❓ Debate regarding the Commonwealth Treasurer's comments on the role of state governments and concerns about centralisation of power by the federal government, particularly its impact on Western Australia's financial contributions.
AnsweredQoN 427Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
FEDERAL TREASURER - ROLE OF STATE GOVERNMENTS
Is the Acting Premier aware of the commonwealth Treasurer’s recent comment that states are more like divisional branches of head office, instead of independent governments? Mr E.S. RIPPER
Is the Acting Premier aware of the commonwealth Treasurer’s recent comment that states are more like divisional branches of head office, instead of independent governments? Mr E.S. RIPPER
AnswerView source ↗
Yesterday I called, apparently in vain, for a bipartisan approach from Western Australia for this state to get a better deal from Canberra. Today I was absolutely astounded to read Peter Costello’s comments in the Financial Review . The article reads - The Howard government’s aim of using the GST to recast Australia’s federal system had failed and the states were at risk of becoming mere “divisional service deliverers” for Canberra, Treasurer Peter Costello warned yesterday. It is an absolutely amazing statement. Apparently, according to the Financial Review , he made the following comments about his GST grand plan on radio - “And my great hope in doing that was that with this increasing revenue, which they could plan long-term on, that they would be able to operate more like independent governments and take responsibilities in particular areas and you wouldn’t have this overlap . . . he said on Radio 2UE. His grand plan was to give us more revenue so that the states could operate more like independent governments. He then said that state governments are like divisional offices and he has the gall to blame the states for these circumstances. Meanwhile, the federal government, of which he is part, wants to run the states’ tax policies, education policies, industrial relations policies and environmental policies, just to mention a few examples. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : Not defence. Mr E.S. RIPPER : They do not want to take responsibility for the bombs in Albany harbour, but they want to run all the matters for which the states are usually responsible. Quite frankly, John Howard and Peter Costello have turned Liberal politics on its head. It is the most centralist federal government in the history of this nation. It is run by two parties that historically have talked about states’ rights. It is certainly not talking about states’ rights at the moment. Mr T. Buswell : What does Combet want to do? Mr E.S. RIPPER : An interjection from the member for Vasse! This set of circumstances would be perfect for the less for less philosophy. We would have less power and less resources, and we would have to make less decisions and we would have less responsibilities. It is perfect for a less for less man from the coalition. I come back to a more serious matter; that is, Western Australia, of all the states, and we all know it in this Parliament, has the most to fear from this centralising tendency. We subsidise the rest of the nation by $4 billion a year. We are a long way from Canberra - from the power network. Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : “Do something about it”, says the potential Leader of the Opposition; the mentor of the opposition. Yesterday I called for bipartisan support. How about a declaration of bipartisan support for a better deal for this state and for the states in general from the Leader of the Opposition? All we get is this stupid rhetoric from the Leader of the Opposition. The fact of the matter is that we need bipartisan support on this issue. When the member for Kalgoorlie was Leader of the Opposition, we did have some show of support for states’ rights. He made a few stands in favour of states’ rights. Apparently the less for less people who run the opposition do not see the point of standing up for the states, and Western Australia in particular.
Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: Yesterday I called, apparently in vain, for a bipartisan approach from Western Australia for this state to get a better deal from Canberra. Today I was absolutely astounded to read Peter Costello’s comments in the Financial Review . The article reads - The Howard government’s aim of using the GST to recast Australia’s federal system had failed and the states were at risk of becoming mere “divisional service deliverers” for Canberra, Treasurer Peter Costello warned yesterday. It is an absolutely amazing statement. Apparently, according to the Financial Review , he made the following comments about his GST grand plan on radio - “And my great hope in doing that was that with this increasing revenue, which they could plan long-term on, that they would be able to operate more like independent governments and take responsibilities in particular areas and you wouldn’t have this overlap . . . he said on Radio 2UE. His grand plan was to give us more revenue so that the states could operate more like independent governments. He then said that state governments are like divisional offices and he has the gall to blame the states for these circumstances. Meanwhile, the federal government, of which he is part, wants to run the states’ tax policies, education policies, industrial relations policies and environmental policies, just to mention a few examples. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : Not defence. Mr E.S. RIPPER : They do not want to take responsibility for the bombs in Albany harbour, but they want to run all the matters for which the states are usually responsible. Quite frankly, John Howard and Peter Costello have turned Liberal politics on its head. It is the most centralist federal government in the history of this nation. It is run by two parties that historically have talked about states’ rights. It is certainly not talking about states’ rights at the moment. Mr T. Buswell : What does Combet want to do? Mr E.S. RIPPER : An interjection from the member for Vasse! This set of circumstances would be perfect for the less for less philosophy. We would have less power and less resources, and we would have to make less decisions and we would have less responsibilities. It is perfect for a less for less man from the coalition. I come back to a more serious matter; that is, Western Australia, of all the states, and we all know it in this Parliament, has the most to fear from this centralising tendency. We subsidise the rest of the nation by $4 billion a year. We are a long way from Canberra - from the power network. Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : “Do something about it”, says the potential Leader of the Opposition; the mentor of the opposition. Yesterday I called for bipartisan support. How about a declaration of bipartisan support for a better deal for this state and for the states in general from the Leader of the Opposition? All we get is this stupid rhetoric from the Leader of the Opposition. The fact of the matter is that we need bipartisan support on this issue. When the member for Kalgoorlie was Leader of the Opposition, we did have some show of support for states’ rights. He made a few stands in favour of states’ rights. Apparently the less for less people who run the opposition do not see the point of standing up for the states, and Western Australia in particular.
