by the Leader of the Opposition? On 24 March 2003 the presenter of the ABC North West morning program said - the Leader of the Opposition did not dispute it - that the Leader of the Opposition had made no bones about the fact that he is firmly committed to the development of the Maitland industrial estate as the site for the construction of future industrial projects in the area. Mr C.J. Barnett: Spot on. Mr E.S. RIPPER: That is a promise the Leader of the Opposition intends to keep. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely. Mr E.S. RIPPER: How will the infrastructure costs be funded? Mr C.J. Barnett: Try it on! Would you like to have a debate on it right now? Let us suspend standing orders and I will give you a lesson in economic development. Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Windimurra man! The Kingstream man! The Oakajee man! The Dampier-to-Bunbury natural gas pipeline privatisation man! That man wants to give this Government a lecture on economic development. The man who was the Minister for Energy during the time that the economy contracted by 1.2 per cent wants to give us an economic lesson. What a joke! I will advise the Leader of the Opposition of the infrastructure costs for the development of Maitland. We will see whether he can explain from where he will get $470 million. The Leader of the Opposition has made a promise that would cost $470 million on top of the $100 million promise made by the member for Vasse. Of course, there are other promises - Point of Order Mr B.K. MASTERS: I have been misrepresented by the Treasurer. Certainly I debated the issue that the Treasurer has raised, but there was no promise or commitment. I do not know what course of action I should take. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! There is definitely no point of order. The member can take the issue up with the Clerks later. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition has also made a promise to retain the eastern bypass in Fremantle. Mr C.J. Barnett: Dead right. Mr E.S. RIPPER: How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition is quite happy to own up to that particular promise. If the Leader of the Opposition is getting into policy mode, he should also get into financial planning mode. When he responds to the budget, I would like him to present his financial plan to Parliament. How will the Leader of the Opposition fund his promises valued at $850 million on his costings, let alone the true cost that is closer to $1.6 billion? In November 2002 the Leader of the Opposition said in a position statement that the Liberal Party would reinstate the application of a land tax exemption for owner-occupied family homes owned by a company or trust, the cost of which will be $11 million. How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition has form on this issue; he wants everything but is not prepared to pay for any aspect of his promises. The Leader of the Opposition is the Imelda Marcos of Western Australia politics. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order!
I regret to say that members from the previous Government are at it again. They have not learnt from the lessons of their financial mismanagement. We have documented more than $850 million of promises by Liberal and National Party members over the last two years on the basis of their costings. Our estimates put the price tag on their promises in only two and a bit years of being in opposition closer to $1.6 billion. Mr A.D. McRae: What’s for sale? Mr E.S. RIPPER: Exactly, what is for sale because how will the coalition fund these promises? On ABC radio on 2 September 2002, the shadow Minister for the Environment and Heritage said that because of a land clearing ban, the Opposition intended to offer farmers compensation payments totalling approximately $100 million. Does the Leader of the Opposition endorse that promise? Is that part of his financial plan? Mr C.J. Barnett: I will tell you about it in the matter of public interest debate. Mr E.S. RIPPER: He will not confirm or deny that promise made by the shadow minister. What about the promise made by the Leader of the Opposition? On 24 March 2003 the presenter of the ABC North West morning program said - the Leader of the Opposition did not dispute it - that the Leader of the Opposition had made no bones about the fact that he is firmly committed to the development of the Maitland industrial estate as the site for the construction of future industrial projects in the area. Mr C.J. Barnett: Spot on. Mr E.S. RIPPER: That is a promise the Leader of the Opposition intends to keep. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely. Mr E.S. RIPPER: How will the infrastructure costs be funded? Mr C.J. Barnett: Try it on! Would you like to have a debate on it right now? Let us suspend standing orders and I will give you a lesson in economic development. Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Windimurra man! The Kingstream man! The Oakajee man! The Dampier-to-Bunbury natural gas pipeline privatisation man! That man wants to give this Government a lecture on economic development. The man who was the Minister for Energy during the time that the economy contracted by 1.2 per cent wants to give us an economic lesson. What a joke! I will advise the Leader of the Opposition of the infrastructure costs for the development of Maitland. We will see whether he can explain from where he will get $470 million. The Leader of the Opposition has made a promise that would cost $470 million on top of the $100 million promise made by the member for Vasse. Of course, there are other promises - Point of Order Mr B.K. MASTERS: I have been misrepresented by the Treasurer. Certainly I debated the issue that the Treasurer has raised, but there was no promise or commitment. I do not know what course of action I should take. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! There is definitely no point of order. The member can take the issue up with the Clerks later. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition has also made a promise to retain the eastern bypass in Fremantle. Mr C.J. Barnett: Dead right. Mr E.S. RIPPER: How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition is quite happy to own up to that particular promise. If the Leader of the Opposition is getting into policy mode, he should also get into financial planning mode. When he responds to the budget, I would like him to present his financial plan to Parliament. How will the Leader of the Opposition fund his promises valued at $850 million on his costings, let alone the true cost that is closer to $1.6 billion? In November 2002 the Leader of the Opposition said in a position statement that the Liberal Party would reinstate the application of a land tax exemption for owner-occupied family homes owned by a company or trust, the cost of which will be $11 million. How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition has form on this issue; he wants everything but is not prepared to pay for any aspect of his promises. The Leader of the Opposition is the Imelda Marcos of Western Australia politics. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order!
Mr A.D. McRae: What’s for sale? Mr E.S. RIPPER: Exactly, what is for sale because how will the coalition fund these promises? On ABC radio on 2 September 2002, the shadow Minister for the Environment and Heritage said that because of a land clearing ban, the Opposition intended to offer farmers compensation payments totalling approximately $100 million. Does the Leader of the Opposition endorse that promise? Is that part of his financial plan? Mr C.J. Barnett: I will tell you about it in the matter of public interest debate. Mr E.S. RIPPER: He will not confirm or deny that promise made by the shadow minister. What about the promise made by the Leader of the Opposition? On 24 March 2003 the presenter of the ABC North West morning program said - the Leader of the Opposition did not dispute it - that the Leader of the Opposition had made no bones about the fact that he is firmly committed to the development of the Maitland industrial estate as the site for the construction of future industrial projects in the area. Mr C.J. Barnett: Spot on. Mr E.S. RIPPER: That is a promise the Leader of the Opposition intends to keep. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely. Mr E.S. RIPPER: How will the infrastructure costs be funded? Mr C.J. Barnett: Try it on! Would you like to have a debate on it right now? Let us suspend standing orders and I will give you a lesson in economic development. Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Windimurra man! The Kingstream man! The Oakajee man! The Dampier-to-Bunbury natural gas pipeline privatisation man! That man wants to give this Government a lecture on economic development. The man who was the Minister for Energy during the time that the economy contracted by 1.2 per cent wants to give us an economic lesson. What a joke! I will advise the Leader of the Opposition of the infrastructure costs for the development of Maitland. We will see whether he can explain from where he will get $470 million. The Leader of the Opposition has made a promise that would cost $470 million on top of the $100 million promise made by the member for Vasse. Of course, there are other promises - Point of Order Mr B.K. MASTERS: I have been misrepresented by the Treasurer. Certainly I debated the issue that the Treasurer has raised, but there was no promise or commitment. I do not know what course of action I should take. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! There is definitely no point of order. The member can take the issue up with the Clerks later. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition has also made a promise to retain the eastern bypass in Fremantle. Mr C.J. Barnett: Dead right. Mr E.S. RIPPER: How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition is quite happy to own up to that particular promise. If the Leader of the Opposition is getting into policy mode, he should also get into financial planning mode. When he responds to the budget, I would like him to present his financial plan to Parliament. How will the Leader of the Opposition fund his promises valued at $850 million on his costings, let alone the true cost that is closer to $1.6 billion? In November 2002 the Leader of the Opposition said in a position statement that the Liberal Party would reinstate the application of a land tax exemption for owner-occupied family homes owned by a company or trust, the cost of which will be $11 million. How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition has form on this issue; he wants everything but is not prepared to pay for any aspect of his promises. The Leader of the Opposition is the Imelda Marcos of Western Australia politics. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order!
Mr E.S. RIPPER: Exactly, what is for sale because how will the coalition fund these promises? On ABC radio on 2 September 2002, the shadow Minister for the Environment and Heritage said that because of a land clearing ban, the Opposition intended to offer farmers compensation payments totalling approximately $100 million. Does the Leader of the Opposition endorse that promise? Is that part of his financial plan? Mr C.J. Barnett: I will tell you about it in the matter of public interest debate. Mr E.S. RIPPER: He will not confirm or deny that promise made by the shadow minister. What about the promise made by the Leader of the Opposition? On 24 March 2003 the presenter of the ABC North West morning program said - the Leader of the Opposition did not dispute it - that the Leader of the Opposition had made no bones about the fact that he is firmly committed to the development of the Maitland industrial estate as the site for the construction of future industrial projects in the area. Mr C.J. Barnett: Spot on. Mr E.S. RIPPER: That is a promise the Leader of the Opposition intends to keep. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely. Mr E.S. RIPPER: How will the infrastructure costs be funded? Mr C.J. Barnett: Try it on! Would you like to have a debate on it right now? Let us suspend standing orders and I will give you a lesson in economic development. Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Windimurra man! The Kingstream man! The Oakajee man! The Dampier-to-Bunbury natural gas pipeline privatisation man! That man wants to give this Government a lecture on economic development. The man who was the Minister for Energy during the time that the economy contracted by 1.2 per cent wants to give us an economic lesson. What a joke! I will advise the Leader of the Opposition of the infrastructure costs for the development of Maitland. We will see whether he can explain from where he will get $470 million. The Leader of the Opposition has made a promise that would cost $470 million on top of the $100 million promise made by the member for Vasse. Of course, there are other promises - Point of Order Mr B.K. MASTERS: I have been misrepresented by the Treasurer. Certainly I debated the issue that the Treasurer has raised, but there was no promise or commitment. I do not know what course of action I should take. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! There is definitely no point of order. The member can take the issue up with the Clerks later. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition has also made a promise to retain the eastern bypass in Fremantle. Mr C.J. Barnett: Dead right. Mr E.S. RIPPER: How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition is quite happy to own up to that particular promise. If the Leader of the Opposition is getting into policy mode, he should also get into financial planning mode. When he responds to the budget, I would like him to present his financial plan to Parliament. How will the Leader of the Opposition fund his promises valued at $850 million on his costings, let alone the true cost that is closer to $1.6 billion? In November 2002 the Leader of the Opposition said in a position statement that the Liberal Party would reinstate the application of a land tax exemption for owner-occupied family homes owned by a company or trust, the cost of which will be $11 million. How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition has form on this issue; he wants everything but is not prepared to pay for any aspect of his promises. The Leader of the Opposition is the Imelda Marcos of Western Australia politics. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order!
