❓ Opposition asks Premier to release analysis justifying WA's rejection of the National Health Plan, citing potential benefits. Premier responds by criticising the plan's structure and decision-making processes, focusing on administrative complexity and lack of clarity.
AnsweredQoN 137Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
NATIONAL HEALTH PLAN
I refer to the national health plan, which the Premier is yet to commit to. Will the Premier release today the public service analysis to justify his decision that Western Australia will be better off without the national health plan despite that plan delivering $550 million extra to the WA health system over the next four years, including 135 extra acute beds for WA hospitals, an additional $66 million towards training doctors and health professionals and an additional $18 million for youth mental health and mental health nurses? Mr C.J. BARNETT
I refer to the national health plan, which the Premier is yet to commit to. Will the Premier release today the public service analysis to justify his decision that Western Australia will be better off without the national health plan despite that plan delivering $550 million extra to the WA health system over the next four years, including 135 extra acute beds for WA hospitals, an additional $66 million towards training doctors and health professionals and an additional $18 million for youth mental health and mental health nurses? Mr C.J. BARNETT
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for that question. It was an interesting COAG meeting. The first day of the meeting, COAG as a council met throughout the day and we talked about elective surgery, emergency departments, subacute beds and the commonwealth’s genuine commitment to pick up most of the growth funding in the out years—by that, I mean beyond 2014. On the second day of the COAG meeting, I and others said that the big issues are the structure of this proposed fund and GST. Do members know what? They got five to 10 minutes at the end. Day 2 was basically a Labor Party meeting. That was a degeneration of the COAG process and virtually nothing was done. It turned from a genuine meeting of the leaders of governments in Australia to a Labor Party caucus function on the second day. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Hang on! I am trying to answer — The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked some questions. I am sure we are all interested in hearing the answers. Mr E.S. Ripper : I thought you were calling me to order. The SPEAKER : No, Leader of the Opposition. My advice at this point is that some members in this place be a little quieter than they are at the moment. Mr C.J. BARNETT : In looking at what the Prime Minister and the commonwealth put on the table, there are some good aspects to it, there is no doubt about it. Mr E.S. Ripper : It should be assessed on the totality of its merits. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Let me try to answer your question. What was offered for elective surgery, emergency departments, subacute beds and the funding arrangement are good. I have said that publicly; I do not have any argument with it. On the framework of how the money will flow, the administration and who bears responsibility for what, there was virtually no discussion at all at COAG. That was one of the fundamental issues. We have a good health system in Australia. If we are going to turn it on its head, we want to be confident that health care will improve. That critical issue was not discussed at COAG, and it should have been. Indeed, there were contrivances to make sure we never got to the substance of that issue. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Hang on! I am trying to answer. Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you give us the numbers? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Just calm down—please. Mr E.S. Ripper : I’m worried you won’t answer the question. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am happy to answer your question, but I will not respond to interruptions. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : For goodness sake! Lift the game; come on! On a lot of the real health issues there was good discussion and I stated that I agreed and I appreciated that the commonwealth put offers of real money and a real commitment on the table. On the structure, which I hope members realise is a big issue, the commonwealth’s proposal includes, at a national level, the national health and hospital network fund, the independent hospital pricing authority, the national performance authority and the Australian commission on safety and quality in health care. Four or five new federal bodies will be established. It is meant to be simple. There will also be the local health networks. If someone has a complaint about health care, what will they do? They will go to their local health network, and if they are unhappy, they may get a satisfactory answer but more than likely they will be told, “You couldn’t have that procedure because Canberra is not giving us the money.” If that does not satisfy them, it will be because, “The state hasn’t put in the capital equipment and won’t allow us to do so because they have the service agreement with us.” There will not be a single “the-buck-stops-here” system. There will be three levels: a national, state and local level—that is, three levels of decision making and three levels of administration. That will be three levels of confusion. I do not think that is well designed. I think, at a minimum, COAG should have discussed the structure of what was proposed. I happen to think it is incredibly cumbersome; however, despite my view on that, I said we would find a way of working within it. I was willing to compromise and say that we would try to work that out so that we could live with it. The third point is the GST, the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question. Mr E.S. Ripper : My point is about the benefits to WA patients and the underlying analysis — Mr C.J. BARNETT : I understand the question. The Leader of the Opposition is a process person; he does not think for himself. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am actually looking for your underlying analysis. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. Barnett : It is true, all he talks about is process. Mr R.H. Cook : What’s your analysis? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is a matter of principle, my friend. It is not a matter of analysis. The GST was set up under the Howard government just over 10 years ago. Mr E.S. Ripper : You would sacrifice WA patients for your principles? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It was set up as the state revenue base into the future, a large form of revenue over which the state would have exclusive use and would guarantee state services across a range of areas. It was set in stone; it was never to be varied unless every state agreed. What have we got? Just 10 years later, we have a Prime Minister and a group of Premiers sitting around a table discussing tearing up the GST arrangement. As I pointed out to the Prime Minister and my Premier colleagues yesterday, “You may think you’re setting in stone a new health agreement long term into the future, but I can guarantee that, within 10 years, there will be another Prime Minister and another group of Premiers sitting around the table tearing it up.” We will not as a government give up Western Australia’s rightful share to the GST. Bear in mind that Western Australia has already been done over on this. The Labor commonwealth government—the Labor friends in Canberra of members opposite—gives us 68c in the dollar. What do they give themselves? They give themselves 95c in the dollar in New South Wales, 93c in Victoria and 91c in Queensland. All we get is 68c in the dollar. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s crass politics. You know that; you know how the system works. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question, which I think everyone in this place is interested in, as is everyone outside this place. I am having a little bit of a problem hearing the Premier’s answer and I formally call the member for Kwinana and the member for Mandurah for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : If one-third of the total GST pool is taken, we will lose approximately 60 per cent of our remaining GST over which we would have no control at all. I said to the Prime Minister, and publicly in the lead-up to COAG, that if WA goes along with this system and we can agree because there are benefits—the member is right there are significant benefits—we will be willing to pay an equivalent amount of dollars out of our health budget, or consolidated revenue, into the pool. As I said to the Prime Minister at the beginning of yesterday’s discussion, “Prime Minister, if you accept that point, you will have a deal today; you will have everything you sought and you can walk out here with the deal.” It was the Prime Minister’s choice to not accept that offer. That is where we are at. To answer the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Good. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes, good! “Where is the analysis?” We do not need an analysis on matters of principle. Mr E.S. Ripper : You must have Treasury analysis; you must have it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This is a matter of the federation and of the ability of Western Australians to govern themselves. We do not have an analysis; we do not seek an analysis because this is a matter of principle for which the Liberal–National government stands. I infer from the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that he is willing to throw in the GST to Canberra; I am not.