Yesterday I called, apparently in vain, for a bipartisan approach from Western Australia for this state to get a better deal from Canberra. Today I was absolutely astounded to read Peter Costello’s comments in the Financial Review . The article reads - The Howard government’s aim of using the GST to recast Australia’s federal system had failed and the states were at risk of becoming mere “divisional service deliverers” for Canberra, Treasurer Peter Costello warned yesterday. It is an absolutely amazing statement. Apparently, according to the Financial Review , he made the following comments about his GST grand plan on radio - “And my great hope in doing that was that with this increasing revenue, which they could plan long-term on, that they would be able to operate more like independent governments and take responsibilities in particular areas and you wouldn’t have this overlap . . . he said on Radio 2UE. His grand plan was to give us more revenue so that the states could operate more like independent governments. He then said that state governments are like divisional offices and he has the gall to blame the states for these circumstances. Meanwhile, the federal government, of which he is part, wants to run the states’ tax policies, education policies, industrial relations policies and environmental policies, just to mention a few examples. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : Not defence. Mr E.S. RIPPER : They do not want to take responsibility for the bombs in Albany harbour, but they want to run all the matters for which the states are usually responsible. Quite frankly, John Howard and Peter Costello have turned Liberal politics on its head. It is the most centralist federal government in the history of this nation. It is run by two parties that historically have talked about states’ rights. It is certainly not talking about states’ rights at the moment. Mr T. Buswell : What does Combet want to do? Mr E.S. RIPPER : An interjection from the member for Vasse! This set of circumstances would be perfect for the less for less philosophy. We would have less power and less resources, and we would have to make less decisions and we would have less responsibilities. It is perfect for a less for less man from the coalition. I come back to a more serious matter; that is, Western Australia, of all the states, and we all know it in this Parliament, has the most to fear from this centralising tendency. We subsidise the rest of the nation by $4 billion a year. We are a long way from Canberra - from the power network. Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : “Do something about it”, says the potential Leader of the Opposition; the mentor of the opposition. Yesterday I called for bipartisan support. How about a declaration of bipartisan support for a better deal for this state and for the states in general from the Leader of the Opposition? All we get is this stupid rhetoric from the Leader of the Opposition. The fact of the matter is that we need bipartisan support on this issue. When the member for Kalgoorlie was Leader of the Opposition, we did have some show of support for states’ rights. He made a few stands in favour of states’ rights. Apparently the less for less people who run the opposition do not see the point of standing up for the states, and Western Australia in particular.
The Howard government’s aim of using the GST to recast Australia’s federal system had failed and the states were at risk of becoming mere “divisional service deliverers” for Canberra, Treasurer Peter Costello warned yesterday. It is an absolutely amazing statement. Apparently, according to the Financial Review , he made the following comments about his GST grand plan on radio - “And my great hope in doing that was that with this increasing revenue, which they could plan long-term on, that they would be able to operate more like independent governments and take responsibilities in particular areas and you wouldn’t have this overlap . . . he said on Radio 2UE. His grand plan was to give us more revenue so that the states could operate more like independent governments. He then said that state governments are like divisional offices and he has the gall to blame the states for these circumstances. Meanwhile, the federal government, of which he is part, wants to run the states’ tax policies, education policies, industrial relations policies and environmental policies, just to mention a few examples. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : Not defence. Mr E.S. RIPPER : They do not want to take responsibility for the bombs in Albany harbour, but they want to run all the matters for which the states are usually responsible. Quite frankly, John Howard and Peter Costello have turned Liberal politics on its head. It is the most centralist federal government in the history of this nation. It is run by two parties that historically have talked about states’ rights. It is certainly not talking about states’ rights at the moment. Mr T. Buswell : What does Combet want to do? Mr E.S. RIPPER : An interjection from the member for Vasse! This set of circumstances would be perfect for the less for less philosophy. We would have less power and less resources, and we would have to make less decisions and we would have less responsibilities. It is perfect for a less for less man from the coalition. I come back to a more serious matter; that is, Western Australia, of all the states, and we all know it in this Parliament, has the most to fear from this centralising tendency. We subsidise the rest of the nation by $4 billion a year. We are a long way from Canberra - from the power network. Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : “Do something about it”, says the potential Leader of the Opposition; the mentor of the opposition. Yesterday I called for bipartisan support. How about a declaration of bipartisan support for a better deal for this state and for the states in general from the Leader of the Opposition? All we get is this stupid rhetoric from the Leader of the Opposition. The fact of the matter is that we need bipartisan support on this issue. When the member for Kalgoorlie was Leader of the Opposition, we did have some show of support for states’ rights. He made a few stands in favour of states’ rights. Apparently the less for less people who run the opposition do not see the point of standing up for the states, and Western Australia in particular.