Mr C.J. Barnett: I will tell you about it in the matter of public interest debate. Mr E.S. RIPPER: He will not confirm or deny that promise made by the shadow minister. What about the promise made by the Leader of the Opposition? On 24 March 2003 the presenter of the ABC North West morning program said - the Leader of the Opposition did not dispute it - that the Leader of the Opposition had made no bones about the fact that he is firmly committed to the development of the Maitland industrial estate as the site for the construction of future industrial projects in the area. Mr C.J. Barnett: Spot on. Mr E.S. RIPPER: That is a promise the Leader of the Opposition intends to keep. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely. Mr E.S. RIPPER: How will the infrastructure costs be funded? Mr C.J. Barnett: Try it on! Would you like to have a debate on it right now? Let us suspend standing orders and I will give you a lesson in economic development. Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Windimurra man! The Kingstream man! The Oakajee man! The Dampier-to-Bunbury natural gas pipeline privatisation man! That man wants to give this Government a lecture on economic development. The man who was the Minister for Energy during the time that the economy contracted by 1.2 per cent wants to give us an economic lesson. What a joke! I will advise the Leader of the Opposition of the infrastructure costs for the development of Maitland. We will see whether he can explain from where he will get $470 million. The Leader of the Opposition has made a promise that would cost $470 million on top of the $100 million promise made by the member for Vasse. Of course, there are other promises - Point of Order Mr B.K. MASTERS: I have been misrepresented by the Treasurer. Certainly I debated the issue that the Treasurer has raised, but there was no promise or commitment. I do not know what course of action I should take. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! There is definitely no point of order. The member can take the issue up with the Clerks later. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition has also made a promise to retain the eastern bypass in Fremantle. Mr C.J. Barnett: Dead right. Mr E.S. RIPPER: How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition is quite happy to own up to that particular promise. If the Leader of the Opposition is getting into policy mode, he should also get into financial planning mode. When he responds to the budget, I would like him to present his financial plan to Parliament. How will the Leader of the Opposition fund his promises valued at $850 million on his costings, let alone the true cost that is closer to $1.6 billion? In November 2002 the Leader of the Opposition said in a position statement that the Liberal Party would reinstate the application of a land tax exemption for owner-occupied family homes owned by a company or trust, the cost of which will be $11 million. How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition has form on this issue; he wants everything but is not prepared to pay for any aspect of his promises. The Leader of the Opposition is the Imelda Marcos of Western Australia politics. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order!
Mr E.S. RIPPER: He will not confirm or deny that promise made by the shadow minister. What about the promise made by the Leader of the Opposition? On 24 March 2003 the presenter of the ABC North West morning program said - the Leader of the Opposition did not dispute it - that the Leader of the Opposition had made no bones about the fact that he is firmly committed to the development of the Maitland industrial estate as the site for the construction of future industrial projects in the area. Mr C.J. Barnett: Spot on. Mr E.S. RIPPER: That is a promise the Leader of the Opposition intends to keep. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely. Mr E.S. RIPPER: How will the infrastructure costs be funded? Mr C.J. Barnett: Try it on! Would you like to have a debate on it right now? Let us suspend standing orders and I will give you a lesson in economic development. Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Windimurra man! The Kingstream man! The Oakajee man! The Dampier-to-Bunbury natural gas pipeline privatisation man! That man wants to give this Government a lecture on economic development. The man who was the Minister for Energy during the time that the economy contracted by 1.2 per cent wants to give us an economic lesson. What a joke! I will advise the Leader of the Opposition of the infrastructure costs for the development of Maitland. We will see whether he can explain from where he will get $470 million. The Leader of the Opposition has made a promise that would cost $470 million on top of the $100 million promise made by the member for Vasse. Of course, there are other promises - Point of Order Mr B.K. MASTERS: I have been misrepresented by the Treasurer. Certainly I debated the issue that the Treasurer has raised, but there was no promise or commitment. I do not know what course of action I should take. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! There is definitely no point of order. The member can take the issue up with the Clerks later. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition has also made a promise to retain the eastern bypass in Fremantle. Mr C.J. Barnett: Dead right. Mr E.S. RIPPER: How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition is quite happy to own up to that particular promise. If the Leader of the Opposition is getting into policy mode, he should also get into financial planning mode. When he responds to the budget, I would like him to present his financial plan to Parliament. How will the Leader of the Opposition fund his promises valued at $850 million on his costings, let alone the true cost that is closer to $1.6 billion? In November 2002 the Leader of the Opposition said in a position statement that the Liberal Party would reinstate the application of a land tax exemption for owner-occupied family homes owned by a company or trust, the cost of which will be $11 million. How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition has form on this issue; he wants everything but is not prepared to pay for any aspect of his promises. The Leader of the Opposition is the Imelda Marcos of Western Australia politics. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order!
What about the promise made by the Leader of the Opposition? On 24 March 2003 the presenter of the ABC North West morning program said - the Leader of the Opposition did not dispute it - that the Leader of the Opposition had made no bones about the fact that he is firmly committed to the development of the Maitland industrial estate as the site for the construction of future industrial projects in the area. Mr C.J. Barnett: Spot on. Mr E.S. RIPPER: That is a promise the Leader of the Opposition intends to keep. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely. Mr E.S. RIPPER: How will the infrastructure costs be funded? Mr C.J. Barnett: Try it on! Would you like to have a debate on it right now? Let us suspend standing orders and I will give you a lesson in economic development. Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Windimurra man! The Kingstream man! The Oakajee man! The Dampier-to-Bunbury natural gas pipeline privatisation man! That man wants to give this Government a lecture on economic development. The man who was the Minister for Energy during the time that the economy contracted by 1.2 per cent wants to give us an economic lesson. What a joke! I will advise the Leader of the Opposition of the infrastructure costs for the development of Maitland. We will see whether he can explain from where he will get $470 million. The Leader of the Opposition has made a promise that would cost $470 million on top of the $100 million promise made by the member for Vasse. Of course, there are other promises - Point of Order Mr B.K. MASTERS: I have been misrepresented by the Treasurer. Certainly I debated the issue that the Treasurer has raised, but there was no promise or commitment. I do not know what course of action I should take. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! There is definitely no point of order. The member can take the issue up with the Clerks later. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition has also made a promise to retain the eastern bypass in Fremantle. Mr C.J. Barnett: Dead right. Mr E.S. RIPPER: How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition is quite happy to own up to that particular promise. If the Leader of the Opposition is getting into policy mode, he should also get into financial planning mode. When he responds to the budget, I would like him to present his financial plan to Parliament. How will the Leader of the Opposition fund his promises valued at $850 million on his costings, let alone the true cost that is closer to $1.6 billion? In November 2002 the Leader of the Opposition said in a position statement that the Liberal Party would reinstate the application of a land tax exemption for owner-occupied family homes owned by a company or trust, the cost of which will be $11 million. How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition has form on this issue; he wants everything but is not prepared to pay for any aspect of his promises. The Leader of the Opposition is the Imelda Marcos of Western Australia politics. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order!
Mr C.J. Barnett: Spot on. Mr E.S. RIPPER: That is a promise the Leader of the Opposition intends to keep. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely. Mr E.S. RIPPER: How will the infrastructure costs be funded? Mr C.J. Barnett: Try it on! Would you like to have a debate on it right now? Let us suspend standing orders and I will give you a lesson in economic development. Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Windimurra man! The Kingstream man! The Oakajee man! The Dampier-to-Bunbury natural gas pipeline privatisation man! That man wants to give this Government a lecture on economic development. The man who was the Minister for Energy during the time that the economy contracted by 1.2 per cent wants to give us an economic lesson. What a joke! I will advise the Leader of the Opposition of the infrastructure costs for the development of Maitland. We will see whether he can explain from where he will get $470 million. The Leader of the Opposition has made a promise that would cost $470 million on top of the $100 million promise made by the member for Vasse. Of course, there are other promises - Point of Order Mr B.K. MASTERS: I have been misrepresented by the Treasurer. Certainly I debated the issue that the Treasurer has raised, but there was no promise or commitment. I do not know what course of action I should take. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! There is definitely no point of order. The member can take the issue up with the Clerks later. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition has also made a promise to retain the eastern bypass in Fremantle. Mr C.J. Barnett: Dead right. Mr E.S. RIPPER: How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition is quite happy to own up to that particular promise. If the Leader of the Opposition is getting into policy mode, he should also get into financial planning mode. When he responds to the budget, I would like him to present his financial plan to Parliament. How will the Leader of the Opposition fund his promises valued at $850 million on his costings, let alone the true cost that is closer to $1.6 billion? In November 2002 the Leader of the Opposition said in a position statement that the Liberal Party would reinstate the application of a land tax exemption for owner-occupied family homes owned by a company or trust, the cost of which will be $11 million. How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition has form on this issue; he wants everything but is not prepared to pay for any aspect of his promises. The Leader of the Opposition is the Imelda Marcos of Western Australia politics. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order!