Will the Premier release today the public service analysis to justify his decision that Western Australia will be better off without the national health plan despite that plan delivering $550 million extra to the WA health system over the next four years, including 135 extra acute beds for WA hospitals, an additional $66 million towards training doctors and health professionals and an additional $18 million for youth mental health and mental health nurses? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for that question. It was an interesting COAG meeting. The first day of the meeting, COAG as a council met throughout the day and we talked about elective surgery, emergency departments, subacute beds and the commonwealth’s genuine commitment to pick up most of the growth funding in the out years—by that, I mean beyond 2014. On the second day of the COAG meeting, I and others said that the big issues are the structure of this proposed fund and GST. Do members know what? They got five to 10 minutes at the end. Day 2 was basically a Labor Party meeting. That was a degeneration of the COAG process and virtually nothing was done. It turned from a genuine meeting of the leaders of governments in Australia to a Labor Party caucus function on the second day. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Hang on! I am trying to answer — The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked some questions. I am sure we are all interested in hearing the answers. Mr E.S. Ripper : I thought you were calling me to order. The SPEAKER : No, Leader of the Opposition. My advice at this point is that some members in this place be a little quieter than they are at the moment. Mr C.J. BARNETT : In looking at what the Prime Minister and the commonwealth put on the table, there are some good aspects to it, there is no doubt about it. Mr E.S. Ripper : It should be assessed on the totality of its merits. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Let me try to answer your question. What was offered for elective surgery, emergency departments, subacute beds and the funding arrangement are good. I have said that publicly; I do not have any argument with it. On the framework of how the money will flow, the administration and who bears responsibility for what, there was virtually no discussion at all at COAG. That was one of the fundamental issues. We have a good health system in Australia. If we are going to turn it on its head, we want to be confident that health care will improve. That critical issue was not discussed at COAG, and it should have been. Indeed, there were contrivances to make sure we never got to the substance of that issue. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Hang on! I am trying to answer. Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you give us the numbers? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Just calm down—please. Mr E.S. Ripper : I’m worried you won’t answer the question. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am happy to answer your question, but I will not respond to interruptions. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : For goodness sake! Lift the game; come on! On a lot of the real health issues there was good discussion and I stated that I agreed and I appreciated that the commonwealth put offers of real money and a real commitment on the table. On the structure, which I hope members realise is a big issue, the commonwealth’s proposal includes, at a national level, the national health and hospital network fund, the independent hospital pricing authority, the national performance authority and the Australian commission on safety and quality in health care. Four or five new federal bodies will be established. It is meant to be simple. There will also be the local health networks. If someone has a complaint about health care, what will they do? They will go to their local health network, and if they are unhappy, they may get a satisfactory answer but more than likely they will be told, “You couldn’t have that procedure because Canberra is not giving us the money.” If that does not satisfy them, it will be because, “The state hasn’t put in the capital equipment and won’t allow us to do so because they have the service agreement with us.” There will not be a single “the-buck-stops-here” system. There will be three levels: a national, state and local level—that is, three levels of decision making and three levels of administration. That will be three levels of confusion. I do not think that is well designed. I think, at a minimum, COAG should have discussed the structure of what was proposed. I happen to think it is incredibly cumbersome; however, despite my view on that, I said we would find a way of working within it. I was willing to compromise and say that we would try to work that out so that we could live with it. The third point is the GST, the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question. Mr E.S. Ripper : My point is about the benefits to WA patients and the underlying analysis — Mr C.J. BARNETT : I understand the question. The Leader of the Opposition is a process person; he does not think for himself. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am actually looking for your underlying analysis. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. Barnett : It is true, all he talks about is process. Mr R.H. Cook : What’s your analysis? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is a matter of principle, my friend. It is not a matter of analysis. The GST was set up under the Howard government just over 10 years ago. Mr E.S. Ripper : You would sacrifice WA patients for your principles? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It was set up as the state revenue base into the future, a large form of revenue over which the state would have exclusive use and would guarantee state services across a range of areas. It was set in stone; it was never to be varied unless every state agreed. What have we got? Just 10 years later, we have a Prime Minister and a group of Premiers sitting around a table discussing tearing up the GST arrangement. As I pointed out to the Prime Minister and my Premier colleagues yesterday, “You may think you’re setting in stone a new health agreement long term into the future, but I can guarantee that, within 10 years, there will be another Prime Minister and another group of Premiers sitting around the table tearing it up.” We will not as a government give up Western Australia’s rightful share to the GST. Bear in mind that Western Australia has already been done over on this. The Labor commonwealth government—the Labor friends in Canberra of members opposite—gives us 68c in the dollar. What do they give themselves? They give themselves 95c in the dollar in New South Wales, 93c in Victoria and 91c in Queensland. All we get is 68c in the dollar. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s crass politics. You know that; you know how the system works. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question, which I think everyone in this place is interested in, as is everyone outside this place. I am having a little bit of a problem hearing the Premier’s answer and I formally call the member for Kwinana and the member for Mandurah for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : If one-third of the total GST pool is taken, we will lose approximately 60 per cent of our remaining GST over which we would have no control at all. I said to the Prime Minister, and publicly in the lead-up to COAG, that if WA goes along with this system and we can agree because there are benefits—the member is right there are significant benefits—we will be willing to pay an equivalent amount of dollars out of our health budget, or consolidated revenue, into the pool. As I said to the Prime Minister at the beginning of yesterday’s discussion, “Prime Minister, if you accept that point, you will have a deal today; you will have everything you sought and you can walk out here with the deal.” It was the Prime Minister’s choice to not accept that offer. That is where we are at. To answer the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Good. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes, good! “Where is the analysis?” We do not need an analysis on matters of principle. Mr E.S. Ripper : You must have Treasury analysis; you must have it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This is a matter of the federation and of the ability of Western Australians to govern themselves. We do not have an analysis; we do not seek an analysis because this is a matter of principle for which the Liberal–National government stands. I infer from the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that he is willing to throw in the GST to Canberra; I am not.
Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for that question. It was an interesting COAG meeting. The first day of the meeting, COAG as a council met throughout the day and we talked about elective surgery, emergency departments, subacute beds and the commonwealth’s genuine commitment to pick up most of the growth funding in the out years—by that, I mean beyond 2014. On the second day of the COAG meeting, I and others said that the big issues are the structure of this proposed fund and GST. Do members know what? They got five to 10 minutes at the end. Day 2 was basically a Labor Party meeting. That was a degeneration of the COAG process and virtually nothing was done. It turned from a genuine meeting of the leaders of governments in Australia to a Labor Party caucus function on the second day. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Hang on! I am trying to answer — The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked some questions. I am sure we are all interested in hearing the answers. Mr E.S. Ripper : I thought you were calling me to order. The SPEAKER : No, Leader of the Opposition. My advice at this point is that some members in this place be a little quieter than they are at the moment. Mr C.J. BARNETT : In looking at what the Prime Minister and the commonwealth put on the table, there are some good aspects to it, there is no doubt about it. Mr E.S. Ripper : It should be assessed on the totality of its merits. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Let me try to answer your question. What was offered for elective surgery, emergency departments, subacute beds and the funding arrangement are good. I have said that publicly; I do not have any argument with it. On the framework of how the money will flow, the administration and who bears responsibility for what, there was virtually no discussion at all at COAG. That was one of the fundamental issues. We have a good health system in Australia. If we are going to turn it on its head, we want to be confident that health care will improve. That critical issue was not discussed at COAG, and it should have been. Indeed, there were contrivances to make sure we never got to the substance of that issue. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Hang on! I am trying to answer. Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you give us the numbers? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Just calm down—please. Mr E.S. Ripper : I’m worried you won’t answer the question. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am happy to answer your question, but I will not respond to interruptions. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : For goodness sake! Lift the game; come on! On a lot of the real health issues there was good discussion and I stated that I agreed and I appreciated that the commonwealth put offers of real money and a real commitment on the table. On the structure, which I hope members realise is a big issue, the commonwealth’s proposal includes, at a national level, the national health and hospital network fund, the independent hospital pricing authority, the national performance authority and the Australian commission on safety and quality in health care. Four or five new federal bodies will be established. It is meant to be simple. There will also be the local health networks. If someone has a complaint about health care, what will they do? They will go to their local health network, and if they are unhappy, they may get a satisfactory answer but more than likely they will be told, “You couldn’t have that procedure because Canberra is not giving us the money.” If that does not satisfy them, it will be because, “The state hasn’t put in the capital equipment and won’t allow us to do so because they have the service agreement with us.” There will not be a single “the-buck-stops-here” system. There will be three levels: a national, state and local level—that is, three levels of decision making and three levels of administration. That will be three levels of confusion. I do not think that is well designed. I think, at a minimum, COAG should have discussed the structure of what was proposed. I happen to think it is incredibly cumbersome; however, despite my view on that, I said we would find a way of working within it. I was willing to compromise and say that we would try to work that out so that we could live with it. The third point is the GST, the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question. Mr E.S. Ripper : My point is about the benefits to WA patients and the underlying analysis — Mr C.J. BARNETT : I understand the question. The Leader of the Opposition is a process person; he does not think for himself. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am actually looking for your underlying analysis. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. Barnett : It is true, all he talks about is process. Mr R.H. Cook : What’s your analysis? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is a matter of principle, my friend. It is not a matter of analysis. The GST was set up under the Howard government just over 10 years ago. Mr E.S. Ripper : You would sacrifice WA patients for your principles? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It was set up as the state revenue base into the future, a large form of revenue over which the state would have exclusive use and would guarantee state services across a range of areas. It was set in stone; it was never to be varied unless every state agreed. What have we got? Just 10 years later, we have a Prime Minister and a group of Premiers sitting around a table discussing tearing up the GST arrangement. As I pointed out to the Prime Minister and my Premier colleagues yesterday, “You may think you’re setting in stone a new health agreement long term into the future, but I can guarantee that, within 10 years, there will be another Prime Minister and another group of Premiers sitting around the table tearing it up.” We will not as a government give up Western Australia’s rightful share to the GST. Bear in mind that Western Australia has already been done over on this. The Labor commonwealth government—the Labor friends in Canberra of members opposite—gives us 68c in the dollar. What do they give themselves? They give themselves 95c in the dollar in New South Wales, 93c in Victoria and 91c in Queensland. All we get is 68c in the dollar. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s crass politics. You know that; you know how the system works. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question, which I think everyone in this place is interested in, as is everyone outside this place. I am having a little bit of a problem hearing the Premier’s answer and I formally call the member for Kwinana and the member for Mandurah for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : If one-third of the total GST pool is taken, we will lose approximately 60 per cent of our remaining GST over which we would have no control at all. I said to the Prime Minister, and publicly in the lead-up to COAG, that if WA goes along with this system and we can agree because there are benefits—the member is right there are significant benefits—we will be willing to pay an equivalent amount of dollars out of our health budget, or consolidated revenue, into the pool. As I said to the Prime Minister at the beginning of yesterday’s discussion, “Prime Minister, if you accept that point, you will have a deal today; you will have everything you sought and you can walk out here with the deal.” It was the Prime Minister’s choice to not accept that offer. That is where we are at. To answer the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Good. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes, good! “Where is the analysis?” We do not need an analysis on matters of principle. Mr E.S. Ripper : You must have Treasury analysis; you must have it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This is a matter of the federation and of the ability of Western Australians to govern themselves. We do not have an analysis; we do not seek an analysis because this is a matter of principle for which the Liberal–National government stands. I infer from the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that he is willing to throw in the GST to Canberra; I am not.
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for that question. It was an interesting COAG meeting. The first day of the meeting, COAG as a council met throughout the day and we talked about elective surgery, emergency departments, subacute beds and the commonwealth’s genuine commitment to pick up most of the growth funding in the out years—by that, I mean beyond 2014. On the second day of the COAG meeting, I and others said that the big issues are the structure of this proposed fund and GST. Do members know what? They got five to 10 minutes at the end. Day 2 was basically a Labor Party meeting. That was a degeneration of the COAG process and virtually nothing was done. It turned from a genuine meeting of the leaders of governments in Australia to a Labor Party caucus function on the second day. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Hang on! I am trying to answer — The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked some questions. I am sure we are all interested in hearing the answers. Mr E.S. Ripper : I thought you were calling me to order. The SPEAKER : No, Leader of the Opposition. My advice at this point is that some members in this place be a little quieter than they are at the moment. Mr C.J. BARNETT : In looking at what the Prime Minister and the commonwealth put on the table, there are some good aspects to it, there is no doubt about it. Mr E.S. Ripper : It should be assessed on the totality of its merits. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Let me try to answer your question. What was offered for elective surgery, emergency departments, subacute beds and the funding arrangement are good. I have said that publicly; I do not have any argument with it. On the framework of how the money will flow, the administration and who bears responsibility for what, there was virtually no discussion at all at COAG. That was one of the fundamental issues. We have a good health system in Australia. If we are going to turn it on its head, we want to be confident that health care will improve. That critical issue was not discussed at COAG, and it should have been. Indeed, there were contrivances to make sure we never got to the substance of that issue. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Hang on! I am trying to answer. Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you give us the numbers? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Just calm down—please. Mr E.S. Ripper : I’m worried you won’t answer the question. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am happy to answer your question, but I will not respond to interruptions. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : For goodness sake! Lift the game; come on! On a lot of the real health issues there was good discussion and I stated that I agreed and I appreciated that the commonwealth put offers of real money and a real commitment on the table. On the structure, which I hope members realise is a big issue, the commonwealth’s proposal includes, at a national level, the national health and hospital network fund, the independent hospital pricing authority, the national performance authority and the Australian commission on safety and quality in health care. Four or five new federal bodies will be established. It is meant to be simple. There will also be the local health networks. If someone has a complaint about health care, what will they do? They will go to their local health network, and if they are unhappy, they may get a satisfactory answer but more than likely they will be told, “You couldn’t have that procedure because Canberra is not giving us the money.” If that does not satisfy them, it will be because, “The state hasn’t put in the capital equipment and won’t allow us to do so because they have the service agreement with us.” There will not be a single “the-buck-stops-here” system. There will be three levels: a national, state and local level—that is, three levels of decision making and three levels of administration. That will be three levels of confusion. I do not think that is well designed. I think, at a minimum, COAG should have discussed the structure of what was proposed. I happen to think it is incredibly cumbersome; however, despite my view on that, I said we would find a way of working within it. I was willing to compromise and say that we would try to work that out so that we could live with it. The third point is the GST, the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question. Mr E.S. Ripper : My point is about the benefits to WA patients and the underlying analysis — Mr C.J. BARNETT : I understand the question. The Leader of the Opposition is a process person; he does not think for himself. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am actually looking for your underlying analysis. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. Barnett : It is true, all he talks about is process. Mr R.H. Cook : What’s your analysis? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is a matter of principle, my friend. It is not a matter of analysis. The GST was set up under the Howard government just over 10 years ago. Mr E.S. Ripper : You would sacrifice WA patients for your principles? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It was set up as the state revenue base into the future, a large form of revenue over which the state would have exclusive use and would guarantee state services across a range of areas. It was set in stone; it was never to be varied unless every state agreed. What have we got? Just 10 years later, we have a Prime Minister and a group of Premiers sitting around a table discussing tearing up the GST arrangement. As I pointed out to the Prime Minister and my Premier colleagues yesterday, “You may think you’re setting in stone a new health agreement long term into the future, but I can guarantee that, within 10 years, there will be another Prime Minister and another group of Premiers sitting around the table tearing it up.” We will not as a government give up Western Australia’s rightful share to the GST. Bear in mind that Western Australia has already been done over on this. The Labor commonwealth government—the Labor friends in Canberra of members opposite—gives us 68c in the dollar. What do they give themselves? They give themselves 95c in the dollar in New South Wales, 93c in Victoria and 91c in Queensland. All we get is 68c in the dollar. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s crass politics. You know that; you know how the system works. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question, which I think everyone in this place is interested in, as is everyone outside this place. I am having a little bit of a problem hearing the Premier’s answer and I formally call the member for Kwinana and the member for Mandurah for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : If one-third of the total GST pool is taken, we will lose approximately 60 per cent of our remaining GST over which we would have no control at all. I said to the Prime Minister, and publicly in the lead-up to COAG, that if WA goes along with this system and we can agree because there are benefits—the member is right there are significant benefits—we will be willing to pay an equivalent amount of dollars out of our health budget, or consolidated revenue, into the pool. As I said to the Prime Minister at the beginning of yesterday’s discussion, “Prime Minister, if you accept that point, you will have a deal today; you will have everything you sought and you can walk out here with the deal.” It was the Prime Minister’s choice to not accept that offer. That is where we are at. To answer the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Good. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes, good! “Where is the analysis?” We do not need an analysis on matters of principle. Mr E.S. Ripper : You must have Treasury analysis; you must have it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This is a matter of the federation and of the ability of Western Australians to govern themselves. We do not have an analysis; we do not seek an analysis because this is a matter of principle for which the Liberal–National government stands. I infer from the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that he is willing to throw in the GST to Canberra; I am not.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Hang on! I am trying to answer — The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked some questions. I am sure we are all interested in hearing the answers. Mr E.S. Ripper : I thought you were calling me to order. The SPEAKER : No, Leader of the Opposition. My advice at this point is that some members in this place be a little quieter than they are at the moment. Mr C.J. BARNETT : In looking at what the Prime Minister and the commonwealth put on the table, there are some good aspects to it, there is no doubt about it. Mr E.S. Ripper : It should be assessed on the totality of its merits. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Let me try to answer your question. What was offered for elective surgery, emergency departments, subacute beds and the funding arrangement are good. I have said that publicly; I do not have any argument with it. On the framework of how the money will flow, the administration and who bears responsibility for what, there was virtually no discussion at all at COAG. That was one of the fundamental issues. We have a good health system in Australia. If we are going to turn it on its head, we want to be confident that health care will improve. That critical issue was not discussed at COAG, and it should have been. Indeed, there were contrivances to make sure we never got to the substance of that issue. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Hang on! I am trying to answer. Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you give us the numbers? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Just calm down—please. Mr E.S. Ripper : I’m worried you won’t answer the question. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am happy to answer your question, but I will not respond to interruptions. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : For goodness sake! Lift the game; come on! On a lot of the real health issues there was good discussion and I stated that I agreed and I appreciated that the commonwealth put offers of real money and a real commitment on the table. On the structure, which I hope members realise is a big issue, the commonwealth’s proposal includes, at a national level, the national health and hospital network fund, the independent hospital pricing authority, the national performance authority and the Australian commission on safety and quality in health care. Four or five new federal bodies will be established. It is meant to be simple. There will also be the local health networks. If someone has a complaint about health care, what will they do? They will go to their local health network, and if they are unhappy, they may get a satisfactory answer but more than likely they will be told, “You couldn’t have that procedure because Canberra is not giving us the money.” If that does not satisfy them, it will be because, “The state hasn’t put in the capital equipment and won’t allow us to do so because they have the service agreement with us.” There will not be a single “the-buck-stops-here” system. There will be three levels: a national, state and local level—that is, three levels of decision making and three levels of administration. That will be three levels of confusion. I do not think that is well designed. I think, at a minimum, COAG should have discussed the structure of what was proposed. I happen to think it is incredibly cumbersome; however, despite my view on that, I said we would find a way of working within it. I was willing to compromise and say that we would try to work that out so that we could live with it. The third point is the GST, the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question. Mr E.S. Ripper : My point is about the benefits to WA patients and the underlying analysis — Mr C.J. BARNETT : I understand the question. The Leader of the Opposition is a process person; he does not think for himself. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am actually looking for your underlying analysis. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. Barnett : It is true, all he talks about is process. Mr R.H. Cook : What’s your analysis? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is a matter of principle, my friend. It is not a matter of analysis. The GST was set up under the Howard government just over 10 years ago. Mr E.S. Ripper : You would sacrifice WA patients for your principles? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It was set up as the state revenue base into the future, a large form of revenue over which the state would have exclusive use and would guarantee state services across a range of areas. It was set in stone; it was never to be varied unless every state agreed. What have we got? Just 10 years later, we have a Prime Minister and a group of Premiers sitting around a table discussing tearing up the GST arrangement. As I pointed out to the Prime Minister and my Premier colleagues yesterday, “You may think you’re setting in stone a new health agreement long term into the future, but I can guarantee that, within 10 years, there will be another Prime Minister and another group of Premiers sitting around the table tearing it up.” We will not as a government give up Western Australia’s rightful share to the GST. Bear in mind that Western Australia has already been done over on this. The Labor commonwealth government—the Labor friends in Canberra of members opposite—gives us 68c in the dollar. What do they give themselves? They give themselves 95c in the dollar in New South Wales, 93c in Victoria and 91c in Queensland. All we get is 68c in the dollar. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s crass politics. You know that; you know how the system works. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question, which I think everyone in this place is interested in, as is everyone outside this place. I am having a little bit of a problem hearing the Premier’s answer and I formally call the member for Kwinana and the member for Mandurah for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : If one-third of the total GST pool is taken, we will lose approximately 60 per cent of our remaining GST over which we would have no control at all. I said to the Prime Minister, and publicly in the lead-up to COAG, that if WA goes along with this system and we can agree because there are benefits—the member is right there are significant benefits—we will be willing to pay an equivalent amount of dollars out of our health budget, or consolidated revenue, into the pool. As I said to the Prime Minister at the beginning of yesterday’s discussion, “Prime Minister, if you accept that point, you will have a deal today; you will have everything you sought and you can walk out here with the deal.” It was the Prime Minister’s choice to not accept that offer. That is where we are at. To answer the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Good. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes, good! “Where is the analysis?” We do not need an analysis on matters of principle. Mr E.S. Ripper : You must have Treasury analysis; you must have it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This is a matter of the federation and of the ability of Western Australians to govern themselves. We do not have an analysis; we do not seek an analysis because this is a matter of principle for which the Liberal–National government stands. I infer from the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that he is willing to throw in the GST to Canberra; I am not.
