❓ Treasurer Ripper responds to Opposition Leader's criticism of budget tax increases, defending the government's financial management and highlighting the previous government's record and current overspending in the Opposition Leader's office.
AnsweredQoN 777Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
Is the Treasurer aware of the remarks attributed to the Leader of the Opposition in the Sunday Times that tax increases in the budget were evidence of the Government’s “inability to properly manage the State Budget”? Mr E.S. RIPPER
AnswerView source ↗
I am aware of those remarks. It is my melancholy duty to read the clippings of the Leader of the Opposition’s media comments. It is a burden but it is something that must be done every day. I took the remarks to mean that the Leader of the Opposition was telling the Government not to increase revenue but, rather, to live within its means. I regarded that as interesting advice from the Leader of the Opposition. When I brought down the state budget I advised that if there were no increase in taxes, revenue was projected to grow next financial year by just 0.6 per cent. Even with tax increases, revenue was projected to grow by just 2.1 per cent, which is well short of inflation. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER: Revenue must grow because the cost of delivering services grows every year. Our natural revenue growth is not keeping up with the growth in the economy because the taxes available to the State are narrow and inefficient and the main beneficiary of our economic growth is the Howard Government, which has control of income and company tax. There is a major financial pressure on this Government because of the way in which the Commonwealth Government provides grants to Western Australia. Those grants make up 45 per cent of our revenue, and when they grow at just 0.9 per cent - less than the rate of inflation - that is a cut in real terms to almost half our revenue. That is what the Commonwealth Government does to a State that props up and leads the national economy. I have listened to members opposite as they have talked about the budget. If I had accepted their advice, I would have delivered a utopian budget with tax cuts, spending increases, reduced debt, more capital works and a bigger surplus. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER: It just does not add up. Should the Leader of the Opposition be offering this free financial advice? He was a key player in a Government that delivered five deficits in eight budgets and a Government, that, according to respected economic commentator Alan Wood, was sinking in a sea of red ink when it left office. The Leader of the Opposition was part of the Government that left us to sort out the vehicle leasing deal with the Matrix Finance Group. He was part of the Government that left us to sort out the police communications and technology project, which was underfunded by hundreds of millions of dollars. He was the Court Government minister who was named by the Under Treasurer for his habit of announcing things for which there was no budget provision, such as laptops for teachers and reduced class sizes. On the subject of tax increases, he was part of the Government that had no hesitation in introducing in one year $225 million worth of revenue measures; a 12.5 per cent increase in stamp duty on conveyancing; an increase in stamp duty on insurance policies; a gold tax; and a 64 per cent increase in vehicle licence fees. That is what the previous Government did in one year. I have heard the Leader of the Opposition interjecting, Mr Speaker. I have not responded to him because I have some information for him right now. That is his record. Should he be giving us economic and financial advice? I ask a rhetorical question: do leopards ever change their spots? I have some new information on the question of whether leopards ever change their spots. This financial year all ministerial offices in our lean, efficient and very competent ministry are expected to come in on budget. However, one office will blow out by $67 000; it will be 10 per cent over budget. Guess which office? Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER: That is right, Mr Speaker, it is the Leader of the Opposition’s office. The fiscal bandit strikes again.
Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: I am aware of those remarks. It is my melancholy duty to read the clippings of the Leader of the Opposition’s media comments. It is a burden but it is something that must be done every day. I took the remarks to mean that the Leader of the Opposition was telling the Government not to increase revenue but, rather, to live within its means. I regarded that as interesting advice from the Leader of the Opposition. When I brought down the state budget I advised that if there were no increase in taxes, revenue was projected to grow next financial year by just 0.6 per cent. Even with tax increases, revenue was projected to grow by just 2.1 per cent, which is well short of inflation. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER: Revenue must grow because the cost of delivering services grows every year. Our natural revenue growth is not keeping up with the growth in the economy because the taxes available to the State are narrow and inefficient and the main beneficiary of our economic growth is the Howard Government, which has control of income and company tax. There is a major financial pressure on this Government because of the way in which the Commonwealth Government provides grants to Western Australia. Those grants make up 45 per cent of our revenue, and when they grow at just 0.9 per cent - less than the rate of inflation - that is a cut in real terms to almost half our revenue. That is what the Commonwealth Government does to a State that props up and leads the national economy. I have listened to members opposite as they have talked about the budget. If I had accepted their advice, I would have delivered a utopian budget with tax cuts, spending increases, reduced debt, more capital works and a bigger surplus. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER: It just does not add up. Should the Leader of the Opposition be offering this free financial advice? He was a key player in a Government that delivered five deficits in eight budgets and a Government, that, according to respected economic commentator Alan Wood, was sinking in a sea of red ink when it left office. The Leader of the Opposition was part of the Government that left us to sort out the vehicle leasing deal with the Matrix Finance Group. He was part of the Government that left us to sort out the police communications and technology project, which was underfunded by hundreds of millions of dollars. He was the Court Government minister who was named by the Under Treasurer for his habit of announcing things for which there was no budget provision, such as laptops for teachers and reduced class sizes. On the subject of tax increases, he was part of the Government that had no hesitation in introducing in one year $225 million worth of revenue measures; a 12.5 per cent increase in stamp duty on conveyancing; an increase in stamp duty on insurance policies; a gold tax; and a 64 per cent increase in vehicle licence fees. That is what the previous Government did in one year. I have heard the Leader of the Opposition interjecting, Mr Speaker. I have not responded to him because I have some information for him right now. That is his record. Should he be giving us economic and financial advice? I ask a rhetorical question: do leopards ever change their spots? I have some new information on the question of whether leopards ever change their spots. This financial year all ministerial offices in our lean, efficient and very competent ministry are expected to come in on budget. However, one office will blow out by $67 000; it will be 10 per cent over budget. Guess which office? Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER: That is right, Mr Speaker, it is the Leader of the Opposition’s office. The fiscal bandit strikes again.