Mr E.S. RIPPER: That is a promise the Leader of the Opposition intends to keep. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely. Mr E.S. RIPPER: How will the infrastructure costs be funded? Mr C.J. Barnett: Try it on! Would you like to have a debate on it right now? Let us suspend standing orders and I will give you a lesson in economic development. Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Windimurra man! The Kingstream man! The Oakajee man! The Dampier-to-Bunbury natural gas pipeline privatisation man! That man wants to give this Government a lecture on economic development. The man who was the Minister for Energy during the time that the economy contracted by 1.2 per cent wants to give us an economic lesson. What a joke! I will advise the Leader of the Opposition of the infrastructure costs for the development of Maitland. We will see whether he can explain from where he will get $470 million. The Leader of the Opposition has made a promise that would cost $470 million on top of the $100 million promise made by the member for Vasse. Of course, there are other promises - Point of Order Mr B.K. MASTERS: I have been misrepresented by the Treasurer. Certainly I debated the issue that the Treasurer has raised, but there was no promise or commitment. I do not know what course of action I should take. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! There is definitely no point of order. The member can take the issue up with the Clerks later. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition has also made a promise to retain the eastern bypass in Fremantle. Mr C.J. Barnett: Dead right. Mr E.S. RIPPER: How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition is quite happy to own up to that particular promise. If the Leader of the Opposition is getting into policy mode, he should also get into financial planning mode. When he responds to the budget, I would like him to present his financial plan to Parliament. How will the Leader of the Opposition fund his promises valued at $850 million on his costings, let alone the true cost that is closer to $1.6 billion? In November 2002 the Leader of the Opposition said in a position statement that the Liberal Party would reinstate the application of a land tax exemption for owner-occupied family homes owned by a company or trust, the cost of which will be $11 million. How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition has form on this issue; he wants everything but is not prepared to pay for any aspect of his promises. The Leader of the Opposition is the Imelda Marcos of Western Australia politics. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order!
Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely. Mr E.S. RIPPER: How will the infrastructure costs be funded? Mr C.J. Barnett: Try it on! Would you like to have a debate on it right now? Let us suspend standing orders and I will give you a lesson in economic development. Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Windimurra man! The Kingstream man! The Oakajee man! The Dampier-to-Bunbury natural gas pipeline privatisation man! That man wants to give this Government a lecture on economic development. The man who was the Minister for Energy during the time that the economy contracted by 1.2 per cent wants to give us an economic lesson. What a joke! I will advise the Leader of the Opposition of the infrastructure costs for the development of Maitland. We will see whether he can explain from where he will get $470 million. The Leader of the Opposition has made a promise that would cost $470 million on top of the $100 million promise made by the member for Vasse. Of course, there are other promises - Point of Order Mr B.K. MASTERS: I have been misrepresented by the Treasurer. Certainly I debated the issue that the Treasurer has raised, but there was no promise or commitment. I do not know what course of action I should take. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! There is definitely no point of order. The member can take the issue up with the Clerks later. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition has also made a promise to retain the eastern bypass in Fremantle. Mr C.J. Barnett: Dead right. Mr E.S. RIPPER: How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition is quite happy to own up to that particular promise. If the Leader of the Opposition is getting into policy mode, he should also get into financial planning mode. When he responds to the budget, I would like him to present his financial plan to Parliament. How will the Leader of the Opposition fund his promises valued at $850 million on his costings, let alone the true cost that is closer to $1.6 billion? In November 2002 the Leader of the Opposition said in a position statement that the Liberal Party would reinstate the application of a land tax exemption for owner-occupied family homes owned by a company or trust, the cost of which will be $11 million. How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition has form on this issue; he wants everything but is not prepared to pay for any aspect of his promises. The Leader of the Opposition is the Imelda Marcos of Western Australia politics. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order!
Mr E.S. RIPPER: How will the infrastructure costs be funded? Mr C.J. Barnett: Try it on! Would you like to have a debate on it right now? Let us suspend standing orders and I will give you a lesson in economic development. Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Windimurra man! The Kingstream man! The Oakajee man! The Dampier-to-Bunbury natural gas pipeline privatisation man! That man wants to give this Government a lecture on economic development. The man who was the Minister for Energy during the time that the economy contracted by 1.2 per cent wants to give us an economic lesson. What a joke! I will advise the Leader of the Opposition of the infrastructure costs for the development of Maitland. We will see whether he can explain from where he will get $470 million. The Leader of the Opposition has made a promise that would cost $470 million on top of the $100 million promise made by the member for Vasse. Of course, there are other promises - Point of Order Mr B.K. MASTERS: I have been misrepresented by the Treasurer. Certainly I debated the issue that the Treasurer has raised, but there was no promise or commitment. I do not know what course of action I should take. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! There is definitely no point of order. The member can take the issue up with the Clerks later. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition has also made a promise to retain the eastern bypass in Fremantle. Mr C.J. Barnett: Dead right. Mr E.S. RIPPER: How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition is quite happy to own up to that particular promise. If the Leader of the Opposition is getting into policy mode, he should also get into financial planning mode. When he responds to the budget, I would like him to present his financial plan to Parliament. How will the Leader of the Opposition fund his promises valued at $850 million on his costings, let alone the true cost that is closer to $1.6 billion? In November 2002 the Leader of the Opposition said in a position statement that the Liberal Party would reinstate the application of a land tax exemption for owner-occupied family homes owned by a company or trust, the cost of which will be $11 million. How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition has form on this issue; he wants everything but is not prepared to pay for any aspect of his promises. The Leader of the Opposition is the Imelda Marcos of Western Australia politics. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order!
Mr C.J. Barnett: Try it on! Would you like to have a debate on it right now? Let us suspend standing orders and I will give you a lesson in economic development. Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Windimurra man! The Kingstream man! The Oakajee man! The Dampier-to-Bunbury natural gas pipeline privatisation man! That man wants to give this Government a lecture on economic development. The man who was the Minister for Energy during the time that the economy contracted by 1.2 per cent wants to give us an economic lesson. What a joke! I will advise the Leader of the Opposition of the infrastructure costs for the development of Maitland. We will see whether he can explain from where he will get $470 million. The Leader of the Opposition has made a promise that would cost $470 million on top of the $100 million promise made by the member for Vasse. Of course, there are other promises - Point of Order Mr B.K. MASTERS: I have been misrepresented by the Treasurer. Certainly I debated the issue that the Treasurer has raised, but there was no promise or commitment. I do not know what course of action I should take. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! There is definitely no point of order. The member can take the issue up with the Clerks later. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition has also made a promise to retain the eastern bypass in Fremantle. Mr C.J. Barnett: Dead right. Mr E.S. RIPPER: How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition is quite happy to own up to that particular promise. If the Leader of the Opposition is getting into policy mode, he should also get into financial planning mode. When he responds to the budget, I would like him to present his financial plan to Parliament. How will the Leader of the Opposition fund his promises valued at $850 million on his costings, let alone the true cost that is closer to $1.6 billion? In November 2002 the Leader of the Opposition said in a position statement that the Liberal Party would reinstate the application of a land tax exemption for owner-occupied family homes owned by a company or trust, the cost of which will be $11 million. How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition has form on this issue; he wants everything but is not prepared to pay for any aspect of his promises. The Leader of the Opposition is the Imelda Marcos of Western Australia politics. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order!
Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Windimurra man! The Kingstream man! The Oakajee man! The Dampier-to-Bunbury natural gas pipeline privatisation man! That man wants to give this Government a lecture on economic development. The man who was the Minister for Energy during the time that the economy contracted by 1.2 per cent wants to give us an economic lesson. What a joke! I will advise the Leader of the Opposition of the infrastructure costs for the development of Maitland. We will see whether he can explain from where he will get $470 million. The Leader of the Opposition has made a promise that would cost $470 million on top of the $100 million promise made by the member for Vasse. Of course, there are other promises - Point of Order Mr B.K. MASTERS: I have been misrepresented by the Treasurer. Certainly I debated the issue that the Treasurer has raised, but there was no promise or commitment. I do not know what course of action I should take. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! There is definitely no point of order. The member can take the issue up with the Clerks later. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition has also made a promise to retain the eastern bypass in Fremantle. Mr C.J. Barnett: Dead right. Mr E.S. RIPPER: How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition is quite happy to own up to that particular promise. If the Leader of the Opposition is getting into policy mode, he should also get into financial planning mode. When he responds to the budget, I would like him to present his financial plan to Parliament. How will the Leader of the Opposition fund his promises valued at $850 million on his costings, let alone the true cost that is closer to $1.6 billion? In November 2002 the Leader of the Opposition said in a position statement that the Liberal Party would reinstate the application of a land tax exemption for owner-occupied family homes owned by a company or trust, the cost of which will be $11 million. How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition has form on this issue; he wants everything but is not prepared to pay for any aspect of his promises. The Leader of the Opposition is the Imelda Marcos of Western Australia politics. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order!
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! There is definitely no point of order. The member can take the issue up with the Clerks later. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition has also made a promise to retain the eastern bypass in Fremantle. Mr C.J. Barnett: Dead right. Mr E.S. RIPPER: How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition is quite happy to own up to that particular promise. If the Leader of the Opposition is getting into policy mode, he should also get into financial planning mode. When he responds to the budget, I would like him to present his financial plan to Parliament. How will the Leader of the Opposition fund his promises valued at $850 million on his costings, let alone the true cost that is closer to $1.6 billion? In November 2002 the Leader of the Opposition said in a position statement that the Liberal Party would reinstate the application of a land tax exemption for owner-occupied family homes owned by a company or trust, the cost of which will be $11 million. How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition has form on this issue; he wants everything but is not prepared to pay for any aspect of his promises. The Leader of the Opposition is the Imelda Marcos of Western Australia politics. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order!
The SPEAKER: Members! There is definitely no point of order. The member can take the issue up with the Clerks later. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition has also made a promise to retain the eastern bypass in Fremantle. Mr C.J. Barnett: Dead right. Mr E.S. RIPPER: How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition is quite happy to own up to that particular promise. If the Leader of the Opposition is getting into policy mode, he should also get into financial planning mode. When he responds to the budget, I would like him to present his financial plan to Parliament. How will the Leader of the Opposition fund his promises valued at $850 million on his costings, let alone the true cost that is closer to $1.6 billion? In November 2002 the Leader of the Opposition said in a position statement that the Liberal Party would reinstate the application of a land tax exemption for owner-occupied family homes owned by a company or trust, the cost of which will be $11 million. How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition has form on this issue; he wants everything but is not prepared to pay for any aspect of his promises. The Leader of the Opposition is the Imelda Marcos of Western Australia politics. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order!