The SPEAKER : Order! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Hang on! I am trying to answer — The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked some questions. I am sure we are all interested in hearing the answers. Mr E.S. Ripper : I thought you were calling me to order. The SPEAKER : No, Leader of the Opposition. My advice at this point is that some members in this place be a little quieter than they are at the moment. Mr C.J. BARNETT : In looking at what the Prime Minister and the commonwealth put on the table, there are some good aspects to it, there is no doubt about it. Mr E.S. Ripper : It should be assessed on the totality of its merits. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Let me try to answer your question. What was offered for elective surgery, emergency departments, subacute beds and the funding arrangement are good. I have said that publicly; I do not have any argument with it. On the framework of how the money will flow, the administration and who bears responsibility for what, there was virtually no discussion at all at COAG. That was one of the fundamental issues. We have a good health system in Australia. If we are going to turn it on its head, we want to be confident that health care will improve. That critical issue was not discussed at COAG, and it should have been. Indeed, there were contrivances to make sure we never got to the substance of that issue. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Hang on! I am trying to answer. Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you give us the numbers? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Just calm down—please. Mr E.S. Ripper : I’m worried you won’t answer the question. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am happy to answer your question, but I will not respond to interruptions. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : For goodness sake! Lift the game; come on! On a lot of the real health issues there was good discussion and I stated that I agreed and I appreciated that the commonwealth put offers of real money and a real commitment on the table. On the structure, which I hope members realise is a big issue, the commonwealth’s proposal includes, at a national level, the national health and hospital network fund, the independent hospital pricing authority, the national performance authority and the Australian commission on safety and quality in health care. Four or five new federal bodies will be established. It is meant to be simple. There will also be the local health networks. If someone has a complaint about health care, what will they do? They will go to their local health network, and if they are unhappy, they may get a satisfactory answer but more than likely they will be told, “You couldn’t have that procedure because Canberra is not giving us the money.” If that does not satisfy them, it will be because, “The state hasn’t put in the capital equipment and won’t allow us to do so because they have the service agreement with us.” There will not be a single “the-buck-stops-here” system. There will be three levels: a national, state and local level—that is, three levels of decision making and three levels of administration. That will be three levels of confusion. I do not think that is well designed. I think, at a minimum, COAG should have discussed the structure of what was proposed. I happen to think it is incredibly cumbersome; however, despite my view on that, I said we would find a way of working within it. I was willing to compromise and say that we would try to work that out so that we could live with it. The third point is the GST, the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question. Mr E.S. Ripper : My point is about the benefits to WA patients and the underlying analysis — Mr C.J. BARNETT : I understand the question. The Leader of the Opposition is a process person; he does not think for himself. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am actually looking for your underlying analysis. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. Barnett : It is true, all he talks about is process. Mr R.H. Cook : What’s your analysis? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is a matter of principle, my friend. It is not a matter of analysis. The GST was set up under the Howard government just over 10 years ago. Mr E.S. Ripper : You would sacrifice WA patients for your principles? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It was set up as the state revenue base into the future, a large form of revenue over which the state would have exclusive use and would guarantee state services across a range of areas. It was set in stone; it was never to be varied unless every state agreed. What have we got? Just 10 years later, we have a Prime Minister and a group of Premiers sitting around a table discussing tearing up the GST arrangement. As I pointed out to the Prime Minister and my Premier colleagues yesterday, “You may think you’re setting in stone a new health agreement long term into the future, but I can guarantee that, within 10 years, there will be another Prime Minister and another group of Premiers sitting around the table tearing it up.” We will not as a government give up Western Australia’s rightful share to the GST. Bear in mind that Western Australia has already been done over on this. The Labor commonwealth government—the Labor friends in Canberra of members opposite—gives us 68c in the dollar. What do they give themselves? They give themselves 95c in the dollar in New South Wales, 93c in Victoria and 91c in Queensland. All we get is 68c in the dollar. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s crass politics. You know that; you know how the system works. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question, which I think everyone in this place is interested in, as is everyone outside this place. I am having a little bit of a problem hearing the Premier’s answer and I formally call the member for Kwinana and the member for Mandurah for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : If one-third of the total GST pool is taken, we will lose approximately 60 per cent of our remaining GST over which we would have no control at all. I said to the Prime Minister, and publicly in the lead-up to COAG, that if WA goes along with this system and we can agree because there are benefits—the member is right there are significant benefits—we will be willing to pay an equivalent amount of dollars out of our health budget, or consolidated revenue, into the pool. As I said to the Prime Minister at the beginning of yesterday’s discussion, “Prime Minister, if you accept that point, you will have a deal today; you will have everything you sought and you can walk out here with the deal.” It was the Prime Minister’s choice to not accept that offer. That is where we are at. To answer the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Good. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes, good! “Where is the analysis?” We do not need an analysis on matters of principle. Mr E.S. Ripper : You must have Treasury analysis; you must have it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This is a matter of the federation and of the ability of Western Australians to govern themselves. We do not have an analysis; we do not seek an analysis because this is a matter of principle for which the Liberal–National government stands. I infer from the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that he is willing to throw in the GST to Canberra; I am not.
Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Hang on! I am trying to answer — The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked some questions. I am sure we are all interested in hearing the answers. Mr E.S. Ripper : I thought you were calling me to order. The SPEAKER : No, Leader of the Opposition. My advice at this point is that some members in this place be a little quieter than they are at the moment. Mr C.J. BARNETT : In looking at what the Prime Minister and the commonwealth put on the table, there are some good aspects to it, there is no doubt about it. Mr E.S. Ripper : It should be assessed on the totality of its merits. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Let me try to answer your question. What was offered for elective surgery, emergency departments, subacute beds and the funding arrangement are good. I have said that publicly; I do not have any argument with it. On the framework of how the money will flow, the administration and who bears responsibility for what, there was virtually no discussion at all at COAG. That was one of the fundamental issues. We have a good health system in Australia. If we are going to turn it on its head, we want to be confident that health care will improve. That critical issue was not discussed at COAG, and it should have been. Indeed, there were contrivances to make sure we never got to the substance of that issue. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Hang on! I am trying to answer. Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you give us the numbers? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Just calm down—please. Mr E.S. Ripper : I’m worried you won’t answer the question. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am happy to answer your question, but I will not respond to interruptions. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : For goodness sake! Lift the game; come on! On a lot of the real health issues there was good discussion and I stated that I agreed and I appreciated that the commonwealth put offers of real money and a real commitment on the table. On the structure, which I hope members realise is a big issue, the commonwealth’s proposal includes, at a national level, the national health and hospital network fund, the independent hospital pricing authority, the national performance authority and the Australian commission on safety and quality in health care. Four or five new federal bodies will be established. It is meant to be simple. There will also be the local health networks. If someone has a complaint about health care, what will they do? They will go to their local health network, and if they are unhappy, they may get a satisfactory answer but more than likely they will be told, “You couldn’t have that procedure because Canberra is not giving us the money.” If that does not satisfy them, it will be because, “The state hasn’t put in the capital equipment and won’t allow us to do so because they have the service agreement with us.” There will not be a single “the-buck-stops-here” system. There will be three levels: a national, state and local level—that is, three levels of decision making and three levels of administration. That will be three levels of confusion. I do not think that is well designed. I think, at a minimum, COAG should have discussed the structure of what was proposed. I happen to think it is incredibly cumbersome; however, despite my view on that, I said we would find a way of working within it. I was willing to compromise and say that we would try to work that out so that we could live with it. The third point is the GST, the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question. Mr E.S. Ripper : My point is about the benefits to WA patients and the underlying analysis — Mr C.J. BARNETT : I understand the question. The Leader of the Opposition is a process person; he does not think for himself. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am actually looking for your underlying analysis. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. Barnett : It is true, all he talks about is process. Mr R.H. Cook : What’s your analysis? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is a matter of principle, my friend. It is not a matter of analysis. The GST was set up under the Howard government just over 10 years ago. Mr E.S. Ripper : You would sacrifice WA patients for your principles? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It was set up as the state revenue base into the future, a large form of revenue over which the state would have exclusive use and would guarantee state services across a range of areas. It was set in stone; it was never to be varied unless every state agreed. What have we got? Just 10 years later, we have a Prime Minister and a group of Premiers sitting around a table discussing tearing up the GST arrangement. As I pointed out to the Prime Minister and my Premier colleagues yesterday, “You may think you’re setting in stone a new health agreement long term into the future, but I can guarantee that, within 10 years, there will be another Prime Minister and another group of Premiers sitting around the table tearing it up.” We will not as a government give up Western Australia’s rightful share to the GST. Bear in mind that Western Australia has already been done over on this. The Labor commonwealth government—the Labor friends in Canberra of members opposite—gives us 68c in the dollar. What do they give themselves? They give themselves 95c in the dollar in New South Wales, 93c in Victoria and 91c in Queensland. All we get is 68c in the dollar. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s crass politics. You know that; you know how the system works. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question, which I think everyone in this place is interested in, as is everyone outside this place. I am having a little bit of a problem hearing the Premier’s answer and I formally call the member for Kwinana and the member for Mandurah for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : If one-third of the total GST pool is taken, we will lose approximately 60 per cent of our remaining GST over which we would have no control at all. I said to the Prime Minister, and publicly in the lead-up to COAG, that if WA goes along with this system and we can agree because there are benefits—the member is right there are significant benefits—we will be willing to pay an equivalent amount of dollars out of our health budget, or consolidated revenue, into the pool. As I said to the Prime Minister at the beginning of yesterday’s discussion, “Prime Minister, if you accept that point, you will have a deal today; you will have everything you sought and you can walk out here with the deal.” It was the Prime Minister’s choice to not accept that offer. That is where we are at. To answer the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Good. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes, good! “Where is the analysis?” We do not need an analysis on matters of principle. Mr E.S. Ripper : You must have Treasury analysis; you must have it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This is a matter of the federation and of the ability of Western Australians to govern themselves. We do not have an analysis; we do not seek an analysis because this is a matter of principle for which the Liberal–National government stands. I infer from the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that he is willing to throw in the GST to Canberra; I am not.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Hang on! I am trying to answer — The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked some questions. I am sure we are all interested in hearing the answers. Mr E.S. Ripper : I thought you were calling me to order. The SPEAKER : No, Leader of the Opposition. My advice at this point is that some members in this place be a little quieter than they are at the moment. Mr C.J. BARNETT : In looking at what the Prime Minister and the commonwealth put on the table, there are some good aspects to it, there is no doubt about it. Mr E.S. Ripper : It should be assessed on the totality of its merits. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Let me try to answer your question. What was offered for elective surgery, emergency departments, subacute beds and the funding arrangement are good. I have said that publicly; I do not have any argument with it. On the framework of how the money will flow, the administration and who bears responsibility for what, there was virtually no discussion at all at COAG. That was one of the fundamental issues. We have a good health system in Australia. If we are going to turn it on its head, we want to be confident that health care will improve. That critical issue was not discussed at COAG, and it should have been. Indeed, there were contrivances to make sure we never got to the substance of that issue. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Hang on! I am trying to answer. Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you give us the numbers? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Just calm down—please. Mr E.S. Ripper : I’m worried you won’t answer the question. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am happy to answer your question, but I will not respond to interruptions. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : For goodness sake! Lift the game; come on! On a lot of the real health issues there was good discussion and I stated that I agreed and I appreciated that the commonwealth put offers of real money and a real commitment on the table. On the structure, which I hope members realise is a big issue, the commonwealth’s proposal includes, at a national level, the national health and hospital network fund, the independent hospital pricing authority, the national performance authority and the Australian commission on safety and quality in health care. Four or five new federal bodies will be established. It is meant to be simple. There will also be the local health networks. If someone has a complaint about health care, what will they do? They will go to their local health network, and if they are unhappy, they may get a satisfactory answer but more than likely they will be told, “You couldn’t have that procedure because Canberra is not giving us the money.” If that does not satisfy them, it will be because, “The state hasn’t put in the capital equipment and won’t allow us to do so because they have the service agreement with us.” There will not be a single “the-buck-stops-here” system. There will be three levels: a national, state and local level—that is, three levels of decision making and three levels of administration. That will be three levels of confusion. I do not think that is well designed. I think, at a minimum, COAG should have discussed the structure of what was proposed. I happen to think it is incredibly cumbersome; however, despite my view on that, I said we would find a way of working within it. I was willing to compromise and say that we would try to work that out so that we could live with it. The third point is the GST, the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question. Mr E.S. Ripper : My point is about the benefits to WA patients and the underlying analysis — Mr C.J. BARNETT : I understand the question. The Leader of the Opposition is a process person; he does not think for himself. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am actually looking for your underlying analysis. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. Barnett : It is true, all he talks about is process. Mr R.H. Cook : What’s your analysis? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is a matter of principle, my friend. It is not a matter of analysis. The GST was set up under the Howard government just over 10 years ago. Mr E.S. Ripper : You would sacrifice WA patients for your principles? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It was set up as the state revenue base into the future, a large form of revenue over which the state would have exclusive use and would guarantee state services across a range of areas. It was set in stone; it was never to be varied unless every state agreed. What have we got? Just 10 years later, we have a Prime Minister and a group of Premiers sitting around a table discussing tearing up the GST arrangement. As I pointed out to the Prime Minister and my Premier colleagues yesterday, “You may think you’re setting in stone a new health agreement long term into the future, but I can guarantee that, within 10 years, there will be another Prime Minister and another group of Premiers sitting around the table tearing it up.” We will not as a government give up Western Australia’s rightful share to the GST. Bear in mind that Western Australia has already been done over on this. The Labor commonwealth government—the Labor friends in Canberra of members opposite—gives us 68c in the dollar. What do they give themselves? They give themselves 95c in the dollar in New South Wales, 93c in Victoria and 91c in Queensland. All we get is 68c in the dollar. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s crass politics. You know that; you know how the system works. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question, which I think everyone in this place is interested in, as is everyone outside this place. I am having a little bit of a problem hearing the Premier’s answer and I formally call the member for Kwinana and the member for Mandurah for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : If one-third of the total GST pool is taken, we will lose approximately 60 per cent of our remaining GST over which we would have no control at all. I said to the Prime Minister, and publicly in the lead-up to COAG, that if WA goes along with this system and we can agree because there are benefits—the member is right there are significant benefits—we will be willing to pay an equivalent amount of dollars out of our health budget, or consolidated revenue, into the pool. As I said to the Prime Minister at the beginning of yesterday’s discussion, “Prime Minister, if you accept that point, you will have a deal today; you will have everything you sought and you can walk out here with the deal.” It was the Prime Minister’s choice to not accept that offer. That is where we are at. To answer the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Good. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes, good! “Where is the analysis?” We do not need an analysis on matters of principle. Mr E.S. Ripper : You must have Treasury analysis; you must have it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This is a matter of the federation and of the ability of Western Australians to govern themselves. We do not have an analysis; we do not seek an analysis because this is a matter of principle for which the Liberal–National government stands. I infer from the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that he is willing to throw in the GST to Canberra; I am not.