I am aware of those remarks. It is my melancholy duty to read the clippings of the Leader of the Opposition’s media comments. It is a burden but it is something that must be done every day. I took the remarks to mean that the Leader of the Opposition was telling the Government not to increase revenue but, rather, to live within its means. I regarded that as interesting advice from the Leader of the Opposition. When I brought down the state budget I advised that if there were no increase in taxes, revenue was projected to grow next financial year by just 0.6 per cent. Even with tax increases, revenue was projected to grow by just 2.1 per cent, which is well short of inflation. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER: Revenue must grow because the cost of delivering services grows every year. Our natural revenue growth is not keeping up with the growth in the economy because the taxes available to the State are narrow and inefficient and the main beneficiary of our economic growth is the Howard Government, which has control of income and company tax. There is a major financial pressure on this Government because of the way in which the Commonwealth Government provides grants to Western Australia. Those grants make up 45 per cent of our revenue, and when they grow at just 0.9 per cent - less than the rate of inflation - that is a cut in real terms to almost half our revenue. That is what the Commonwealth Government does to a State that props up and leads the national economy. I have listened to members opposite as they have talked about the budget. If I had accepted their advice, I would have delivered a utopian budget with tax cuts, spending increases, reduced debt, more capital works and a bigger surplus. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER: It just does not add up. Should the Leader of the Opposition be offering this free financial advice? He was a key player in a Government that delivered five deficits in eight budgets and a Government, that, according to respected economic commentator Alan Wood, was sinking in a sea of red ink when it left office. The Leader of the Opposition was part of the Government that left us to sort out the vehicle leasing deal with the Matrix Finance Group. He was part of the Government that left us to sort out the police communications and technology project, which was underfunded by hundreds of millions of dollars. He was the Court Government minister who was named by the Under Treasurer for his habit of announcing things for which there was no budget provision, such as laptops for teachers and reduced class sizes. On the subject of tax increases, he was part of the Government that had no hesitation in introducing in one year $225 million worth of revenue measures; a 12.5 per cent increase in stamp duty on conveyancing; an increase in stamp duty on insurance policies; a gold tax; and a 64 per cent increase in vehicle licence fees. That is what the previous Government did in one year. I have heard the Leader of the Opposition interjecting, Mr Speaker. I have not responded to him because I have some information for him right now. That is his record. Should he be giving us economic and financial advice? I ask a rhetorical question: do leopards ever change their spots? I have some new information on the question of whether leopards ever change their spots. This financial year all ministerial offices in our lean, efficient and very competent ministry are expected to come in on budget. However, one office will blow out by $67 000; it will be 10 per cent over budget. Guess which office? Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER: That is right, Mr Speaker, it is the Leader of the Opposition’s office. The fiscal bandit strikes again.