It is an absolutely amazing statement. Apparently, according to the Financial Review , he made the following comments about his GST grand plan on radio - “And my great hope in doing that was that with this increasing revenue, which they could plan long-term on, that they would be able to operate more like independent governments and take responsibilities in particular areas and you wouldn’t have this overlap . . . he said on Radio 2UE. His grand plan was to give us more revenue so that the states could operate more like independent governments. He then said that state governments are like divisional offices and he has the gall to blame the states for these circumstances. Meanwhile, the federal government, of which he is part, wants to run the states’ tax policies, education policies, industrial relations policies and environmental policies, just to mention a few examples. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : Not defence. Mr E.S. RIPPER : They do not want to take responsibility for the bombs in Albany harbour, but they want to run all the matters for which the states are usually responsible. Quite frankly, John Howard and Peter Costello have turned Liberal politics on its head. It is the most centralist federal government in the history of this nation. It is run by two parties that historically have talked about states’ rights. It is certainly not talking about states’ rights at the moment. Mr T. Buswell : What does Combet want to do? Mr E.S. RIPPER : An interjection from the member for Vasse! This set of circumstances would be perfect for the less for less philosophy. We would have less power and less resources, and we would have to make less decisions and we would have less responsibilities. It is perfect for a less for less man from the coalition. I come back to a more serious matter; that is, Western Australia, of all the states, and we all know it in this Parliament, has the most to fear from this centralising tendency. We subsidise the rest of the nation by $4 billion a year. We are a long way from Canberra - from the power network. Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : “Do something about it”, says the potential Leader of the Opposition; the mentor of the opposition. Yesterday I called for bipartisan support. How about a declaration of bipartisan support for a better deal for this state and for the states in general from the Leader of the Opposition? All we get is this stupid rhetoric from the Leader of the Opposition. The fact of the matter is that we need bipartisan support on this issue. When the member for Kalgoorlie was Leader of the Opposition, we did have some show of support for states’ rights. He made a few stands in favour of states’ rights. Apparently the less for less people who run the opposition do not see the point of standing up for the states, and Western Australia in particular.
“And my great hope in doing that was that with this increasing revenue, which they could plan long-term on, that they would be able to operate more like independent governments and take responsibilities in particular areas and you wouldn’t have this overlap . . . he said on Radio 2UE. His grand plan was to give us more revenue so that the states could operate more like independent governments. He then said that state governments are like divisional offices and he has the gall to blame the states for these circumstances. Meanwhile, the federal government, of which he is part, wants to run the states’ tax policies, education policies, industrial relations policies and environmental policies, just to mention a few examples. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : Not defence. Mr E.S. RIPPER : They do not want to take responsibility for the bombs in Albany harbour, but they want to run all the matters for which the states are usually responsible. Quite frankly, John Howard and Peter Costello have turned Liberal politics on its head. It is the most centralist federal government in the history of this nation. It is run by two parties that historically have talked about states’ rights. It is certainly not talking about states’ rights at the moment. Mr T. Buswell : What does Combet want to do? Mr E.S. RIPPER : An interjection from the member for Vasse! This set of circumstances would be perfect for the less for less philosophy. We would have less power and less resources, and we would have to make less decisions and we would have less responsibilities. It is perfect for a less for less man from the coalition. I come back to a more serious matter; that is, Western Australia, of all the states, and we all know it in this Parliament, has the most to fear from this centralising tendency. We subsidise the rest of the nation by $4 billion a year. We are a long way from Canberra - from the power network. Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : “Do something about it”, says the potential Leader of the Opposition; the mentor of the opposition. Yesterday I called for bipartisan support. How about a declaration of bipartisan support for a better deal for this state and for the states in general from the Leader of the Opposition? All we get is this stupid rhetoric from the Leader of the Opposition. The fact of the matter is that we need bipartisan support on this issue. When the member for Kalgoorlie was Leader of the Opposition, we did have some show of support for states’ rights. He made a few stands in favour of states’ rights. Apparently the less for less people who run the opposition do not see the point of standing up for the states, and Western Australia in particular.
His grand plan was to give us more revenue so that the states could operate more like independent governments. He then said that state governments are like divisional offices and he has the gall to blame the states for these circumstances. Meanwhile, the federal government, of which he is part, wants to run the states’ tax policies, education policies, industrial relations policies and environmental policies, just to mention a few examples. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : Not defence. Mr E.S. RIPPER : They do not want to take responsibility for the bombs in Albany harbour, but they want to run all the matters for which the states are usually responsible. Quite frankly, John Howard and Peter Costello have turned Liberal politics on its head. It is the most centralist federal government in the history of this nation. It is run by two parties that historically have talked about states’ rights. It is certainly not talking about states’ rights at the moment. Mr T. Buswell : What does Combet want to do? Mr E.S. RIPPER : An interjection from the member for Vasse! This set of circumstances would be perfect for the less for less philosophy. We would have less power and less resources, and we would have to make less decisions and we would have less responsibilities. It is perfect for a less for less man from the coalition. I come back to a more serious matter; that is, Western Australia, of all the states, and we all know it in this Parliament, has the most to fear from this centralising tendency. We subsidise the rest of the nation by $4 billion a year. We are a long way from Canberra - from the power network. Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : “Do something about it”, says the potential Leader of the Opposition; the mentor of the opposition. Yesterday I called for bipartisan support. How about a declaration of bipartisan support for a better deal for this state and for the states in general from the Leader of the Opposition? All we get is this stupid rhetoric from the Leader of the Opposition. The fact of the matter is that we need bipartisan support on this issue. When the member for Kalgoorlie was Leader of the Opposition, we did have some show of support for states’ rights. He made a few stands in favour of states’ rights. Apparently the less for less people who run the opposition do not see the point of standing up for the states, and Western Australia in particular.
Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : Not defence. Mr E.S. RIPPER : They do not want to take responsibility for the bombs in Albany harbour, but they want to run all the matters for which the states are usually responsible. Quite frankly, John Howard and Peter Costello have turned Liberal politics on its head. It is the most centralist federal government in the history of this nation. It is run by two parties that historically have talked about states’ rights. It is certainly not talking about states’ rights at the moment. Mr T. Buswell : What does Combet want to do? Mr E.S. RIPPER : An interjection from the member for Vasse! This set of circumstances would be perfect for the less for less philosophy. We would have less power and less resources, and we would have to make less decisions and we would have less responsibilities. It is perfect for a less for less man from the coalition. I come back to a more serious matter; that is, Western Australia, of all the states, and we all know it in this Parliament, has the most to fear from this centralising tendency. We subsidise the rest of the nation by $4 billion a year. We are a long way from Canberra - from the power network. Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : “Do something about it”, says the potential Leader of the Opposition; the mentor of the opposition. Yesterday I called for bipartisan support. How about a declaration of bipartisan support for a better deal for this state and for the states in general from the Leader of the Opposition? All we get is this stupid rhetoric from the Leader of the Opposition. The fact of the matter is that we need bipartisan support on this issue. When the member for Kalgoorlie was Leader of the Opposition, we did have some show of support for states’ rights. He made a few stands in favour of states’ rights. Apparently the less for less people who run the opposition do not see the point of standing up for the states, and Western Australia in particular.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : They do not want to take responsibility for the bombs in Albany harbour, but they want to run all the matters for which the states are usually responsible. Quite frankly, John Howard and Peter Costello have turned Liberal politics on its head. It is the most centralist federal government in the history of this nation. It is run by two parties that historically have talked about states’ rights. It is certainly not talking about states’ rights at the moment. Mr T. Buswell : What does Combet want to do? Mr E.S. RIPPER : An interjection from the member for Vasse! This set of circumstances would be perfect for the less for less philosophy. We would have less power and less resources, and we would have to make less decisions and we would have less responsibilities. It is perfect for a less for less man from the coalition. I come back to a more serious matter; that is, Western Australia, of all the states, and we all know it in this Parliament, has the most to fear from this centralising tendency. We subsidise the rest of the nation by $4 billion a year. We are a long way from Canberra - from the power network. Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : “Do something about it”, says the potential Leader of the Opposition; the mentor of the opposition. Yesterday I called for bipartisan support. How about a declaration of bipartisan support for a better deal for this state and for the states in general from the Leader of the Opposition? All we get is this stupid rhetoric from the Leader of the Opposition. The fact of the matter is that we need bipartisan support on this issue. When the member for Kalgoorlie was Leader of the Opposition, we did have some show of support for states’ rights. He made a few stands in favour of states’ rights. Apparently the less for less people who run the opposition do not see the point of standing up for the states, and Western Australia in particular.
Mr T. Buswell : What does Combet want to do? Mr E.S. RIPPER : An interjection from the member for Vasse! This set of circumstances would be perfect for the less for less philosophy. We would have less power and less resources, and we would have to make less decisions and we would have less responsibilities. It is perfect for a less for less man from the coalition. I come back to a more serious matter; that is, Western Australia, of all the states, and we all know it in this Parliament, has the most to fear from this centralising tendency. We subsidise the rest of the nation by $4 billion a year. We are a long way from Canberra - from the power network. Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : “Do something about it”, says the potential Leader of the Opposition; the mentor of the opposition. Yesterday I called for bipartisan support. How about a declaration of bipartisan support for a better deal for this state and for the states in general from the Leader of the Opposition? All we get is this stupid rhetoric from the Leader of the Opposition. The fact of the matter is that we need bipartisan support on this issue. When the member for Kalgoorlie was Leader of the Opposition, we did have some show of support for states’ rights. He made a few stands in favour of states’ rights. Apparently the less for less people who run the opposition do not see the point of standing up for the states, and Western Australia in particular.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : An interjection from the member for Vasse! This set of circumstances would be perfect for the less for less philosophy. We would have less power and less resources, and we would have to make less decisions and we would have less responsibilities. It is perfect for a less for less man from the coalition. I come back to a more serious matter; that is, Western Australia, of all the states, and we all know it in this Parliament, has the most to fear from this centralising tendency. We subsidise the rest of the nation by $4 billion a year. We are a long way from Canberra - from the power network. Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : “Do something about it”, says the potential Leader of the Opposition; the mentor of the opposition. Yesterday I called for bipartisan support. How about a declaration of bipartisan support for a better deal for this state and for the states in general from the Leader of the Opposition? All we get is this stupid rhetoric from the Leader of the Opposition. The fact of the matter is that we need bipartisan support on this issue. When the member for Kalgoorlie was Leader of the Opposition, we did have some show of support for states’ rights. He made a few stands in favour of states’ rights. Apparently the less for less people who run the opposition do not see the point of standing up for the states, and Western Australia in particular.