Mr C.J. Barnett: Dead right. Mr E.S. RIPPER: How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition is quite happy to own up to that particular promise. If the Leader of the Opposition is getting into policy mode, he should also get into financial planning mode. When he responds to the budget, I would like him to present his financial plan to Parliament. How will the Leader of the Opposition fund his promises valued at $850 million on his costings, let alone the true cost that is closer to $1.6 billion? In November 2002 the Leader of the Opposition said in a position statement that the Liberal Party would reinstate the application of a land tax exemption for owner-occupied family homes owned by a company or trust, the cost of which will be $11 million. How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition has form on this issue; he wants everything but is not prepared to pay for any aspect of his promises. The Leader of the Opposition is the Imelda Marcos of Western Australia politics. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order!
Mr E.S. RIPPER: How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition is quite happy to own up to that particular promise. If the Leader of the Opposition is getting into policy mode, he should also get into financial planning mode. When he responds to the budget, I would like him to present his financial plan to Parliament. How will the Leader of the Opposition fund his promises valued at $850 million on his costings, let alone the true cost that is closer to $1.6 billion? In November 2002 the Leader of the Opposition said in a position statement that the Liberal Party would reinstate the application of a land tax exemption for owner-occupied family homes owned by a company or trust, the cost of which will be $11 million. How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition has form on this issue; he wants everything but is not prepared to pay for any aspect of his promises. The Leader of the Opposition is the Imelda Marcos of Western Australia politics. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order!
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order!
The SPEAKER: Order!
Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: I thank the member for her question. The budget task this year has been very difficult and I have warned Western Australians that it will be a tough budget. The Government has had to deal with a number of underlying pressures. One is that the oil price is not expected to be as buoyant next year as it was this year. Consequently, we can expect lower petroleum royalties. The second factor was referred to by the Premier earlier in question time. Commonwealth grants to the State Government are expected to grow by only 0.9 per cent, which is a cut in real terms. That really shows how much or how little John Howard cares for Western Australia, the economic powerhouse of the nation. The third reason - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: It is disorderly to have interchange across the Chamber when the Treasurer is trying to give an answer. Mr E.S. RIPPER: The third reason for this and the previous two budgets being tough is the legacy that this Government inherited from the previous Government. As I already indicated, the previous Government delivered five deficits in eight budgets and it forecast two more in the pre-election forward estimates, which this Government has had to turn around. Even more irritatingly - to put it mildly - the previous Government did not properly fund its commitments. The coalition’s financial projections given at the beginning of the election campaign were rubbery to say the least. One example is the information and communications projects in the Police Service. You will remember, Mr Speaker, that those commitments were embarked upon without full funding. They were based not on the strength of budget plans or estimates, but on a letter of authority given to the Commissioner of Police by the former Premier. That is how the previous Government budgeted; it had IOUs all over the place. I regret to say that members from the previous Government are at it again. They have not learnt from the lessons of their financial mismanagement. We have documented more than $850 million of promises by Liberal and National Party members over the last two years on the basis of their costings. Our estimates put the price tag on their promises in only two and a bit years of being in opposition closer to $1.6 billion. Mr A.D. McRae: What’s for sale? Mr E.S. RIPPER: Exactly, what is for sale because how will the coalition fund these promises? On ABC radio on 2 September 2002, the shadow Minister for the Environment and Heritage said that because of a land clearing ban, the Opposition intended to offer farmers compensation payments totalling approximately $100 million. Does the Leader of the Opposition endorse that promise? Is that part of his financial plan? Mr C.J. Barnett: I will tell you about it in the matter of public interest debate. Mr E.S. RIPPER: He will not confirm or deny that promise made by the shadow minister. What about the promise made by the Leader of the Opposition? On 24 March 2003 the presenter of the ABC North West morning program said - the Leader of the Opposition did not dispute it - that the Leader of the Opposition had made no bones about the fact that he is firmly committed to the development of the Maitland industrial estate as the site for the construction of future industrial projects in the area. Mr C.J. Barnett: Spot on. Mr E.S. RIPPER: That is a promise the Leader of the Opposition intends to keep. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely. Mr E.S. RIPPER: How will the infrastructure costs be funded? Mr C.J. Barnett: Try it on! Would you like to have a debate on it right now? Let us suspend standing orders and I will give you a lesson in economic development. Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Windimurra man! The Kingstream man! The Oakajee man! The Dampier-to-Bunbury natural gas pipeline privatisation man! That man wants to give this Government a lecture on economic development. The man who was the Minister for Energy during the time that the economy contracted by 1.2 per cent wants to give us an economic lesson. What a joke! I will advise the Leader of the Opposition of the infrastructure costs for the development of Maitland. We will see whether he can explain from where he will get $470 million. The Leader of the Opposition has made a promise that would cost $470 million on top of the $100 million promise made by the member for Vasse. Of course, there are other promises - Point of Order Mr B.K. MASTERS: I have been misrepresented by the Treasurer. Certainly I debated the issue that the Treasurer has raised, but there was no promise or commitment. I do not know what course of action I should take. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! There is definitely no point of order. The member can take the issue up with the Clerks later. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition has also made a promise to retain the eastern bypass in Fremantle. Mr C.J. Barnett: Dead right. Mr E.S. RIPPER: How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition is quite happy to own up to that particular promise. If the Leader of the Opposition is getting into policy mode, he should also get into financial planning mode. When he responds to the budget, I would like him to present his financial plan to Parliament. How will the Leader of the Opposition fund his promises valued at $850 million on his costings, let alone the true cost that is closer to $1.6 billion? In November 2002 the Leader of the Opposition said in a position statement that the Liberal Party would reinstate the application of a land tax exemption for owner-occupied family homes owned by a company or trust, the cost of which will be $11 million. How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition has form on this issue; he wants everything but is not prepared to pay for any aspect of his promises. The Leader of the Opposition is the Imelda Marcos of Western Australia politics. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order!
I thank the member for her question. The budget task this year has been very difficult and I have warned Western Australians that it will be a tough budget. The Government has had to deal with a number of underlying pressures. One is that the oil price is not expected to be as buoyant next year as it was this year. Consequently, we can expect lower petroleum royalties. The second factor was referred to by the Premier earlier in question time. Commonwealth grants to the State Government are expected to grow by only 0.9 per cent, which is a cut in real terms. That really shows how much or how little John Howard cares for Western Australia, the economic powerhouse of the nation. The third reason - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: It is disorderly to have interchange across the Chamber when the Treasurer is trying to give an answer. Mr E.S. RIPPER: The third reason for this and the previous two budgets being tough is the legacy that this Government inherited from the previous Government. As I already indicated, the previous Government delivered five deficits in eight budgets and it forecast two more in the pre-election forward estimates, which this Government has had to turn around. Even more irritatingly - to put it mildly - the previous Government did not properly fund its commitments. The coalition’s financial projections given at the beginning of the election campaign were rubbery to say the least. One example is the information and communications projects in the Police Service. You will remember, Mr Speaker, that those commitments were embarked upon without full funding. They were based not on the strength of budget plans or estimates, but on a letter of authority given to the Commissioner of Police by the former Premier. That is how the previous Government budgeted; it had IOUs all over the place. I regret to say that members from the previous Government are at it again. They have not learnt from the lessons of their financial mismanagement. We have documented more than $850 million of promises by Liberal and National Party members over the last two years on the basis of their costings. Our estimates put the price tag on their promises in only two and a bit years of being in opposition closer to $1.6 billion. Mr A.D. McRae: What’s for sale? Mr E.S. RIPPER: Exactly, what is for sale because how will the coalition fund these promises? On ABC radio on 2 September 2002, the shadow Minister for the Environment and Heritage said that because of a land clearing ban, the Opposition intended to offer farmers compensation payments totalling approximately $100 million. Does the Leader of the Opposition endorse that promise? Is that part of his financial plan? Mr C.J. Barnett: I will tell you about it in the matter of public interest debate. Mr E.S. RIPPER: He will not confirm or deny that promise made by the shadow minister. What about the promise made by the Leader of the Opposition? On 24 March 2003 the presenter of the ABC North West morning program said - the Leader of the Opposition did not dispute it - that the Leader of the Opposition had made no bones about the fact that he is firmly committed to the development of the Maitland industrial estate as the site for the construction of future industrial projects in the area. Mr C.J. Barnett: Spot on. Mr E.S. RIPPER: That is a promise the Leader of the Opposition intends to keep. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely. Mr E.S. RIPPER: How will the infrastructure costs be funded? Mr C.J. Barnett: Try it on! Would you like to have a debate on it right now? Let us suspend standing orders and I will give you a lesson in economic development. Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Windimurra man! The Kingstream man! The Oakajee man! The Dampier-to-Bunbury natural gas pipeline privatisation man! That man wants to give this Government a lecture on economic development. The man who was the Minister for Energy during the time that the economy contracted by 1.2 per cent wants to give us an economic lesson. What a joke! I will advise the Leader of the Opposition of the infrastructure costs for the development of Maitland. We will see whether he can explain from where he will get $470 million. The Leader of the Opposition has made a promise that would cost $470 million on top of the $100 million promise made by the member for Vasse. Of course, there are other promises - Point of Order Mr B.K. MASTERS: I have been misrepresented by the Treasurer. Certainly I debated the issue that the Treasurer has raised, but there was no promise or commitment. I do not know what course of action I should take. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! There is definitely no point of order. The member can take the issue up with the Clerks later. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition has also made a promise to retain the eastern bypass in Fremantle. Mr C.J. Barnett: Dead right. Mr E.S. RIPPER: How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition is quite happy to own up to that particular promise. If the Leader of the Opposition is getting into policy mode, he should also get into financial planning mode. When he responds to the budget, I would like him to present his financial plan to Parliament. How will the Leader of the Opposition fund his promises valued at $850 million on his costings, let alone the true cost that is closer to $1.6 billion? In November 2002 the Leader of the Opposition said in a position statement that the Liberal Party would reinstate the application of a land tax exemption for owner-occupied family homes owned by a company or trust, the cost of which will be $11 million. How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition has form on this issue; he wants everything but is not prepared to pay for any aspect of his promises. The Leader of the Opposition is the Imelda Marcos of Western Australia politics. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order!