When I brought down the state budget I advised that if there were no increase in taxes, revenue was projected to grow next financial year by just 0.6 per cent. Even with tax increases, revenue was projected to grow by just 2.1 per cent, which is well short of inflation. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER: Revenue must grow because the cost of delivering services grows every year. Our natural revenue growth is not keeping up with the growth in the economy because the taxes available to the State are narrow and inefficient and the main beneficiary of our economic growth is the Howard Government, which has control of income and company tax. There is a major financial pressure on this Government because of the way in which the Commonwealth Government provides grants to Western Australia. Those grants make up 45 per cent of our revenue, and when they grow at just 0.9 per cent - less than the rate of inflation - that is a cut in real terms to almost half our revenue. That is what the Commonwealth Government does to a State that props up and leads the national economy. I have listened to members opposite as they have talked about the budget. If I had accepted their advice, I would have delivered a utopian budget with tax cuts, spending increases, reduced debt, more capital works and a bigger surplus. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER: It just does not add up. Should the Leader of the Opposition be offering this free financial advice? He was a key player in a Government that delivered five deficits in eight budgets and a Government, that, according to respected economic commentator Alan Wood, was sinking in a sea of red ink when it left office. The Leader of the Opposition was part of the Government that left us to sort out the vehicle leasing deal with the Matrix Finance Group. He was part of the Government that left us to sort out the police communications and technology project, which was underfunded by hundreds of millions of dollars. He was the Court Government minister who was named by the Under Treasurer for his habit of announcing things for which there was no budget provision, such as laptops for teachers and reduced class sizes. On the subject of tax increases, he was part of the Government that had no hesitation in introducing in one year $225 million worth of revenue measures; a 12.5 per cent increase in stamp duty on conveyancing; an increase in stamp duty on insurance policies; a gold tax; and a 64 per cent increase in vehicle licence fees. That is what the previous Government did in one year. I have heard the Leader of the Opposition interjecting, Mr Speaker. I have not responded to him because I have some information for him right now. That is his record. Should he be giving us economic and financial advice? I ask a rhetorical question: do leopards ever change their spots? I have some new information on the question of whether leopards ever change their spots. This financial year all ministerial offices in our lean, efficient and very competent ministry are expected to come in on budget. However, one office will blow out by $67 000; it will be 10 per cent over budget. Guess which office? Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER: That is right, Mr Speaker, it is the Leader of the Opposition’s office. The fiscal bandit strikes again.
Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER: Revenue must grow because the cost of delivering services grows every year. Our natural revenue growth is not keeping up with the growth in the economy because the taxes available to the State are narrow and inefficient and the main beneficiary of our economic growth is the Howard Government, which has control of income and company tax. There is a major financial pressure on this Government because of the way in which the Commonwealth Government provides grants to Western Australia. Those grants make up 45 per cent of our revenue, and when they grow at just 0.9 per cent - less than the rate of inflation - that is a cut in real terms to almost half our revenue. That is what the Commonwealth Government does to a State that props up and leads the national economy. I have listened to members opposite as they have talked about the budget. If I had accepted their advice, I would have delivered a utopian budget with tax cuts, spending increases, reduced debt, more capital works and a bigger surplus. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER: It just does not add up. Should the Leader of the Opposition be offering this free financial advice? He was a key player in a Government that delivered five deficits in eight budgets and a Government, that, according to respected economic commentator Alan Wood, was sinking in a sea of red ink when it left office. The Leader of the Opposition was part of the Government that left us to sort out the vehicle leasing deal with the Matrix Finance Group. He was part of the Government that left us to sort out the police communications and technology project, which was underfunded by hundreds of millions of dollars. He was the Court Government minister who was named by the Under Treasurer for his habit of announcing things for which there was no budget provision, such as laptops for teachers and reduced class sizes. On the subject of tax increases, he was part of the Government that had no hesitation in introducing in one year $225 million worth of revenue measures; a 12.5 per cent increase in stamp duty on conveyancing; an increase in stamp duty on insurance policies; a gold tax; and a 64 per cent increase in vehicle licence fees. That is what the previous Government did in one year. I have heard the Leader of the Opposition interjecting, Mr Speaker. I have not responded to him because I have some information for him right now. That is his record. Should he be giving us economic and financial advice? I ask a rhetorical question: do leopards ever change their spots? I have some new information on the question of whether leopards ever change their spots. This financial year all ministerial offices in our lean, efficient and very competent ministry are expected to come in on budget. However, one office will blow out by $67 000; it will be 10 per cent over budget. Guess which office? Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER: That is right, Mr Speaker, it is the Leader of the Opposition’s office. The fiscal bandit strikes again.
Mr E.S. RIPPER: Revenue must grow because the cost of delivering services grows every year. Our natural revenue growth is not keeping up with the growth in the economy because the taxes available to the State are narrow and inefficient and the main beneficiary of our economic growth is the Howard Government, which has control of income and company tax. There is a major financial pressure on this Government because of the way in which the Commonwealth Government provides grants to Western Australia. Those grants make up 45 per cent of our revenue, and when they grow at just 0.9 per cent - less than the rate of inflation - that is a cut in real terms to almost half our revenue. That is what the Commonwealth Government does to a State that props up and leads the national economy. I have listened to members opposite as they have talked about the budget. If I had accepted their advice, I would have delivered a utopian budget with tax cuts, spending increases, reduced debt, more capital works and a bigger surplus. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER: It just does not add up. Should the Leader of the Opposition be offering this free financial advice? He was a key player in a Government that delivered five deficits in eight budgets and a Government, that, according to respected economic commentator Alan Wood, was sinking in a sea of red ink when it left office. The Leader of the Opposition was part of the Government that left us to sort out the vehicle leasing deal with the Matrix Finance Group. He was part of the Government that left us to sort out the police communications and technology project, which was underfunded by hundreds of millions of dollars. He was the Court Government minister who was named by the Under Treasurer for his habit of announcing things for which there was no budget provision, such as laptops for teachers and reduced class sizes. On the subject of tax increases, he was part of the Government that had no hesitation in introducing in one year $225 million worth of revenue measures; a 12.5 per cent increase in stamp duty on conveyancing; an increase in stamp duty on insurance policies; a gold tax; and a 64 per cent increase in vehicle licence fees. That is what the previous Government did in one year. I have heard the Leader of the Opposition interjecting, Mr Speaker. I have not responded to him because I have some information for him right now. That is his record. Should he be giving us economic and financial advice? I ask a rhetorical question: do leopards ever change their spots? I have some new information on the question of whether leopards ever change their spots. This financial year all ministerial offices in our lean, efficient and very competent ministry are expected to come in on budget. However, one office will blow out by $67 000; it will be 10 per cent over budget. Guess which office? Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER: That is right, Mr Speaker, it is the Leader of the Opposition’s office. The fiscal bandit strikes again.