The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked some questions. I am sure we are all interested in hearing the answers. Mr E.S. Ripper : I thought you were calling me to order. The SPEAKER : No, Leader of the Opposition. My advice at this point is that some members in this place be a little quieter than they are at the moment. Mr C.J. BARNETT : In looking at what the Prime Minister and the commonwealth put on the table, there are some good aspects to it, there is no doubt about it. Mr E.S. Ripper : It should be assessed on the totality of its merits. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Let me try to answer your question. What was offered for elective surgery, emergency departments, subacute beds and the funding arrangement are good. I have said that publicly; I do not have any argument with it. On the framework of how the money will flow, the administration and who bears responsibility for what, there was virtually no discussion at all at COAG. That was one of the fundamental issues. We have a good health system in Australia. If we are going to turn it on its head, we want to be confident that health care will improve. That critical issue was not discussed at COAG, and it should have been. Indeed, there were contrivances to make sure we never got to the substance of that issue. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Hang on! I am trying to answer. Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you give us the numbers? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Just calm down—please. Mr E.S. Ripper : I’m worried you won’t answer the question. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am happy to answer your question, but I will not respond to interruptions. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : For goodness sake! Lift the game; come on! On a lot of the real health issues there was good discussion and I stated that I agreed and I appreciated that the commonwealth put offers of real money and a real commitment on the table. On the structure, which I hope members realise is a big issue, the commonwealth’s proposal includes, at a national level, the national health and hospital network fund, the independent hospital pricing authority, the national performance authority and the Australian commission on safety and quality in health care. Four or five new federal bodies will be established. It is meant to be simple. There will also be the local health networks. If someone has a complaint about health care, what will they do? They will go to their local health network, and if they are unhappy, they may get a satisfactory answer but more than likely they will be told, “You couldn’t have that procedure because Canberra is not giving us the money.” If that does not satisfy them, it will be because, “The state hasn’t put in the capital equipment and won’t allow us to do so because they have the service agreement with us.” There will not be a single “the-buck-stops-here” system. There will be three levels: a national, state and local level—that is, three levels of decision making and three levels of administration. That will be three levels of confusion. I do not think that is well designed. I think, at a minimum, COAG should have discussed the structure of what was proposed. I happen to think it is incredibly cumbersome; however, despite my view on that, I said we would find a way of working within it. I was willing to compromise and say that we would try to work that out so that we could live with it. The third point is the GST, the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question. Mr E.S. Ripper : My point is about the benefits to WA patients and the underlying analysis — Mr C.J. BARNETT : I understand the question. The Leader of the Opposition is a process person; he does not think for himself. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am actually looking for your underlying analysis. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. Barnett : It is true, all he talks about is process. Mr R.H. Cook : What’s your analysis? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is a matter of principle, my friend. It is not a matter of analysis. The GST was set up under the Howard government just over 10 years ago. Mr E.S. Ripper : You would sacrifice WA patients for your principles? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It was set up as the state revenue base into the future, a large form of revenue over which the state would have exclusive use and would guarantee state services across a range of areas. It was set in stone; it was never to be varied unless every state agreed. What have we got? Just 10 years later, we have a Prime Minister and a group of Premiers sitting around a table discussing tearing up the GST arrangement. As I pointed out to the Prime Minister and my Premier colleagues yesterday, “You may think you’re setting in stone a new health agreement long term into the future, but I can guarantee that, within 10 years, there will be another Prime Minister and another group of Premiers sitting around the table tearing it up.” We will not as a government give up Western Australia’s rightful share to the GST. Bear in mind that Western Australia has already been done over on this. The Labor commonwealth government—the Labor friends in Canberra of members opposite—gives us 68c in the dollar. What do they give themselves? They give themselves 95c in the dollar in New South Wales, 93c in Victoria and 91c in Queensland. All we get is 68c in the dollar. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s crass politics. You know that; you know how the system works. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question, which I think everyone in this place is interested in, as is everyone outside this place. I am having a little bit of a problem hearing the Premier’s answer and I formally call the member for Kwinana and the member for Mandurah for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : If one-third of the total GST pool is taken, we will lose approximately 60 per cent of our remaining GST over which we would have no control at all. I said to the Prime Minister, and publicly in the lead-up to COAG, that if WA goes along with this system and we can agree because there are benefits—the member is right there are significant benefits—we will be willing to pay an equivalent amount of dollars out of our health budget, or consolidated revenue, into the pool. As I said to the Prime Minister at the beginning of yesterday’s discussion, “Prime Minister, if you accept that point, you will have a deal today; you will have everything you sought and you can walk out here with the deal.” It was the Prime Minister’s choice to not accept that offer. That is where we are at. To answer the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Good. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes, good! “Where is the analysis?” We do not need an analysis on matters of principle. Mr E.S. Ripper : You must have Treasury analysis; you must have it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This is a matter of the federation and of the ability of Western Australians to govern themselves. We do not have an analysis; we do not seek an analysis because this is a matter of principle for which the Liberal–National government stands. I infer from the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that he is willing to throw in the GST to Canberra; I am not.
Mr E.S. Ripper : I thought you were calling me to order. The SPEAKER : No, Leader of the Opposition. My advice at this point is that some members in this place be a little quieter than they are at the moment. Mr C.J. BARNETT : In looking at what the Prime Minister and the commonwealth put on the table, there are some good aspects to it, there is no doubt about it. Mr E.S. Ripper : It should be assessed on the totality of its merits. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Let me try to answer your question. What was offered for elective surgery, emergency departments, subacute beds and the funding arrangement are good. I have said that publicly; I do not have any argument with it. On the framework of how the money will flow, the administration and who bears responsibility for what, there was virtually no discussion at all at COAG. That was one of the fundamental issues. We have a good health system in Australia. If we are going to turn it on its head, we want to be confident that health care will improve. That critical issue was not discussed at COAG, and it should have been. Indeed, there were contrivances to make sure we never got to the substance of that issue. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Hang on! I am trying to answer. Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you give us the numbers? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Just calm down—please. Mr E.S. Ripper : I’m worried you won’t answer the question. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am happy to answer your question, but I will not respond to interruptions. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : For goodness sake! Lift the game; come on! On a lot of the real health issues there was good discussion and I stated that I agreed and I appreciated that the commonwealth put offers of real money and a real commitment on the table. On the structure, which I hope members realise is a big issue, the commonwealth’s proposal includes, at a national level, the national health and hospital network fund, the independent hospital pricing authority, the national performance authority and the Australian commission on safety and quality in health care. Four or five new federal bodies will be established. It is meant to be simple. There will also be the local health networks. If someone has a complaint about health care, what will they do? They will go to their local health network, and if they are unhappy, they may get a satisfactory answer but more than likely they will be told, “You couldn’t have that procedure because Canberra is not giving us the money.” If that does not satisfy them, it will be because, “The state hasn’t put in the capital equipment and won’t allow us to do so because they have the service agreement with us.” There will not be a single “the-buck-stops-here” system. There will be three levels: a national, state and local level—that is, three levels of decision making and three levels of administration. That will be three levels of confusion. I do not think that is well designed. I think, at a minimum, COAG should have discussed the structure of what was proposed. I happen to think it is incredibly cumbersome; however, despite my view on that, I said we would find a way of working within it. I was willing to compromise and say that we would try to work that out so that we could live with it. The third point is the GST, the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question. Mr E.S. Ripper : My point is about the benefits to WA patients and the underlying analysis — Mr C.J. BARNETT : I understand the question. The Leader of the Opposition is a process person; he does not think for himself. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am actually looking for your underlying analysis. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. Barnett : It is true, all he talks about is process. Mr R.H. Cook : What’s your analysis? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is a matter of principle, my friend. It is not a matter of analysis. The GST was set up under the Howard government just over 10 years ago. Mr E.S. Ripper : You would sacrifice WA patients for your principles? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It was set up as the state revenue base into the future, a large form of revenue over which the state would have exclusive use and would guarantee state services across a range of areas. It was set in stone; it was never to be varied unless every state agreed. What have we got? Just 10 years later, we have a Prime Minister and a group of Premiers sitting around a table discussing tearing up the GST arrangement. As I pointed out to the Prime Minister and my Premier colleagues yesterday, “You may think you’re setting in stone a new health agreement long term into the future, but I can guarantee that, within 10 years, there will be another Prime Minister and another group of Premiers sitting around the table tearing it up.” We will not as a government give up Western Australia’s rightful share to the GST. Bear in mind that Western Australia has already been done over on this. The Labor commonwealth government—the Labor friends in Canberra of members opposite—gives us 68c in the dollar. What do they give themselves? They give themselves 95c in the dollar in New South Wales, 93c in Victoria and 91c in Queensland. All we get is 68c in the dollar. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s crass politics. You know that; you know how the system works. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question, which I think everyone in this place is interested in, as is everyone outside this place. I am having a little bit of a problem hearing the Premier’s answer and I formally call the member for Kwinana and the member for Mandurah for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : If one-third of the total GST pool is taken, we will lose approximately 60 per cent of our remaining GST over which we would have no control at all. I said to the Prime Minister, and publicly in the lead-up to COAG, that if WA goes along with this system and we can agree because there are benefits—the member is right there are significant benefits—we will be willing to pay an equivalent amount of dollars out of our health budget, or consolidated revenue, into the pool. As I said to the Prime Minister at the beginning of yesterday’s discussion, “Prime Minister, if you accept that point, you will have a deal today; you will have everything you sought and you can walk out here with the deal.” It was the Prime Minister’s choice to not accept that offer. That is where we are at. To answer the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Good. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes, good! “Where is the analysis?” We do not need an analysis on matters of principle. Mr E.S. Ripper : You must have Treasury analysis; you must have it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This is a matter of the federation and of the ability of Western Australians to govern themselves. We do not have an analysis; we do not seek an analysis because this is a matter of principle for which the Liberal–National government stands. I infer from the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that he is willing to throw in the GST to Canberra; I am not.