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: It is disorderly to have interchange across the Chamber when the Treasurer is trying to give an answer. Mr E.S. RIPPER: The third reason for this and the previous two budgets being tough is the legacy that this Government inherited from the previous Government. As I already indicated, the previous Government delivered five deficits in eight budgets and it forecast two more in the pre-election forward estimates, which this Government has had to turn around. Even more irritatingly - to put it mildly - the previous Government did not properly fund its commitments. The coalition’s financial projections given at the beginning of the election campaign were rubbery to say the least. One example is the information and communications projects in the Police Service. You will remember, Mr Speaker, that those commitments were embarked upon without full funding. They were based not on the strength of budget plans or estimates, but on a letter of authority given to the Commissioner of Police by the former Premier. That is how the previous Government budgeted; it had IOUs all over the place. I regret to say that members from the previous Government are at it again. They have not learnt from the lessons of their financial mismanagement. We have documented more than $850 million of promises by Liberal and National Party members over the last two years on the basis of their costings. Our estimates put the price tag on their promises in only two and a bit years of being in opposition closer to $1.6 billion. Mr A.D. McRae: What’s for sale? Mr E.S. RIPPER: Exactly, what is for sale because how will the coalition fund these promises? On ABC radio on 2 September 2002, the shadow Minister for the Environment and Heritage said that because of a land clearing ban, the Opposition intended to offer farmers compensation payments totalling approximately $100 million. Does the Leader of the Opposition endorse that promise? Is that part of his financial plan? Mr C.J. Barnett: I will tell you about it in the matter of public interest debate. Mr E.S. RIPPER: He will not confirm or deny that promise made by the shadow minister. What about the promise made by the Leader of the Opposition? On 24 March 2003 the presenter of the ABC North West morning program said - the Leader of the Opposition did not dispute it - that the Leader of the Opposition had made no bones about the fact that he is firmly committed to the development of the Maitland industrial estate as the site for the construction of future industrial projects in the area. Mr C.J. Barnett: Spot on. Mr E.S. RIPPER: That is a promise the Leader of the Opposition intends to keep. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely. Mr E.S. RIPPER: How will the infrastructure costs be funded? Mr C.J. Barnett: Try it on! Would you like to have a debate on it right now? Let us suspend standing orders and I will give you a lesson in economic development. Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Windimurra man! The Kingstream man! The Oakajee man! The Dampier-to-Bunbury natural gas pipeline privatisation man! That man wants to give this Government a lecture on economic development. The man who was the Minister for Energy during the time that the economy contracted by 1.2 per cent wants to give us an economic lesson. What a joke! I will advise the Leader of the Opposition of the infrastructure costs for the development of Maitland. We will see whether he can explain from where he will get $470 million. The Leader of the Opposition has made a promise that would cost $470 million on top of the $100 million promise made by the member for Vasse. Of course, there are other promises - Point of Order Mr B.K. MASTERS: I have been misrepresented by the Treasurer. Certainly I debated the issue that the Treasurer has raised, but there was no promise or commitment. I do not know what course of action I should take. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! There is definitely no point of order. The member can take the issue up with the Clerks later. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition has also made a promise to retain the eastern bypass in Fremantle. Mr C.J. Barnett: Dead right. Mr E.S. RIPPER: How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition is quite happy to own up to that particular promise. If the Leader of the Opposition is getting into policy mode, he should also get into financial planning mode. When he responds to the budget, I would like him to present his financial plan to Parliament. How will the Leader of the Opposition fund his promises valued at $850 million on his costings, let alone the true cost that is closer to $1.6 billion? In November 2002 the Leader of the Opposition said in a position statement that the Liberal Party would reinstate the application of a land tax exemption for owner-occupied family homes owned by a company or trust, the cost of which will be $11 million. How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition has form on this issue; he wants everything but is not prepared to pay for any aspect of his promises. The Leader of the Opposition is the Imelda Marcos of Western Australia politics. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order!
The SPEAKER: It is disorderly to have interchange across the Chamber when the Treasurer is trying to give an answer. Mr E.S. RIPPER: The third reason for this and the previous two budgets being tough is the legacy that this Government inherited from the previous Government. As I already indicated, the previous Government delivered five deficits in eight budgets and it forecast two more in the pre-election forward estimates, which this Government has had to turn around. Even more irritatingly - to put it mildly - the previous Government did not properly fund its commitments. The coalition’s financial projections given at the beginning of the election campaign were rubbery to say the least. One example is the information and communications projects in the Police Service. You will remember, Mr Speaker, that those commitments were embarked upon without full funding. They were based not on the strength of budget plans or estimates, but on a letter of authority given to the Commissioner of Police by the former Premier. That is how the previous Government budgeted; it had IOUs all over the place. I regret to say that members from the previous Government are at it again. They have not learnt from the lessons of their financial mismanagement. We have documented more than $850 million of promises by Liberal and National Party members over the last two years on the basis of their costings. Our estimates put the price tag on their promises in only two and a bit years of being in opposition closer to $1.6 billion. Mr A.D. McRae: What’s for sale? Mr E.S. RIPPER: Exactly, what is for sale because how will the coalition fund these promises? On ABC radio on 2 September 2002, the shadow Minister for the Environment and Heritage said that because of a land clearing ban, the Opposition intended to offer farmers compensation payments totalling approximately $100 million. Does the Leader of the Opposition endorse that promise? Is that part of his financial plan? Mr C.J. Barnett: I will tell you about it in the matter of public interest debate. Mr E.S. RIPPER: He will not confirm or deny that promise made by the shadow minister. What about the promise made by the Leader of the Opposition? On 24 March 2003 the presenter of the ABC North West morning program said - the Leader of the Opposition did not dispute it - that the Leader of the Opposition had made no bones about the fact that he is firmly committed to the development of the Maitland industrial estate as the site for the construction of future industrial projects in the area. Mr C.J. Barnett: Spot on. Mr E.S. RIPPER: That is a promise the Leader of the Opposition intends to keep. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely. Mr E.S. RIPPER: How will the infrastructure costs be funded? Mr C.J. Barnett: Try it on! Would you like to have a debate on it right now? Let us suspend standing orders and I will give you a lesson in economic development. Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Windimurra man! The Kingstream man! The Oakajee man! The Dampier-to-Bunbury natural gas pipeline privatisation man! That man wants to give this Government a lecture on economic development. The man who was the Minister for Energy during the time that the economy contracted by 1.2 per cent wants to give us an economic lesson. What a joke! I will advise the Leader of the Opposition of the infrastructure costs for the development of Maitland. We will see whether he can explain from where he will get $470 million. The Leader of the Opposition has made a promise that would cost $470 million on top of the $100 million promise made by the member for Vasse. Of course, there are other promises - Point of Order Mr B.K. MASTERS: I have been misrepresented by the Treasurer. Certainly I debated the issue that the Treasurer has raised, but there was no promise or commitment. I do not know what course of action I should take. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! There is definitely no point of order. The member can take the issue up with the Clerks later. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition has also made a promise to retain the eastern bypass in Fremantle. Mr C.J. Barnett: Dead right. Mr E.S. RIPPER: How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition is quite happy to own up to that particular promise. If the Leader of the Opposition is getting into policy mode, he should also get into financial planning mode. When he responds to the budget, I would like him to present his financial plan to Parliament. How will the Leader of the Opposition fund his promises valued at $850 million on his costings, let alone the true cost that is closer to $1.6 billion? In November 2002 the Leader of the Opposition said in a position statement that the Liberal Party would reinstate the application of a land tax exemption for owner-occupied family homes owned by a company or trust, the cost of which will be $11 million. How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition has form on this issue; he wants everything but is not prepared to pay for any aspect of his promises. The Leader of the Opposition is the Imelda Marcos of Western Australia politics. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order!
Mr E.S. RIPPER: The third reason for this and the previous two budgets being tough is the legacy that this Government inherited from the previous Government. As I already indicated, the previous Government delivered five deficits in eight budgets and it forecast two more in the pre-election forward estimates, which this Government has had to turn around. Even more irritatingly - to put it mildly - the previous Government did not properly fund its commitments. The coalition’s financial projections given at the beginning of the election campaign were rubbery to say the least. One example is the information and communications projects in the Police Service. You will remember, Mr Speaker, that those commitments were embarked upon without full funding. They were based not on the strength of budget plans or estimates, but on a letter of authority given to the Commissioner of Police by the former Premier. That is how the previous Government budgeted; it had IOUs all over the place. I regret to say that members from the previous Government are at it again. They have not learnt from the lessons of their financial mismanagement. We have documented more than $850 million of promises by Liberal and National Party members over the last two years on the basis of their costings. Our estimates put the price tag on their promises in only two and a bit years of being in opposition closer to $1.6 billion. Mr A.D. McRae: What’s for sale? Mr E.S. RIPPER: Exactly, what is for sale because how will the coalition fund these promises? On ABC radio on 2 September 2002, the shadow Minister for the Environment and Heritage said that because of a land clearing ban, the Opposition intended to offer farmers compensation payments totalling approximately $100 million. Does the Leader of the Opposition endorse that promise? Is that part of his financial plan? Mr C.J. Barnett: I will tell you about it in the matter of public interest debate. Mr E.S. RIPPER: He will not confirm or deny that promise made by the shadow minister. What about the promise made by the Leader of the Opposition? On 24 March 2003 the presenter of the ABC North West morning program said - the Leader of the Opposition did not dispute it - that the Leader of the Opposition had made no bones about the fact that he is firmly committed to the development of the Maitland industrial estate as the site for the construction of future industrial projects in the area. Mr C.J. Barnett: Spot on. Mr E.S. RIPPER: That is a promise the Leader of the Opposition intends to keep. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely. Mr E.S. RIPPER: How will the infrastructure costs be funded? Mr C.J. Barnett: Try it on! Would you like to have a debate on it right now? Let us suspend standing orders and I will give you a lesson in economic development. Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Windimurra man! The Kingstream man! The Oakajee man! The Dampier-to-Bunbury natural gas pipeline privatisation man! That man wants to give this Government a lecture on economic development. The man who was the Minister for Energy during the time that the economy contracted by 1.2 per cent wants to give us an economic lesson. What a joke! I will advise the Leader of the Opposition of the infrastructure costs for the development of Maitland. We will see whether he can explain from where he will get $470 million. The Leader of the Opposition has made a promise that would cost $470 million on top of the $100 million promise made by the member for Vasse. Of course, there are other promises - Point of Order Mr B.K. MASTERS: I have been misrepresented by the Treasurer. Certainly I debated the issue that the Treasurer has raised, but there was no promise or commitment. I do not know what course of action I should take. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! There is definitely no point of order. The member can take the issue up with the Clerks later. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition has also made a promise to retain the eastern bypass in Fremantle. Mr C.J. Barnett: Dead right. Mr E.S. RIPPER: How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition is quite happy to own up to that particular promise. If the Leader of the Opposition is getting into policy mode, he should also get into financial planning mode. When he responds to the budget, I would like him to present his financial plan to Parliament. How will the Leader of the Opposition fund his promises valued at $850 million on his costings, let alone the true cost that is closer to $1.6 billion? In November 2002 the Leader of the Opposition said in a position statement that the Liberal Party would reinstate the application of a land tax exemption for owner-occupied family homes owned by a company or trust, the cost of which will be $11 million. How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition has form on this issue; he wants everything but is not prepared to pay for any aspect of his promises. The Leader of the Opposition is the Imelda Marcos of Western Australia politics. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order!