I have listened to members opposite as they have talked about the budget. If I had accepted their advice, I would have delivered a utopian budget with tax cuts, spending increases, reduced debt, more capital works and a bigger surplus. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER: It just does not add up. Should the Leader of the Opposition be offering this free financial advice? He was a key player in a Government that delivered five deficits in eight budgets and a Government, that, according to respected economic commentator Alan Wood, was sinking in a sea of red ink when it left office. The Leader of the Opposition was part of the Government that left us to sort out the vehicle leasing deal with the Matrix Finance Group. He was part of the Government that left us to sort out the police communications and technology project, which was underfunded by hundreds of millions of dollars. He was the Court Government minister who was named by the Under Treasurer for his habit of announcing things for which there was no budget provision, such as laptops for teachers and reduced class sizes. On the subject of tax increases, he was part of the Government that had no hesitation in introducing in one year $225 million worth of revenue measures; a 12.5 per cent increase in stamp duty on conveyancing; an increase in stamp duty on insurance policies; a gold tax; and a 64 per cent increase in vehicle licence fees. That is what the previous Government did in one year. I have heard the Leader of the Opposition interjecting, Mr Speaker. I have not responded to him because I have some information for him right now. That is his record. Should he be giving us economic and financial advice? I ask a rhetorical question: do leopards ever change their spots? I have some new information on the question of whether leopards ever change their spots. This financial year all ministerial offices in our lean, efficient and very competent ministry are expected to come in on budget. However, one office will blow out by $67 000; it will be 10 per cent over budget. Guess which office? Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER: That is right, Mr Speaker, it is the Leader of the Opposition’s office. The fiscal bandit strikes again.
Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER: It just does not add up. Should the Leader of the Opposition be offering this free financial advice? He was a key player in a Government that delivered five deficits in eight budgets and a Government, that, according to respected economic commentator Alan Wood, was sinking in a sea of red ink when it left office. The Leader of the Opposition was part of the Government that left us to sort out the vehicle leasing deal with the Matrix Finance Group. He was part of the Government that left us to sort out the police communications and technology project, which was underfunded by hundreds of millions of dollars. He was the Court Government minister who was named by the Under Treasurer for his habit of announcing things for which there was no budget provision, such as laptops for teachers and reduced class sizes. On the subject of tax increases, he was part of the Government that had no hesitation in introducing in one year $225 million worth of revenue measures; a 12.5 per cent increase in stamp duty on conveyancing; an increase in stamp duty on insurance policies; a gold tax; and a 64 per cent increase in vehicle licence fees. That is what the previous Government did in one year. I have heard the Leader of the Opposition interjecting, Mr Speaker. I have not responded to him because I have some information for him right now. That is his record. Should he be giving us economic and financial advice? I ask a rhetorical question: do leopards ever change their spots? I have some new information on the question of whether leopards ever change their spots. This financial year all ministerial offices in our lean, efficient and very competent ministry are expected to come in on budget. However, one office will blow out by $67 000; it will be 10 per cent over budget. Guess which office? Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER: That is right, Mr Speaker, it is the Leader of the Opposition’s office. The fiscal bandit strikes again.