I come back to a more serious matter; that is, Western Australia, of all the states, and we all know it in this Parliament, has the most to fear from this centralising tendency. We subsidise the rest of the nation by $4 billion a year. We are a long way from Canberra - from the power network. Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : “Do something about it”, says the potential Leader of the Opposition; the mentor of the opposition. Yesterday I called for bipartisan support. How about a declaration of bipartisan support for a better deal for this state and for the states in general from the Leader of the Opposition? All we get is this stupid rhetoric from the Leader of the Opposition. The fact of the matter is that we need bipartisan support on this issue. When the member for Kalgoorlie was Leader of the Opposition, we did have some show of support for states’ rights. He made a few stands in favour of states’ rights. Apparently the less for less people who run the opposition do not see the point of standing up for the states, and Western Australia in particular.
Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : “Do something about it”, says the potential Leader of the Opposition; the mentor of the opposition. Yesterday I called for bipartisan support. How about a declaration of bipartisan support for a better deal for this state and for the states in general from the Leader of the Opposition? All we get is this stupid rhetoric from the Leader of the Opposition. The fact of the matter is that we need bipartisan support on this issue. When the member for Kalgoorlie was Leader of the Opposition, we did have some show of support for states’ rights. He made a few stands in favour of states’ rights. Apparently the less for less people who run the opposition do not see the point of standing up for the states, and Western Australia in particular.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : “Do something about it”, says the potential Leader of the Opposition; the mentor of the opposition. Yesterday I called for bipartisan support. How about a declaration of bipartisan support for a better deal for this state and for the states in general from the Leader of the Opposition? All we get is this stupid rhetoric from the Leader of the Opposition. The fact of the matter is that we need bipartisan support on this issue. When the member for Kalgoorlie was Leader of the Opposition, we did have some show of support for states’ rights. He made a few stands in favour of states’ rights. Apparently the less for less people who run the opposition do not see the point of standing up for the states, and Western Australia in particular.
Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: Yesterday I called, apparently in vain, for a bipartisan approach from Western Australia for this state to get a better deal from Canberra. Today I was absolutely astounded to read Peter Costello’s comments in the Financial Review . The article reads - The Howard government’s aim of using the GST to recast Australia’s federal system had failed and the states were at risk of becoming mere “divisional service deliverers” for Canberra, Treasurer Peter Costello warned yesterday. It is an absolutely amazing statement. Apparently, according to the Financial Review , he made the following comments about his GST grand plan on radio - “And my great hope in doing that was that with this increasing revenue, which they could plan long-term on, that they would be able to operate more like independent governments and take responsibilities in particular areas and you wouldn’t have this overlap . . . he said on Radio 2UE. His grand plan was to give us more revenue so that the states could operate more like independent governments. He then said that state governments are like divisional offices and he has the gall to blame the states for these circumstances. Meanwhile, the federal government, of which he is part, wants to run the states’ tax policies, education policies, industrial relations policies and environmental policies, just to mention a few examples. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : Not defence. Mr E.S. RIPPER : They do not want to take responsibility for the bombs in Albany harbour, but they want to run all the matters for which the states are usually responsible. Quite frankly, John Howard and Peter Costello have turned Liberal politics on its head. It is the most centralist federal government in the history of this nation. It is run by two parties that historically have talked about states’ rights. It is certainly not talking about states’ rights at the moment. Mr T. Buswell : What does Combet want to do? Mr E.S. RIPPER : An interjection from the member for Vasse! This set of circumstances would be perfect for the less for less philosophy. We would have less power and less resources, and we would have to make less decisions and we would have less responsibilities. It is perfect for a less for less man from the coalition. I come back to a more serious matter; that is, Western Australia, of all the states, and we all know it in this Parliament, has the most to fear from this centralising tendency. We subsidise the rest of the nation by $4 billion a year. We are a long way from Canberra - from the power network. Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : “Do something about it”, says the potential Leader of the Opposition; the mentor of the opposition. Yesterday I called for bipartisan support. How about a declaration of bipartisan support for a better deal for this state and for the states in general from the Leader of the Opposition? All we get is this stupid rhetoric from the Leader of the Opposition. The fact of the matter is that we need bipartisan support on this issue. When the member for Kalgoorlie was Leader of the Opposition, we did have some show of support for states’ rights. He made a few stands in favour of states’ rights. Apparently the less for less people who run the opposition do not see the point of standing up for the states, and Western Australia in particular.
Yesterday I called, apparently in vain, for a bipartisan approach from Western Australia for this state to get a better deal from Canberra. Today I was absolutely astounded to read Peter Costello’s comments in the Financial Review . The article reads - The Howard government’s aim of using the GST to recast Australia’s federal system had failed and the states were at risk of becoming mere “divisional service deliverers” for Canberra, Treasurer Peter Costello warned yesterday. It is an absolutely amazing statement. Apparently, according to the Financial Review , he made the following comments about his GST grand plan on radio - “And my great hope in doing that was that with this increasing revenue, which they could plan long-term on, that they would be able to operate more like independent governments and take responsibilities in particular areas and you wouldn’t have this overlap . . . he said on Radio 2UE. His grand plan was to give us more revenue so that the states could operate more like independent governments. He then said that state governments are like divisional offices and he has the gall to blame the states for these circumstances. Meanwhile, the federal government, of which he is part, wants to run the states’ tax policies, education policies, industrial relations policies and environmental policies, just to mention a few examples. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : Not defence. Mr E.S. RIPPER : They do not want to take responsibility for the bombs in Albany harbour, but they want to run all the matters for which the states are usually responsible. Quite frankly, John Howard and Peter Costello have turned Liberal politics on its head. It is the most centralist federal government in the history of this nation. It is run by two parties that historically have talked about states’ rights. It is certainly not talking about states’ rights at the moment. Mr T. Buswell : What does Combet want to do? Mr E.S. RIPPER : An interjection from the member for Vasse! This set of circumstances would be perfect for the less for less philosophy. We would have less power and less resources, and we would have to make less decisions and we would have less responsibilities. It is perfect for a less for less man from the coalition. I come back to a more serious matter; that is, Western Australia, of all the states, and we all know it in this Parliament, has the most to fear from this centralising tendency. We subsidise the rest of the nation by $4 billion a year. We are a long way from Canberra - from the power network. Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : “Do something about it”, says the potential Leader of the Opposition; the mentor of the opposition. Yesterday I called for bipartisan support. How about a declaration of bipartisan support for a better deal for this state and for the states in general from the Leader of the Opposition? All we get is this stupid rhetoric from the Leader of the Opposition. The fact of the matter is that we need bipartisan support on this issue. When the member for Kalgoorlie was Leader of the Opposition, we did have some show of support for states’ rights. He made a few stands in favour of states’ rights. Apparently the less for less people who run the opposition do not see the point of standing up for the states, and Western Australia in particular.