I regret to say that members from the previous Government are at it again. They have not learnt from the lessons of their financial mismanagement. We have documented more than $850 million of promises by Liberal and National Party members over the last two years on the basis of their costings. Our estimates put the price tag on their promises in only two and a bit years of being in opposition closer to $1.6 billion. Mr A.D. McRae: What’s for sale? Mr E.S. RIPPER: Exactly, what is for sale because how will the coalition fund these promises? On ABC radio on 2 September 2002, the shadow Minister for the Environment and Heritage said that because of a land clearing ban, the Opposition intended to offer farmers compensation payments totalling approximately $100 million. Does the Leader of the Opposition endorse that promise? Is that part of his financial plan? Mr C.J. Barnett: I will tell you about it in the matter of public interest debate. Mr E.S. RIPPER: He will not confirm or deny that promise made by the shadow minister. What about the promise made by the Leader of the Opposition? On 24 March 2003 the presenter of the ABC North West morning program said - the Leader of the Opposition did not dispute it - that the Leader of the Opposition had made no bones about the fact that he is firmly committed to the development of the Maitland industrial estate as the site for the construction of future industrial projects in the area. Mr C.J. Barnett: Spot on. Mr E.S. RIPPER: That is a promise the Leader of the Opposition intends to keep. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely. Mr E.S. RIPPER: How will the infrastructure costs be funded? Mr C.J. Barnett: Try it on! Would you like to have a debate on it right now? Let us suspend standing orders and I will give you a lesson in economic development. Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Windimurra man! The Kingstream man! The Oakajee man! The Dampier-to-Bunbury natural gas pipeline privatisation man! That man wants to give this Government a lecture on economic development. The man who was the Minister for Energy during the time that the economy contracted by 1.2 per cent wants to give us an economic lesson. What a joke! I will advise the Leader of the Opposition of the infrastructure costs for the development of Maitland. We will see whether he can explain from where he will get $470 million. The Leader of the Opposition has made a promise that would cost $470 million on top of the $100 million promise made by the member for Vasse. Of course, there are other promises - Point of Order Mr B.K. MASTERS: I have been misrepresented by the Treasurer. Certainly I debated the issue that the Treasurer has raised, but there was no promise or commitment. I do not know what course of action I should take. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! There is definitely no point of order. The member can take the issue up with the Clerks later. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition has also made a promise to retain the eastern bypass in Fremantle. Mr C.J. Barnett: Dead right. Mr E.S. RIPPER: How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition is quite happy to own up to that particular promise. If the Leader of the Opposition is getting into policy mode, he should also get into financial planning mode. When he responds to the budget, I would like him to present his financial plan to Parliament. How will the Leader of the Opposition fund his promises valued at $850 million on his costings, let alone the true cost that is closer to $1.6 billion? In November 2002 the Leader of the Opposition said in a position statement that the Liberal Party would reinstate the application of a land tax exemption for owner-occupied family homes owned by a company or trust, the cost of which will be $11 million. How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition has form on this issue; he wants everything but is not prepared to pay for any aspect of his promises. The Leader of the Opposition is the Imelda Marcos of Western Australia politics. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order!
Mr A.D. McRae: What’s for sale? Mr E.S. RIPPER: Exactly, what is for sale because how will the coalition fund these promises? On ABC radio on 2 September 2002, the shadow Minister for the Environment and Heritage said that because of a land clearing ban, the Opposition intended to offer farmers compensation payments totalling approximately $100 million. Does the Leader of the Opposition endorse that promise? Is that part of his financial plan? Mr C.J. Barnett: I will tell you about it in the matter of public interest debate. Mr E.S. RIPPER: He will not confirm or deny that promise made by the shadow minister. What about the promise made by the Leader of the Opposition? On 24 March 2003 the presenter of the ABC North West morning program said - the Leader of the Opposition did not dispute it - that the Leader of the Opposition had made no bones about the fact that he is firmly committed to the development of the Maitland industrial estate as the site for the construction of future industrial projects in the area. Mr C.J. Barnett: Spot on. Mr E.S. RIPPER: That is a promise the Leader of the Opposition intends to keep. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely. Mr E.S. RIPPER: How will the infrastructure costs be funded? Mr C.J. Barnett: Try it on! Would you like to have a debate on it right now? Let us suspend standing orders and I will give you a lesson in economic development. Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Windimurra man! The Kingstream man! The Oakajee man! The Dampier-to-Bunbury natural gas pipeline privatisation man! That man wants to give this Government a lecture on economic development. The man who was the Minister for Energy during the time that the economy contracted by 1.2 per cent wants to give us an economic lesson. What a joke! I will advise the Leader of the Opposition of the infrastructure costs for the development of Maitland. We will see whether he can explain from where he will get $470 million. The Leader of the Opposition has made a promise that would cost $470 million on top of the $100 million promise made by the member for Vasse. Of course, there are other promises - Point of Order Mr B.K. MASTERS: I have been misrepresented by the Treasurer. Certainly I debated the issue that the Treasurer has raised, but there was no promise or commitment. I do not know what course of action I should take. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! There is definitely no point of order. The member can take the issue up with the Clerks later. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition has also made a promise to retain the eastern bypass in Fremantle. Mr C.J. Barnett: Dead right. Mr E.S. RIPPER: How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition is quite happy to own up to that particular promise. If the Leader of the Opposition is getting into policy mode, he should also get into financial planning mode. When he responds to the budget, I would like him to present his financial plan to Parliament. How will the Leader of the Opposition fund his promises valued at $850 million on his costings, let alone the true cost that is closer to $1.6 billion? In November 2002 the Leader of the Opposition said in a position statement that the Liberal Party would reinstate the application of a land tax exemption for owner-occupied family homes owned by a company or trust, the cost of which will be $11 million. How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition has form on this issue; he wants everything but is not prepared to pay for any aspect of his promises. The Leader of the Opposition is the Imelda Marcos of Western Australia politics. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order!
Mr E.S. RIPPER: Exactly, what is for sale because how will the coalition fund these promises? On ABC radio on 2 September 2002, the shadow Minister for the Environment and Heritage said that because of a land clearing ban, the Opposition intended to offer farmers compensation payments totalling approximately $100 million. Does the Leader of the Opposition endorse that promise? Is that part of his financial plan? Mr C.J. Barnett: I will tell you about it in the matter of public interest debate. Mr E.S. RIPPER: He will not confirm or deny that promise made by the shadow minister. What about the promise made by the Leader of the Opposition? On 24 March 2003 the presenter of the ABC North West morning program said - the Leader of the Opposition did not dispute it - that the Leader of the Opposition had made no bones about the fact that he is firmly committed to the development of the Maitland industrial estate as the site for the construction of future industrial projects in the area. Mr C.J. Barnett: Spot on. Mr E.S. RIPPER: That is a promise the Leader of the Opposition intends to keep. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely. Mr E.S. RIPPER: How will the infrastructure costs be funded? Mr C.J. Barnett: Try it on! Would you like to have a debate on it right now? Let us suspend standing orders and I will give you a lesson in economic development. Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Windimurra man! The Kingstream man! The Oakajee man! The Dampier-to-Bunbury natural gas pipeline privatisation man! That man wants to give this Government a lecture on economic development. The man who was the Minister for Energy during the time that the economy contracted by 1.2 per cent wants to give us an economic lesson. What a joke! I will advise the Leader of the Opposition of the infrastructure costs for the development of Maitland. We will see whether he can explain from where he will get $470 million. The Leader of the Opposition has made a promise that would cost $470 million on top of the $100 million promise made by the member for Vasse. Of course, there are other promises - Point of Order Mr B.K. MASTERS: I have been misrepresented by the Treasurer. Certainly I debated the issue that the Treasurer has raised, but there was no promise or commitment. I do not know what course of action I should take. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! There is definitely no point of order. The member can take the issue up with the Clerks later. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition has also made a promise to retain the eastern bypass in Fremantle. Mr C.J. Barnett: Dead right. Mr E.S. RIPPER: How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition is quite happy to own up to that particular promise. If the Leader of the Opposition is getting into policy mode, he should also get into financial planning mode. When he responds to the budget, I would like him to present his financial plan to Parliament. How will the Leader of the Opposition fund his promises valued at $850 million on his costings, let alone the true cost that is closer to $1.6 billion? In November 2002 the Leader of the Opposition said in a position statement that the Liberal Party would reinstate the application of a land tax exemption for owner-occupied family homes owned by a company or trust, the cost of which will be $11 million. How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition has form on this issue; he wants everything but is not prepared to pay for any aspect of his promises. The Leader of the Opposition is the Imelda Marcos of Western Australia politics. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order!