Mr E.S. RIPPER: It just does not add up. Should the Leader of the Opposition be offering this free financial advice? He was a key player in a Government that delivered five deficits in eight budgets and a Government, that, according to respected economic commentator Alan Wood, was sinking in a sea of red ink when it left office. The Leader of the Opposition was part of the Government that left us to sort out the vehicle leasing deal with the Matrix Finance Group. He was part of the Government that left us to sort out the police communications and technology project, which was underfunded by hundreds of millions of dollars. He was the Court Government minister who was named by the Under Treasurer for his habit of announcing things for which there was no budget provision, such as laptops for teachers and reduced class sizes. On the subject of tax increases, he was part of the Government that had no hesitation in introducing in one year $225 million worth of revenue measures; a 12.5 per cent increase in stamp duty on conveyancing; an increase in stamp duty on insurance policies; a gold tax; and a 64 per cent increase in vehicle licence fees. That is what the previous Government did in one year. I have heard the Leader of the Opposition interjecting, Mr Speaker. I have not responded to him because I have some information for him right now. That is his record. Should he be giving us economic and financial advice? I ask a rhetorical question: do leopards ever change their spots? I have some new information on the question of whether leopards ever change their spots. This financial year all ministerial offices in our lean, efficient and very competent ministry are expected to come in on budget. However, one office will blow out by $67 000; it will be 10 per cent over budget. Guess which office? Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER: That is right, Mr Speaker, it is the Leader of the Opposition’s office. The fiscal bandit strikes again.
I have heard the Leader of the Opposition interjecting, Mr Speaker. I have not responded to him because I have some information for him right now. That is his record. Should he be giving us economic and financial advice? I ask a rhetorical question: do leopards ever change their spots? I have some new information on the question of whether leopards ever change their spots. This financial year all ministerial offices in our lean, efficient and very competent ministry are expected to come in on budget. However, one office will blow out by $67 000; it will be 10 per cent over budget. Guess which office? Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER: That is right, Mr Speaker, it is the Leader of the Opposition’s office. The fiscal bandit strikes again.
Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER: That is right, Mr Speaker, it is the Leader of the Opposition’s office. The fiscal bandit strikes again.
Mr E.S. RIPPER: That is right, Mr Speaker, it is the Leader of the Opposition’s office. The fiscal bandit strikes again.
Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: I am aware of those remarks. It is my melancholy duty to read the clippings of the Leader of the Opposition’s media comments. It is a burden but it is something that must be done every day. I took the remarks to mean that the Leader of the Opposition was telling the Government not to increase revenue but, rather, to live within its means. I regarded that as interesting advice from the Leader of the Opposition. When I brought down the state budget I advised that if there were no increase in taxes, revenue was projected to grow next financial year by just 0.6 per cent. Even with tax increases, revenue was projected to grow by just 2.1 per cent, which is well short of inflation. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER: Revenue must grow because the cost of delivering services grows every year. Our natural revenue growth is not keeping up with the growth in the economy because the taxes available to the State are narrow and inefficient and the main beneficiary of our economic growth is the Howard Government, which has control of income and company tax. There is a major financial pressure on this Government because of the way in which the Commonwealth Government provides grants to Western Australia. Those grants make up 45 per cent of our revenue, and when they grow at just 0.9 per cent - less than the rate of inflation - that is a cut in real terms to almost half our revenue. That is what the Commonwealth Government does to a State that props up and leads the national economy. I have listened to members opposite as they have talked about the budget. If I had accepted their advice, I would have delivered a utopian budget with tax cuts, spending increases, reduced debt, more capital works and a bigger surplus. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER: It just does not add up. Should the Leader of the Opposition be offering this free financial advice? He was a key player in a Government that delivered five deficits in eight budgets and a Government, that, according to respected economic commentator Alan Wood, was sinking in a sea of red ink when it left office. The Leader of the Opposition was part of the Government that left us to sort out the vehicle leasing deal with the Matrix Finance Group. He was part of the Government that left us to sort out the police communications and technology project, which was underfunded by hundreds of millions of dollars. He was the Court Government minister who was named by the Under Treasurer for his habit of announcing things for which there was no budget provision, such as laptops for teachers and reduced class sizes. On the subject of tax increases, he was part of the Government that had no hesitation in introducing in one year $225 million worth of revenue measures; a 12.5 per cent increase in stamp duty on conveyancing; an increase in stamp duty on insurance policies; a gold tax; and a 64 per cent increase in vehicle licence fees. That is what the previous Government did in one year. I have heard the Leader of the Opposition interjecting, Mr Speaker. I have not responded to him because I have some information for him right now. That is his record. Should he be giving us economic and financial advice? I ask a rhetorical question: do leopards ever change their spots? I have some new information on the question of whether leopards ever change their spots. This financial year all ministerial offices in our lean, efficient and very competent ministry are expected to come in on budget. However, one office will blow out by $67 000; it will be 10 per cent over budget. Guess which office? Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER: That is right, Mr Speaker, it is the Leader of the Opposition’s office. The fiscal bandit strikes again.