The Howard government’s aim of using the GST to recast Australia’s federal system had failed and the states were at risk of becoming mere “divisional service deliverers” for Canberra, Treasurer Peter Costello warned yesterday. It is an absolutely amazing statement. Apparently, according to the Financial Review , he made the following comments about his GST grand plan on radio - “And my great hope in doing that was that with this increasing revenue, which they could plan long-term on, that they would be able to operate more like independent governments and take responsibilities in particular areas and you wouldn’t have this overlap . . . he said on Radio 2UE. His grand plan was to give us more revenue so that the states could operate more like independent governments. He then said that state governments are like divisional offices and he has the gall to blame the states for these circumstances. Meanwhile, the federal government, of which he is part, wants to run the states’ tax policies, education policies, industrial relations policies and environmental policies, just to mention a few examples. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : Not defence. Mr E.S. RIPPER : They do not want to take responsibility for the bombs in Albany harbour, but they want to run all the matters for which the states are usually responsible. Quite frankly, John Howard and Peter Costello have turned Liberal politics on its head. It is the most centralist federal government in the history of this nation. It is run by two parties that historically have talked about states’ rights. It is certainly not talking about states’ rights at the moment. Mr T. Buswell : What does Combet want to do? Mr E.S. RIPPER : An interjection from the member for Vasse! This set of circumstances would be perfect for the less for less philosophy. We would have less power and less resources, and we would have to make less decisions and we would have less responsibilities. It is perfect for a less for less man from the coalition. I come back to a more serious matter; that is, Western Australia, of all the states, and we all know it in this Parliament, has the most to fear from this centralising tendency. We subsidise the rest of the nation by $4 billion a year. We are a long way from Canberra - from the power network. Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : “Do something about it”, says the potential Leader of the Opposition; the mentor of the opposition. Yesterday I called for bipartisan support. How about a declaration of bipartisan support for a better deal for this state and for the states in general from the Leader of the Opposition? All we get is this stupid rhetoric from the Leader of the Opposition. The fact of the matter is that we need bipartisan support on this issue. When the member for Kalgoorlie was Leader of the Opposition, we did have some show of support for states’ rights. He made a few stands in favour of states’ rights. Apparently the less for less people who run the opposition do not see the point of standing up for the states, and Western Australia in particular.
It is an absolutely amazing statement. Apparently, according to the Financial Review , he made the following comments about his GST grand plan on radio - “And my great hope in doing that was that with this increasing revenue, which they could plan long-term on, that they would be able to operate more like independent governments and take responsibilities in particular areas and you wouldn’t have this overlap . . . he said on Radio 2UE. His grand plan was to give us more revenue so that the states could operate more like independent governments. He then said that state governments are like divisional offices and he has the gall to blame the states for these circumstances. Meanwhile, the federal government, of which he is part, wants to run the states’ tax policies, education policies, industrial relations policies and environmental policies, just to mention a few examples. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : Not defence. Mr E.S. RIPPER : They do not want to take responsibility for the bombs in Albany harbour, but they want to run all the matters for which the states are usually responsible. Quite frankly, John Howard and Peter Costello have turned Liberal politics on its head. It is the most centralist federal government in the history of this nation. It is run by two parties that historically have talked about states’ rights. It is certainly not talking about states’ rights at the moment. Mr T. Buswell : What does Combet want to do? Mr E.S. RIPPER : An interjection from the member for Vasse! This set of circumstances would be perfect for the less for less philosophy. We would have less power and less resources, and we would have to make less decisions and we would have less responsibilities. It is perfect for a less for less man from the coalition. I come back to a more serious matter; that is, Western Australia, of all the states, and we all know it in this Parliament, has the most to fear from this centralising tendency. We subsidise the rest of the nation by $4 billion a year. We are a long way from Canberra - from the power network. Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : “Do something about it”, says the potential Leader of the Opposition; the mentor of the opposition. Yesterday I called for bipartisan support. How about a declaration of bipartisan support for a better deal for this state and for the states in general from the Leader of the Opposition? All we get is this stupid rhetoric from the Leader of the Opposition. The fact of the matter is that we need bipartisan support on this issue. When the member for Kalgoorlie was Leader of the Opposition, we did have some show of support for states’ rights. He made a few stands in favour of states’ rights. Apparently the less for less people who run the opposition do not see the point of standing up for the states, and Western Australia in particular.