Mr C.J. Barnett: I will tell you about it in the matter of public interest debate. Mr E.S. RIPPER: He will not confirm or deny that promise made by the shadow minister. What about the promise made by the Leader of the Opposition? On 24 March 2003 the presenter of the ABC North West morning program said - the Leader of the Opposition did not dispute it - that the Leader of the Opposition had made no bones about the fact that he is firmly committed to the development of the Maitland industrial estate as the site for the construction of future industrial projects in the area. Mr C.J. Barnett: Spot on. Mr E.S. RIPPER: That is a promise the Leader of the Opposition intends to keep. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely. Mr E.S. RIPPER: How will the infrastructure costs be funded? Mr C.J. Barnett: Try it on! Would you like to have a debate on it right now? Let us suspend standing orders and I will give you a lesson in economic development. Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Windimurra man! The Kingstream man! The Oakajee man! The Dampier-to-Bunbury natural gas pipeline privatisation man! That man wants to give this Government a lecture on economic development. The man who was the Minister for Energy during the time that the economy contracted by 1.2 per cent wants to give us an economic lesson. What a joke! I will advise the Leader of the Opposition of the infrastructure costs for the development of Maitland. We will see whether he can explain from where he will get $470 million. The Leader of the Opposition has made a promise that would cost $470 million on top of the $100 million promise made by the member for Vasse. Of course, there are other promises - Point of Order Mr B.K. MASTERS: I have been misrepresented by the Treasurer. Certainly I debated the issue that the Treasurer has raised, but there was no promise or commitment. I do not know what course of action I should take. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! There is definitely no point of order. The member can take the issue up with the Clerks later. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition has also made a promise to retain the eastern bypass in Fremantle. Mr C.J. Barnett: Dead right. Mr E.S. RIPPER: How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition is quite happy to own up to that particular promise. If the Leader of the Opposition is getting into policy mode, he should also get into financial planning mode. When he responds to the budget, I would like him to present his financial plan to Parliament. How will the Leader of the Opposition fund his promises valued at $850 million on his costings, let alone the true cost that is closer to $1.6 billion? In November 2002 the Leader of the Opposition said in a position statement that the Liberal Party would reinstate the application of a land tax exemption for owner-occupied family homes owned by a company or trust, the cost of which will be $11 million. How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition has form on this issue; he wants everything but is not prepared to pay for any aspect of his promises. The Leader of the Opposition is the Imelda Marcos of Western Australia politics. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order!
Mr E.S. RIPPER: He will not confirm or deny that promise made by the shadow minister. What about the promise made by the Leader of the Opposition? On 24 March 2003 the presenter of the ABC North West morning program said - the Leader of the Opposition did not dispute it - that the Leader of the Opposition had made no bones about the fact that he is firmly committed to the development of the Maitland industrial estate as the site for the construction of future industrial projects in the area. Mr C.J. Barnett: Spot on. Mr E.S. RIPPER: That is a promise the Leader of the Opposition intends to keep. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely. Mr E.S. RIPPER: How will the infrastructure costs be funded? Mr C.J. Barnett: Try it on! Would you like to have a debate on it right now? Let us suspend standing orders and I will give you a lesson in economic development. Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Windimurra man! The Kingstream man! The Oakajee man! The Dampier-to-Bunbury natural gas pipeline privatisation man! That man wants to give this Government a lecture on economic development. The man who was the Minister for Energy during the time that the economy contracted by 1.2 per cent wants to give us an economic lesson. What a joke! I will advise the Leader of the Opposition of the infrastructure costs for the development of Maitland. We will see whether he can explain from where he will get $470 million. The Leader of the Opposition has made a promise that would cost $470 million on top of the $100 million promise made by the member for Vasse. Of course, there are other promises - Point of Order Mr B.K. MASTERS: I have been misrepresented by the Treasurer. Certainly I debated the issue that the Treasurer has raised, but there was no promise or commitment. I do not know what course of action I should take. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! There is definitely no point of order. The member can take the issue up with the Clerks later. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition has also made a promise to retain the eastern bypass in Fremantle. Mr C.J. Barnett: Dead right. Mr E.S. RIPPER: How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition is quite happy to own up to that particular promise. If the Leader of the Opposition is getting into policy mode, he should also get into financial planning mode. When he responds to the budget, I would like him to present his financial plan to Parliament. How will the Leader of the Opposition fund his promises valued at $850 million on his costings, let alone the true cost that is closer to $1.6 billion? In November 2002 the Leader of the Opposition said in a position statement that the Liberal Party would reinstate the application of a land tax exemption for owner-occupied family homes owned by a company or trust, the cost of which will be $11 million. How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition has form on this issue; he wants everything but is not prepared to pay for any aspect of his promises. The Leader of the Opposition is the Imelda Marcos of Western Australia politics. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order!
What about the promise made by the Leader of the Opposition? On 24 March 2003 the presenter of the ABC North West morning program said - the Leader of the Opposition did not dispute it - that the Leader of the Opposition had made no bones about the fact that he is firmly committed to the development of the Maitland industrial estate as the site for the construction of future industrial projects in the area. Mr C.J. Barnett: Spot on. Mr E.S. RIPPER: That is a promise the Leader of the Opposition intends to keep. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely. Mr E.S. RIPPER: How will the infrastructure costs be funded? Mr C.J. Barnett: Try it on! Would you like to have a debate on it right now? Let us suspend standing orders and I will give you a lesson in economic development. Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Windimurra man! The Kingstream man! The Oakajee man! The Dampier-to-Bunbury natural gas pipeline privatisation man! That man wants to give this Government a lecture on economic development. The man who was the Minister for Energy during the time that the economy contracted by 1.2 per cent wants to give us an economic lesson. What a joke! I will advise the Leader of the Opposition of the infrastructure costs for the development of Maitland. We will see whether he can explain from where he will get $470 million. The Leader of the Opposition has made a promise that would cost $470 million on top of the $100 million promise made by the member for Vasse. Of course, there are other promises - Point of Order Mr B.K. MASTERS: I have been misrepresented by the Treasurer. Certainly I debated the issue that the Treasurer has raised, but there was no promise or commitment. I do not know what course of action I should take. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! There is definitely no point of order. The member can take the issue up with the Clerks later. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition has also made a promise to retain the eastern bypass in Fremantle. Mr C.J. Barnett: Dead right. Mr E.S. RIPPER: How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition is quite happy to own up to that particular promise. If the Leader of the Opposition is getting into policy mode, he should also get into financial planning mode. When he responds to the budget, I would like him to present his financial plan to Parliament. How will the Leader of the Opposition fund his promises valued at $850 million on his costings, let alone the true cost that is closer to $1.6 billion? In November 2002 the Leader of the Opposition said in a position statement that the Liberal Party would reinstate the application of a land tax exemption for owner-occupied family homes owned by a company or trust, the cost of which will be $11 million. How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition has form on this issue; he wants everything but is not prepared to pay for any aspect of his promises. The Leader of the Opposition is the Imelda Marcos of Western Australia politics. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order!
Mr C.J. Barnett: Spot on. Mr E.S. RIPPER: That is a promise the Leader of the Opposition intends to keep. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely. Mr E.S. RIPPER: How will the infrastructure costs be funded? Mr C.J. Barnett: Try it on! Would you like to have a debate on it right now? Let us suspend standing orders and I will give you a lesson in economic development. Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Windimurra man! The Kingstream man! The Oakajee man! The Dampier-to-Bunbury natural gas pipeline privatisation man! That man wants to give this Government a lecture on economic development. The man who was the Minister for Energy during the time that the economy contracted by 1.2 per cent wants to give us an economic lesson. What a joke! I will advise the Leader of the Opposition of the infrastructure costs for the development of Maitland. We will see whether he can explain from where he will get $470 million. The Leader of the Opposition has made a promise that would cost $470 million on top of the $100 million promise made by the member for Vasse. Of course, there are other promises - Point of Order Mr B.K. MASTERS: I have been misrepresented by the Treasurer. Certainly I debated the issue that the Treasurer has raised, but there was no promise or commitment. I do not know what course of action I should take. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! There is definitely no point of order. The member can take the issue up with the Clerks later. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition has also made a promise to retain the eastern bypass in Fremantle. Mr C.J. Barnett: Dead right. Mr E.S. RIPPER: How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition is quite happy to own up to that particular promise. If the Leader of the Opposition is getting into policy mode, he should also get into financial planning mode. When he responds to the budget, I would like him to present his financial plan to Parliament. How will the Leader of the Opposition fund his promises valued at $850 million on his costings, let alone the true cost that is closer to $1.6 billion? In November 2002 the Leader of the Opposition said in a position statement that the Liberal Party would reinstate the application of a land tax exemption for owner-occupied family homes owned by a company or trust, the cost of which will be $11 million. How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition has form on this issue; he wants everything but is not prepared to pay for any aspect of his promises. The Leader of the Opposition is the Imelda Marcos of Western Australia politics. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order!
Mr E.S. RIPPER: That is a promise the Leader of the Opposition intends to keep. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely. Mr E.S. RIPPER: How will the infrastructure costs be funded? Mr C.J. Barnett: Try it on! Would you like to have a debate on it right now? Let us suspend standing orders and I will give you a lesson in economic development. Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Windimurra man! The Kingstream man! The Oakajee man! The Dampier-to-Bunbury natural gas pipeline privatisation man! That man wants to give this Government a lecture on economic development. The man who was the Minister for Energy during the time that the economy contracted by 1.2 per cent wants to give us an economic lesson. What a joke! I will advise the Leader of the Opposition of the infrastructure costs for the development of Maitland. We will see whether he can explain from where he will get $470 million. The Leader of the Opposition has made a promise that would cost $470 million on top of the $100 million promise made by the member for Vasse. Of course, there are other promises - Point of Order Mr B.K. MASTERS: I have been misrepresented by the Treasurer. Certainly I debated the issue that the Treasurer has raised, but there was no promise or commitment. I do not know what course of action I should take. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! There is definitely no point of order. The member can take the issue up with the Clerks later. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition has also made a promise to retain the eastern bypass in Fremantle. Mr C.J. Barnett: Dead right. Mr E.S. RIPPER: How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition is quite happy to own up to that particular promise. If the Leader of the Opposition is getting into policy mode, he should also get into financial planning mode. When he responds to the budget, I would like him to present his financial plan to Parliament. How will the Leader of the Opposition fund his promises valued at $850 million on his costings, let alone the true cost that is closer to $1.6 billion? In November 2002 the Leader of the Opposition said in a position statement that the Liberal Party would reinstate the application of a land tax exemption for owner-occupied family homes owned by a company or trust, the cost of which will be $11 million. How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition has form on this issue; he wants everything but is not prepared to pay for any aspect of his promises. The Leader of the Opposition is the Imelda Marcos of Western Australia politics. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order!
Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely. Mr E.S. RIPPER: How will the infrastructure costs be funded? Mr C.J. Barnett: Try it on! Would you like to have a debate on it right now? Let us suspend standing orders and I will give you a lesson in economic development. Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Windimurra man! The Kingstream man! The Oakajee man! The Dampier-to-Bunbury natural gas pipeline privatisation man! That man wants to give this Government a lecture on economic development. The man who was the Minister for Energy during the time that the economy contracted by 1.2 per cent wants to give us an economic lesson. What a joke! I will advise the Leader of the Opposition of the infrastructure costs for the development of Maitland. We will see whether he can explain from where he will get $470 million. The Leader of the Opposition has made a promise that would cost $470 million on top of the $100 million promise made by the member for Vasse. Of course, there are other promises - Point of Order Mr B.K. MASTERS: I have been misrepresented by the Treasurer. Certainly I debated the issue that the Treasurer has raised, but there was no promise or commitment. I do not know what course of action I should take. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! There is definitely no point of order. The member can take the issue up with the Clerks later. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition has also made a promise to retain the eastern bypass in Fremantle. Mr C.J. Barnett: Dead right. Mr E.S. RIPPER: How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition is quite happy to own up to that particular promise. If the Leader of the Opposition is getting into policy mode, he should also get into financial planning mode. When he responds to the budget, I would like him to present his financial plan to Parliament. How will the Leader of the Opposition fund his promises valued at $850 million on his costings, let alone the true cost that is closer to $1.6 billion? In November 2002 the Leader of the Opposition said in a position statement that the Liberal Party would reinstate the application of a land tax exemption for owner-occupied family homes owned by a company or trust, the cost of which will be $11 million. How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition has form on this issue; he wants everything but is not prepared to pay for any aspect of his promises. The Leader of the Opposition is the Imelda Marcos of Western Australia politics. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order!
Mr E.S. RIPPER: How will the infrastructure costs be funded? Mr C.J. Barnett: Try it on! Would you like to have a debate on it right now? Let us suspend standing orders and I will give you a lesson in economic development. Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Windimurra man! The Kingstream man! The Oakajee man! The Dampier-to-Bunbury natural gas pipeline privatisation man! That man wants to give this Government a lecture on economic development. The man who was the Minister for Energy during the time that the economy contracted by 1.2 per cent wants to give us an economic lesson. What a joke! I will advise the Leader of the Opposition of the infrastructure costs for the development of Maitland. We will see whether he can explain from where he will get $470 million. The Leader of the Opposition has made a promise that would cost $470 million on top of the $100 million promise made by the member for Vasse. Of course, there are other promises - Point of Order Mr B.K. MASTERS: I have been misrepresented by the Treasurer. Certainly I debated the issue that the Treasurer has raised, but there was no promise or commitment. I do not know what course of action I should take. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! There is definitely no point of order. The member can take the issue up with the Clerks later. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition has also made a promise to retain the eastern bypass in Fremantle. Mr C.J. Barnett: Dead right. Mr E.S. RIPPER: How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition is quite happy to own up to that particular promise. If the Leader of the Opposition is getting into policy mode, he should also get into financial planning mode. When he responds to the budget, I would like him to present his financial plan to Parliament. How will the Leader of the Opposition fund his promises valued at $850 million on his costings, let alone the true cost that is closer to $1.6 billion? In November 2002 the Leader of the Opposition said in a position statement that the Liberal Party would reinstate the application of a land tax exemption for owner-occupied family homes owned by a company or trust, the cost of which will be $11 million. How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition has form on this issue; he wants everything but is not prepared to pay for any aspect of his promises. The Leader of the Opposition is the Imelda Marcos of Western Australia politics. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order!
Mr C.J. Barnett: Try it on! Would you like to have a debate on it right now? Let us suspend standing orders and I will give you a lesson in economic development. Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Windimurra man! The Kingstream man! The Oakajee man! The Dampier-to-Bunbury natural gas pipeline privatisation man! That man wants to give this Government a lecture on economic development. The man who was the Minister for Energy during the time that the economy contracted by 1.2 per cent wants to give us an economic lesson. What a joke! I will advise the Leader of the Opposition of the infrastructure costs for the development of Maitland. We will see whether he can explain from where he will get $470 million. The Leader of the Opposition has made a promise that would cost $470 million on top of the $100 million promise made by the member for Vasse. Of course, there are other promises - Point of Order Mr B.K. MASTERS: I have been misrepresented by the Treasurer. Certainly I debated the issue that the Treasurer has raised, but there was no promise or commitment. I do not know what course of action I should take. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! There is definitely no point of order. The member can take the issue up with the Clerks later. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition has also made a promise to retain the eastern bypass in Fremantle. Mr C.J. Barnett: Dead right. Mr E.S. RIPPER: How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition is quite happy to own up to that particular promise. If the Leader of the Opposition is getting into policy mode, he should also get into financial planning mode. When he responds to the budget, I would like him to present his financial plan to Parliament. How will the Leader of the Opposition fund his promises valued at $850 million on his costings, let alone the true cost that is closer to $1.6 billion? In November 2002 the Leader of the Opposition said in a position statement that the Liberal Party would reinstate the application of a land tax exemption for owner-occupied family homes owned by a company or trust, the cost of which will be $11 million. How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition has form on this issue; he wants everything but is not prepared to pay for any aspect of his promises. The Leader of the Opposition is the Imelda Marcos of Western Australia politics. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order!
Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Windimurra man! The Kingstream man! The Oakajee man! The Dampier-to-Bunbury natural gas pipeline privatisation man! That man wants to give this Government a lecture on economic development. The man who was the Minister for Energy during the time that the economy contracted by 1.2 per cent wants to give us an economic lesson. What a joke! I will advise the Leader of the Opposition of the infrastructure costs for the development of Maitland. We will see whether he can explain from where he will get $470 million. The Leader of the Opposition has made a promise that would cost $470 million on top of the $100 million promise made by the member for Vasse. Of course, there are other promises - Point of Order Mr B.K. MASTERS: I have been misrepresented by the Treasurer. Certainly I debated the issue that the Treasurer has raised, but there was no promise or commitment. I do not know what course of action I should take. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! There is definitely no point of order. The member can take the issue up with the Clerks later. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition has also made a promise to retain the eastern bypass in Fremantle. Mr C.J. Barnett: Dead right. Mr E.S. RIPPER: How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition is quite happy to own up to that particular promise. If the Leader of the Opposition is getting into policy mode, he should also get into financial planning mode. When he responds to the budget, I would like him to present his financial plan to Parliament. How will the Leader of the Opposition fund his promises valued at $850 million on his costings, let alone the true cost that is closer to $1.6 billion? In November 2002 the Leader of the Opposition said in a position statement that the Liberal Party would reinstate the application of a land tax exemption for owner-occupied family homes owned by a company or trust, the cost of which will be $11 million. How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition has form on this issue; he wants everything but is not prepared to pay for any aspect of his promises. The Leader of the Opposition is the Imelda Marcos of Western Australia politics. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order!
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! There is definitely no point of order. The member can take the issue up with the Clerks later. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition has also made a promise to retain the eastern bypass in Fremantle. Mr C.J. Barnett: Dead right. Mr E.S. RIPPER: How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition is quite happy to own up to that particular promise. If the Leader of the Opposition is getting into policy mode, he should also get into financial planning mode. When he responds to the budget, I would like him to present his financial plan to Parliament. How will the Leader of the Opposition fund his promises valued at $850 million on his costings, let alone the true cost that is closer to $1.6 billion? In November 2002 the Leader of the Opposition said in a position statement that the Liberal Party would reinstate the application of a land tax exemption for owner-occupied family homes owned by a company or trust, the cost of which will be $11 million. How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition has form on this issue; he wants everything but is not prepared to pay for any aspect of his promises. The Leader of the Opposition is the Imelda Marcos of Western Australia politics. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order!
The SPEAKER: Members! There is definitely no point of order. The member can take the issue up with the Clerks later. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition has also made a promise to retain the eastern bypass in Fremantle. Mr C.J. Barnett: Dead right. Mr E.S. RIPPER: How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition is quite happy to own up to that particular promise. If the Leader of the Opposition is getting into policy mode, he should also get into financial planning mode. When he responds to the budget, I would like him to present his financial plan to Parliament. How will the Leader of the Opposition fund his promises valued at $850 million on his costings, let alone the true cost that is closer to $1.6 billion? In November 2002 the Leader of the Opposition said in a position statement that the Liberal Party would reinstate the application of a land tax exemption for owner-occupied family homes owned by a company or trust, the cost of which will be $11 million. How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition has form on this issue; he wants everything but is not prepared to pay for any aspect of his promises. The Leader of the Opposition is the Imelda Marcos of Western Australia politics. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order!
Mr C.J. Barnett: Dead right. Mr E.S. RIPPER: How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition is quite happy to own up to that particular promise. If the Leader of the Opposition is getting into policy mode, he should also get into financial planning mode. When he responds to the budget, I would like him to present his financial plan to Parliament. How will the Leader of the Opposition fund his promises valued at $850 million on his costings, let alone the true cost that is closer to $1.6 billion? In November 2002 the Leader of the Opposition said in a position statement that the Liberal Party would reinstate the application of a land tax exemption for owner-occupied family homes owned by a company or trust, the cost of which will be $11 million. How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition has form on this issue; he wants everything but is not prepared to pay for any aspect of his promises. The Leader of the Opposition is the Imelda Marcos of Western Australia politics. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order!
Mr E.S. RIPPER: How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition is quite happy to own up to that particular promise. If the Leader of the Opposition is getting into policy mode, he should also get into financial planning mode. When he responds to the budget, I would like him to present his financial plan to Parliament. How will the Leader of the Opposition fund his promises valued at $850 million on his costings, let alone the true cost that is closer to $1.6 billion? In November 2002 the Leader of the Opposition said in a position statement that the Liberal Party would reinstate the application of a land tax exemption for owner-occupied family homes owned by a company or trust, the cost of which will be $11 million. How will that be funded? The Leader of the Opposition has form on this issue; he wants everything but is not prepared to pay for any aspect of his promises. The Leader of the Opposition is the Imelda Marcos of Western Australia politics. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order!
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order!
The SPEAKER: Order!
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.