I am aware of those remarks. It is my melancholy duty to read the clippings of the Leader of the Opposition’s media comments. It is a burden but it is something that must be done every day. I took the remarks to mean that the Leader of the Opposition was telling the Government not to increase revenue but, rather, to live within its means. I regarded that as interesting advice from the Leader of the Opposition. When I brought down the state budget I advised that if there were no increase in taxes, revenue was projected to grow next financial year by just 0.6 per cent. Even with tax increases, revenue was projected to grow by just 2.1 per cent, which is well short of inflation. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER: Revenue must grow because the cost of delivering services grows every year. Our natural revenue growth is not keeping up with the growth in the economy because the taxes available to the State are narrow and inefficient and the main beneficiary of our economic growth is the Howard Government, which has control of income and company tax. There is a major financial pressure on this Government because of the way in which the Commonwealth Government provides grants to Western Australia. Those grants make up 45 per cent of our revenue, and when they grow at just 0.9 per cent - less than the rate of inflation - that is a cut in real terms to almost half our revenue. That is what the Commonwealth Government does to a State that props up and leads the national economy. I have listened to members opposite as they have talked about the budget. If I had accepted their advice, I would have delivered a utopian budget with tax cuts, spending increases, reduced debt, more capital works and a bigger surplus. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER: It just does not add up. Should the Leader of the Opposition be offering this free financial advice? He was a key player in a Government that delivered five deficits in eight budgets and a Government, that, according to respected economic commentator Alan Wood, was sinking in a sea of red ink when it left office. The Leader of the Opposition was part of the Government that left us to sort out the vehicle leasing deal with the Matrix Finance Group. He was part of the Government that left us to sort out the police communications and technology project, which was underfunded by hundreds of millions of dollars. He was the Court Government minister who was named by the Under Treasurer for his habit of announcing things for which there was no budget provision, such as laptops for teachers and reduced class sizes. On the subject of tax increases, he was part of the Government that had no hesitation in introducing in one year $225 million worth of revenue measures; a 12.5 per cent increase in stamp duty on conveyancing; an increase in stamp duty on insurance policies; a gold tax; and a 64 per cent increase in vehicle licence fees. That is what the previous Government did in one year. I have heard the Leader of the Opposition interjecting, Mr Speaker. I have not responded to him because I have some information for him right now. That is his record. Should he be giving us economic and financial advice? I ask a rhetorical question: do leopards ever change their spots? I have some new information on the question of whether leopards ever change their spots. This financial year all ministerial offices in our lean, efficient and very competent ministry are expected to come in on budget. However, one office will blow out by $67 000; it will be 10 per cent over budget. Guess which office? Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER: That is right, Mr Speaker, it is the Leader of the Opposition’s office. The fiscal bandit strikes again.
When I brought down the state budget I advised that if there were no increase in taxes, revenue was projected to grow next financial year by just 0.6 per cent. Even with tax increases, revenue was projected to grow by just 2.1 per cent, which is well short of inflation. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER: Revenue must grow because the cost of delivering services grows every year. Our natural revenue growth is not keeping up with the growth in the economy because the taxes available to the State are narrow and inefficient and the main beneficiary of our economic growth is the Howard Government, which has control of income and company tax. There is a major financial pressure on this Government because of the way in which the Commonwealth Government provides grants to Western Australia. Those grants make up 45 per cent of our revenue, and when they grow at just 0.9 per cent - less than the rate of inflation - that is a cut in real terms to almost half our revenue. That is what the Commonwealth Government does to a State that props up and leads the national economy. I have listened to members opposite as they have talked about the budget. If I had accepted their advice, I would have delivered a utopian budget with tax cuts, spending increases, reduced debt, more capital works and a bigger surplus. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER: It just does not add up. Should the Leader of the Opposition be offering this free financial advice? He was a key player in a Government that delivered five deficits in eight budgets and a Government, that, according to respected economic commentator Alan Wood, was sinking in a sea of red ink when it left office. The Leader of the Opposition was part of the Government that left us to sort out the vehicle leasing deal with the Matrix Finance Group. He was part of the Government that left us to sort out the police communications and technology project, which was underfunded by hundreds of millions of dollars. He was the Court Government minister who was named by the Under Treasurer for his habit of announcing things for which there was no budget provision, such as laptops for teachers and reduced class sizes. On the subject of tax increases, he was part of the Government that had no hesitation in introducing in one year $225 million worth of revenue measures; a 12.5 per cent increase in stamp duty on conveyancing; an increase in stamp duty on insurance policies; a gold tax; and a 64 per cent increase in vehicle licence fees. That is what the previous Government did in one year. I have heard the Leader of the Opposition interjecting, Mr Speaker. I have not responded to him because I have some information for him right now. That is his record. Should he be giving us economic and financial advice? I ask a rhetorical question: do leopards ever change their spots? I have some new information on the question of whether leopards ever change their spots. This financial year all ministerial offices in our lean, efficient and very competent ministry are expected to come in on budget. However, one office will blow out by $67 000; it will be 10 per cent over budget. Guess which office? Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER: That is right, Mr Speaker, it is the Leader of the Opposition’s office. The fiscal bandit strikes again.
Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER: Revenue must grow because the cost of delivering services grows every year. Our natural revenue growth is not keeping up with the growth in the economy because the taxes available to the State are narrow and inefficient and the main beneficiary of our economic growth is the Howard Government, which has control of income and company tax. There is a major financial pressure on this Government because of the way in which the Commonwealth Government provides grants to Western Australia. Those grants make up 45 per cent of our revenue, and when they grow at just 0.9 per cent - less than the rate of inflation - that is a cut in real terms to almost half our revenue. That is what the Commonwealth Government does to a State that props up and leads the national economy. I have listened to members opposite as they have talked about the budget. If I had accepted their advice, I would have delivered a utopian budget with tax cuts, spending increases, reduced debt, more capital works and a bigger surplus. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER: It just does not add up. Should the Leader of the Opposition be offering this free financial advice? He was a key player in a Government that delivered five deficits in eight budgets and a Government, that, according to respected economic commentator Alan Wood, was sinking in a sea of red ink when it left office. The Leader of the Opposition was part of the Government that left us to sort out the vehicle leasing deal with the Matrix Finance Group. He was part of the Government that left us to sort out the police communications and technology project, which was underfunded by hundreds of millions of dollars. He was the Court Government minister who was named by the Under Treasurer for his habit of announcing things for which there was no budget provision, such as laptops for teachers and reduced class sizes. On the subject of tax increases, he was part of the Government that had no hesitation in introducing in one year $225 million worth of revenue measures; a 12.5 per cent increase in stamp duty on conveyancing; an increase in stamp duty on insurance policies; a gold tax; and a 64 per cent increase in vehicle licence fees. That is what the previous Government did in one year. I have heard the Leader of the Opposition interjecting, Mr Speaker. I have not responded to him because I have some information for him right now. That is his record. Should he be giving us economic and financial advice? I ask a rhetorical question: do leopards ever change their spots? I have some new information on the question of whether leopards ever change their spots. This financial year all ministerial offices in our lean, efficient and very competent ministry are expected to come in on budget. However, one office will blow out by $67 000; it will be 10 per cent over budget. Guess which office? Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER: That is right, Mr Speaker, it is the Leader of the Opposition’s office. The fiscal bandit strikes again.
Mr E.S. RIPPER: Revenue must grow because the cost of delivering services grows every year. Our natural revenue growth is not keeping up with the growth in the economy because the taxes available to the State are narrow and inefficient and the main beneficiary of our economic growth is the Howard Government, which has control of income and company tax. There is a major financial pressure on this Government because of the way in which the Commonwealth Government provides grants to Western Australia. Those grants make up 45 per cent of our revenue, and when they grow at just 0.9 per cent - less than the rate of inflation - that is a cut in real terms to almost half our revenue. That is what the Commonwealth Government does to a State that props up and leads the national economy. I have listened to members opposite as they have talked about the budget. If I had accepted their advice, I would have delivered a utopian budget with tax cuts, spending increases, reduced debt, more capital works and a bigger surplus. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER: It just does not add up. Should the Leader of the Opposition be offering this free financial advice? He was a key player in a Government that delivered five deficits in eight budgets and a Government, that, according to respected economic commentator Alan Wood, was sinking in a sea of red ink when it left office. The Leader of the Opposition was part of the Government that left us to sort out the vehicle leasing deal with the Matrix Finance Group. He was part of the Government that left us to sort out the police communications and technology project, which was underfunded by hundreds of millions of dollars. He was the Court Government minister who was named by the Under Treasurer for his habit of announcing things for which there was no budget provision, such as laptops for teachers and reduced class sizes. On the subject of tax increases, he was part of the Government that had no hesitation in introducing in one year $225 million worth of revenue measures; a 12.5 per cent increase in stamp duty on conveyancing; an increase in stamp duty on insurance policies; a gold tax; and a 64 per cent increase in vehicle licence fees. That is what the previous Government did in one year. I have heard the Leader of the Opposition interjecting, Mr Speaker. I have not responded to him because I have some information for him right now. That is his record. Should he be giving us economic and financial advice? I ask a rhetorical question: do leopards ever change their spots? I have some new information on the question of whether leopards ever change their spots. This financial year all ministerial offices in our lean, efficient and very competent ministry are expected to come in on budget. However, one office will blow out by $67 000; it will be 10 per cent over budget. Guess which office? Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER: That is right, Mr Speaker, it is the Leader of the Opposition’s office. The fiscal bandit strikes again.