“And my great hope in doing that was that with this increasing revenue, which they could plan long-term on, that they would be able to operate more like independent governments and take responsibilities in particular areas and you wouldn’t have this overlap . . . he said on Radio 2UE. His grand plan was to give us more revenue so that the states could operate more like independent governments. He then said that state governments are like divisional offices and he has the gall to blame the states for these circumstances. Meanwhile, the federal government, of which he is part, wants to run the states’ tax policies, education policies, industrial relations policies and environmental policies, just to mention a few examples. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : Not defence. Mr E.S. RIPPER : They do not want to take responsibility for the bombs in Albany harbour, but they want to run all the matters for which the states are usually responsible. Quite frankly, John Howard and Peter Costello have turned Liberal politics on its head. It is the most centralist federal government in the history of this nation. It is run by two parties that historically have talked about states’ rights. It is certainly not talking about states’ rights at the moment. Mr T. Buswell : What does Combet want to do? Mr E.S. RIPPER : An interjection from the member for Vasse! This set of circumstances would be perfect for the less for less philosophy. We would have less power and less resources, and we would have to make less decisions and we would have less responsibilities. It is perfect for a less for less man from the coalition. I come back to a more serious matter; that is, Western Australia, of all the states, and we all know it in this Parliament, has the most to fear from this centralising tendency. We subsidise the rest of the nation by $4 billion a year. We are a long way from Canberra - from the power network. Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : “Do something about it”, says the potential Leader of the Opposition; the mentor of the opposition. Yesterday I called for bipartisan support. How about a declaration of bipartisan support for a better deal for this state and for the states in general from the Leader of the Opposition? All we get is this stupid rhetoric from the Leader of the Opposition. The fact of the matter is that we need bipartisan support on this issue. When the member for Kalgoorlie was Leader of the Opposition, we did have some show of support for states’ rights. He made a few stands in favour of states’ rights. Apparently the less for less people who run the opposition do not see the point of standing up for the states, and Western Australia in particular.
His grand plan was to give us more revenue so that the states could operate more like independent governments. He then said that state governments are like divisional offices and he has the gall to blame the states for these circumstances. Meanwhile, the federal government, of which he is part, wants to run the states’ tax policies, education policies, industrial relations policies and environmental policies, just to mention a few examples. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : Not defence. Mr E.S. RIPPER : They do not want to take responsibility for the bombs in Albany harbour, but they want to run all the matters for which the states are usually responsible. Quite frankly, John Howard and Peter Costello have turned Liberal politics on its head. It is the most centralist federal government in the history of this nation. It is run by two parties that historically have talked about states’ rights. It is certainly not talking about states’ rights at the moment. Mr T. Buswell : What does Combet want to do? Mr E.S. RIPPER : An interjection from the member for Vasse! This set of circumstances would be perfect for the less for less philosophy. We would have less power and less resources, and we would have to make less decisions and we would have less responsibilities. It is perfect for a less for less man from the coalition. I come back to a more serious matter; that is, Western Australia, of all the states, and we all know it in this Parliament, has the most to fear from this centralising tendency. We subsidise the rest of the nation by $4 billion a year. We are a long way from Canberra - from the power network. Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : “Do something about it”, says the potential Leader of the Opposition; the mentor of the opposition. Yesterday I called for bipartisan support. How about a declaration of bipartisan support for a better deal for this state and for the states in general from the Leader of the Opposition? All we get is this stupid rhetoric from the Leader of the Opposition. The fact of the matter is that we need bipartisan support on this issue. When the member for Kalgoorlie was Leader of the Opposition, we did have some show of support for states’ rights. He made a few stands in favour of states’ rights. Apparently the less for less people who run the opposition do not see the point of standing up for the states, and Western Australia in particular.
Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : Not defence. Mr E.S. RIPPER : They do not want to take responsibility for the bombs in Albany harbour, but they want to run all the matters for which the states are usually responsible. Quite frankly, John Howard and Peter Costello have turned Liberal politics on its head. It is the most centralist federal government in the history of this nation. It is run by two parties that historically have talked about states’ rights. It is certainly not talking about states’ rights at the moment. Mr T. Buswell : What does Combet want to do? Mr E.S. RIPPER : An interjection from the member for Vasse! This set of circumstances would be perfect for the less for less philosophy. We would have less power and less resources, and we would have to make less decisions and we would have less responsibilities. It is perfect for a less for less man from the coalition. I come back to a more serious matter; that is, Western Australia, of all the states, and we all know it in this Parliament, has the most to fear from this centralising tendency. We subsidise the rest of the nation by $4 billion a year. We are a long way from Canberra - from the power network. Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : “Do something about it”, says the potential Leader of the Opposition; the mentor of the opposition. Yesterday I called for bipartisan support. How about a declaration of bipartisan support for a better deal for this state and for the states in general from the Leader of the Opposition? All we get is this stupid rhetoric from the Leader of the Opposition. The fact of the matter is that we need bipartisan support on this issue. When the member for Kalgoorlie was Leader of the Opposition, we did have some show of support for states’ rights. He made a few stands in favour of states’ rights. Apparently the less for less people who run the opposition do not see the point of standing up for the states, and Western Australia in particular.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : They do not want to take responsibility for the bombs in Albany harbour, but they want to run all the matters for which the states are usually responsible. Quite frankly, John Howard and Peter Costello have turned Liberal politics on its head. It is the most centralist federal government in the history of this nation. It is run by two parties that historically have talked about states’ rights. It is certainly not talking about states’ rights at the moment. Mr T. Buswell : What does Combet want to do? Mr E.S. RIPPER : An interjection from the member for Vasse! This set of circumstances would be perfect for the less for less philosophy. We would have less power and less resources, and we would have to make less decisions and we would have less responsibilities. It is perfect for a less for less man from the coalition. I come back to a more serious matter; that is, Western Australia, of all the states, and we all know it in this Parliament, has the most to fear from this centralising tendency. We subsidise the rest of the nation by $4 billion a year. We are a long way from Canberra - from the power network. Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : “Do something about it”, says the potential Leader of the Opposition; the mentor of the opposition. Yesterday I called for bipartisan support. How about a declaration of bipartisan support for a better deal for this state and for the states in general from the Leader of the Opposition? All we get is this stupid rhetoric from the Leader of the Opposition. The fact of the matter is that we need bipartisan support on this issue. When the member for Kalgoorlie was Leader of the Opposition, we did have some show of support for states’ rights. He made a few stands in favour of states’ rights. Apparently the less for less people who run the opposition do not see the point of standing up for the states, and Western Australia in particular.
Mr T. Buswell : What does Combet want to do? Mr E.S. RIPPER : An interjection from the member for Vasse! This set of circumstances would be perfect for the less for less philosophy. We would have less power and less resources, and we would have to make less decisions and we would have less responsibilities. It is perfect for a less for less man from the coalition. I come back to a more serious matter; that is, Western Australia, of all the states, and we all know it in this Parliament, has the most to fear from this centralising tendency. We subsidise the rest of the nation by $4 billion a year. We are a long way from Canberra - from the power network. Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : “Do something about it”, says the potential Leader of the Opposition; the mentor of the opposition. Yesterday I called for bipartisan support. How about a declaration of bipartisan support for a better deal for this state and for the states in general from the Leader of the Opposition? All we get is this stupid rhetoric from the Leader of the Opposition. The fact of the matter is that we need bipartisan support on this issue. When the member for Kalgoorlie was Leader of the Opposition, we did have some show of support for states’ rights. He made a few stands in favour of states’ rights. Apparently the less for less people who run the opposition do not see the point of standing up for the states, and Western Australia in particular.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : An interjection from the member for Vasse! This set of circumstances would be perfect for the less for less philosophy. We would have less power and less resources, and we would have to make less decisions and we would have less responsibilities. It is perfect for a less for less man from the coalition. I come back to a more serious matter; that is, Western Australia, of all the states, and we all know it in this Parliament, has the most to fear from this centralising tendency. We subsidise the rest of the nation by $4 billion a year. We are a long way from Canberra - from the power network. Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : “Do something about it”, says the potential Leader of the Opposition; the mentor of the opposition. Yesterday I called for bipartisan support. How about a declaration of bipartisan support for a better deal for this state and for the states in general from the Leader of the Opposition? All we get is this stupid rhetoric from the Leader of the Opposition. The fact of the matter is that we need bipartisan support on this issue. When the member for Kalgoorlie was Leader of the Opposition, we did have some show of support for states’ rights. He made a few stands in favour of states’ rights. Apparently the less for less people who run the opposition do not see the point of standing up for the states, and Western Australia in particular.
I come back to a more serious matter; that is, Western Australia, of all the states, and we all know it in this Parliament, has the most to fear from this centralising tendency. We subsidise the rest of the nation by $4 billion a year. We are a long way from Canberra - from the power network. Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : “Do something about it”, says the potential Leader of the Opposition; the mentor of the opposition. Yesterday I called for bipartisan support. How about a declaration of bipartisan support for a better deal for this state and for the states in general from the Leader of the Opposition? All we get is this stupid rhetoric from the Leader of the Opposition. The fact of the matter is that we need bipartisan support on this issue. When the member for Kalgoorlie was Leader of the Opposition, we did have some show of support for states’ rights. He made a few stands in favour of states’ rights. Apparently the less for less people who run the opposition do not see the point of standing up for the states, and Western Australia in particular.
Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : “Do something about it”, says the potential Leader of the Opposition; the mentor of the opposition. Yesterday I called for bipartisan support. How about a declaration of bipartisan support for a better deal for this state and for the states in general from the Leader of the Opposition? All we get is this stupid rhetoric from the Leader of the Opposition. The fact of the matter is that we need bipartisan support on this issue. When the member for Kalgoorlie was Leader of the Opposition, we did have some show of support for states’ rights. He made a few stands in favour of states’ rights. Apparently the less for less people who run the opposition do not see the point of standing up for the states, and Western Australia in particular.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : “Do something about it”, says the potential Leader of the Opposition; the mentor of the opposition. Yesterday I called for bipartisan support. How about a declaration of bipartisan support for a better deal for this state and for the states in general from the Leader of the Opposition? All we get is this stupid rhetoric from the Leader of the Opposition. The fact of the matter is that we need bipartisan support on this issue. When the member for Kalgoorlie was Leader of the Opposition, we did have some show of support for states’ rights. He made a few stands in favour of states’ rights. Apparently the less for less people who run the opposition do not see the point of standing up for the states, and Western Australia in particular.
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.