I have listened to members opposite as they have talked about the budget. If I had accepted their advice, I would have delivered a utopian budget with tax cuts, spending increases, reduced debt, more capital works and a bigger surplus. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER: It just does not add up. Should the Leader of the Opposition be offering this free financial advice? He was a key player in a Government that delivered five deficits in eight budgets and a Government, that, according to respected economic commentator Alan Wood, was sinking in a sea of red ink when it left office. The Leader of the Opposition was part of the Government that left us to sort out the vehicle leasing deal with the Matrix Finance Group. He was part of the Government that left us to sort out the police communications and technology project, which was underfunded by hundreds of millions of dollars. He was the Court Government minister who was named by the Under Treasurer for his habit of announcing things for which there was no budget provision, such as laptops for teachers and reduced class sizes. On the subject of tax increases, he was part of the Government that had no hesitation in introducing in one year $225 million worth of revenue measures; a 12.5 per cent increase in stamp duty on conveyancing; an increase in stamp duty on insurance policies; a gold tax; and a 64 per cent increase in vehicle licence fees. That is what the previous Government did in one year. I have heard the Leader of the Opposition interjecting, Mr Speaker. I have not responded to him because I have some information for him right now. That is his record. Should he be giving us economic and financial advice? I ask a rhetorical question: do leopards ever change their spots? I have some new information on the question of whether leopards ever change their spots. This financial year all ministerial offices in our lean, efficient and very competent ministry are expected to come in on budget. However, one office will blow out by $67 000; it will be 10 per cent over budget. Guess which office? Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER: That is right, Mr Speaker, it is the Leader of the Opposition’s office. The fiscal bandit strikes again.
Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER: It just does not add up. Should the Leader of the Opposition be offering this free financial advice? He was a key player in a Government that delivered five deficits in eight budgets and a Government, that, according to respected economic commentator Alan Wood, was sinking in a sea of red ink when it left office. The Leader of the Opposition was part of the Government that left us to sort out the vehicle leasing deal with the Matrix Finance Group. He was part of the Government that left us to sort out the police communications and technology project, which was underfunded by hundreds of millions of dollars. He was the Court Government minister who was named by the Under Treasurer for his habit of announcing things for which there was no budget provision, such as laptops for teachers and reduced class sizes. On the subject of tax increases, he was part of the Government that had no hesitation in introducing in one year $225 million worth of revenue measures; a 12.5 per cent increase in stamp duty on conveyancing; an increase in stamp duty on insurance policies; a gold tax; and a 64 per cent increase in vehicle licence fees. That is what the previous Government did in one year. I have heard the Leader of the Opposition interjecting, Mr Speaker. I have not responded to him because I have some information for him right now. That is his record. Should he be giving us economic and financial advice? I ask a rhetorical question: do leopards ever change their spots? I have some new information on the question of whether leopards ever change their spots. This financial year all ministerial offices in our lean, efficient and very competent ministry are expected to come in on budget. However, one office will blow out by $67 000; it will be 10 per cent over budget. Guess which office? Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER: That is right, Mr Speaker, it is the Leader of the Opposition’s office. The fiscal bandit strikes again.
Mr E.S. RIPPER: It just does not add up. Should the Leader of the Opposition be offering this free financial advice? He was a key player in a Government that delivered five deficits in eight budgets and a Government, that, according to respected economic commentator Alan Wood, was sinking in a sea of red ink when it left office. The Leader of the Opposition was part of the Government that left us to sort out the vehicle leasing deal with the Matrix Finance Group. He was part of the Government that left us to sort out the police communications and technology project, which was underfunded by hundreds of millions of dollars. He was the Court Government minister who was named by the Under Treasurer for his habit of announcing things for which there was no budget provision, such as laptops for teachers and reduced class sizes. On the subject of tax increases, he was part of the Government that had no hesitation in introducing in one year $225 million worth of revenue measures; a 12.5 per cent increase in stamp duty on conveyancing; an increase in stamp duty on insurance policies; a gold tax; and a 64 per cent increase in vehicle licence fees. That is what the previous Government did in one year. I have heard the Leader of the Opposition interjecting, Mr Speaker. I have not responded to him because I have some information for him right now. That is his record. Should he be giving us economic and financial advice? I ask a rhetorical question: do leopards ever change their spots? I have some new information on the question of whether leopards ever change their spots. This financial year all ministerial offices in our lean, efficient and very competent ministry are expected to come in on budget. However, one office will blow out by $67 000; it will be 10 per cent over budget. Guess which office? Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER: That is right, Mr Speaker, it is the Leader of the Opposition’s office. The fiscal bandit strikes again.
I have heard the Leader of the Opposition interjecting, Mr Speaker. I have not responded to him because I have some information for him right now. That is his record. Should he be giving us economic and financial advice? I ask a rhetorical question: do leopards ever change their spots? I have some new information on the question of whether leopards ever change their spots. This financial year all ministerial offices in our lean, efficient and very competent ministry are expected to come in on budget. However, one office will blow out by $67 000; it will be 10 per cent over budget. Guess which office? Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER: That is right, Mr Speaker, it is the Leader of the Opposition’s office. The fiscal bandit strikes again.
Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER: That is right, Mr Speaker, it is the Leader of the Opposition’s office. The fiscal bandit strikes again.
Mr E.S. RIPPER: That is right, Mr Speaker, it is the Leader of the Opposition’s office. The fiscal bandit strikes again.
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.