The SPEAKER : No, Leader of the Opposition. My advice at this point is that some members in this place be a little quieter than they are at the moment. Mr C.J. BARNETT : In looking at what the Prime Minister and the commonwealth put on the table, there are some good aspects to it, there is no doubt about it. Mr E.S. Ripper : It should be assessed on the totality of its merits. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Let me try to answer your question. What was offered for elective surgery, emergency departments, subacute beds and the funding arrangement are good. I have said that publicly; I do not have any argument with it. On the framework of how the money will flow, the administration and who bears responsibility for what, there was virtually no discussion at all at COAG. That was one of the fundamental issues. We have a good health system in Australia. If we are going to turn it on its head, we want to be confident that health care will improve. That critical issue was not discussed at COAG, and it should have been. Indeed, there were contrivances to make sure we never got to the substance of that issue. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Hang on! I am trying to answer. Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you give us the numbers? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Just calm down—please. Mr E.S. Ripper : I’m worried you won’t answer the question. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am happy to answer your question, but I will not respond to interruptions. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : For goodness sake! Lift the game; come on! On a lot of the real health issues there was good discussion and I stated that I agreed and I appreciated that the commonwealth put offers of real money and a real commitment on the table. On the structure, which I hope members realise is a big issue, the commonwealth’s proposal includes, at a national level, the national health and hospital network fund, the independent hospital pricing authority, the national performance authority and the Australian commission on safety and quality in health care. Four or five new federal bodies will be established. It is meant to be simple. There will also be the local health networks. If someone has a complaint about health care, what will they do? They will go to their local health network, and if they are unhappy, they may get a satisfactory answer but more than likely they will be told, “You couldn’t have that procedure because Canberra is not giving us the money.” If that does not satisfy them, it will be because, “The state hasn’t put in the capital equipment and won’t allow us to do so because they have the service agreement with us.” There will not be a single “the-buck-stops-here” system. There will be three levels: a national, state and local level—that is, three levels of decision making and three levels of administration. That will be three levels of confusion. I do not think that is well designed. I think, at a minimum, COAG should have discussed the structure of what was proposed. I happen to think it is incredibly cumbersome; however, despite my view on that, I said we would find a way of working within it. I was willing to compromise and say that we would try to work that out so that we could live with it. The third point is the GST, the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question. Mr E.S. Ripper : My point is about the benefits to WA patients and the underlying analysis — Mr C.J. BARNETT : I understand the question. The Leader of the Opposition is a process person; he does not think for himself. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am actually looking for your underlying analysis. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. Barnett : It is true, all he talks about is process. Mr R.H. Cook : What’s your analysis? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is a matter of principle, my friend. It is not a matter of analysis. The GST was set up under the Howard government just over 10 years ago. Mr E.S. Ripper : You would sacrifice WA patients for your principles? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It was set up as the state revenue base into the future, a large form of revenue over which the state would have exclusive use and would guarantee state services across a range of areas. It was set in stone; it was never to be varied unless every state agreed. What have we got? Just 10 years later, we have a Prime Minister and a group of Premiers sitting around a table discussing tearing up the GST arrangement. As I pointed out to the Prime Minister and my Premier colleagues yesterday, “You may think you’re setting in stone a new health agreement long term into the future, but I can guarantee that, within 10 years, there will be another Prime Minister and another group of Premiers sitting around the table tearing it up.” We will not as a government give up Western Australia’s rightful share to the GST. Bear in mind that Western Australia has already been done over on this. The Labor commonwealth government—the Labor friends in Canberra of members opposite—gives us 68c in the dollar. What do they give themselves? They give themselves 95c in the dollar in New South Wales, 93c in Victoria and 91c in Queensland. All we get is 68c in the dollar. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s crass politics. You know that; you know how the system works. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question, which I think everyone in this place is interested in, as is everyone outside this place. I am having a little bit of a problem hearing the Premier’s answer and I formally call the member for Kwinana and the member for Mandurah for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : If one-third of the total GST pool is taken, we will lose approximately 60 per cent of our remaining GST over which we would have no control at all. I said to the Prime Minister, and publicly in the lead-up to COAG, that if WA goes along with this system and we can agree because there are benefits—the member is right there are significant benefits—we will be willing to pay an equivalent amount of dollars out of our health budget, or consolidated revenue, into the pool. As I said to the Prime Minister at the beginning of yesterday’s discussion, “Prime Minister, if you accept that point, you will have a deal today; you will have everything you sought and you can walk out here with the deal.” It was the Prime Minister’s choice to not accept that offer. That is where we are at. To answer the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Good. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes, good! “Where is the analysis?” We do not need an analysis on matters of principle. Mr E.S. Ripper : You must have Treasury analysis; you must have it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This is a matter of the federation and of the ability of Western Australians to govern themselves. We do not have an analysis; we do not seek an analysis because this is a matter of principle for which the Liberal–National government stands. I infer from the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that he is willing to throw in the GST to Canberra; I am not.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : In looking at what the Prime Minister and the commonwealth put on the table, there are some good aspects to it, there is no doubt about it. Mr E.S. Ripper : It should be assessed on the totality of its merits. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Let me try to answer your question. What was offered for elective surgery, emergency departments, subacute beds and the funding arrangement are good. I have said that publicly; I do not have any argument with it. On the framework of how the money will flow, the administration and who bears responsibility for what, there was virtually no discussion at all at COAG. That was one of the fundamental issues. We have a good health system in Australia. If we are going to turn it on its head, we want to be confident that health care will improve. That critical issue was not discussed at COAG, and it should have been. Indeed, there were contrivances to make sure we never got to the substance of that issue. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Hang on! I am trying to answer. Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you give us the numbers? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Just calm down—please. Mr E.S. Ripper : I’m worried you won’t answer the question. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am happy to answer your question, but I will not respond to interruptions. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : For goodness sake! Lift the game; come on! On a lot of the real health issues there was good discussion and I stated that I agreed and I appreciated that the commonwealth put offers of real money and a real commitment on the table. On the structure, which I hope members realise is a big issue, the commonwealth’s proposal includes, at a national level, the national health and hospital network fund, the independent hospital pricing authority, the national performance authority and the Australian commission on safety and quality in health care. Four or five new federal bodies will be established. It is meant to be simple. There will also be the local health networks. If someone has a complaint about health care, what will they do? They will go to their local health network, and if they are unhappy, they may get a satisfactory answer but more than likely they will be told, “You couldn’t have that procedure because Canberra is not giving us the money.” If that does not satisfy them, it will be because, “The state hasn’t put in the capital equipment and won’t allow us to do so because they have the service agreement with us.” There will not be a single “the-buck-stops-here” system. There will be three levels: a national, state and local level—that is, three levels of decision making and three levels of administration. That will be three levels of confusion. I do not think that is well designed. I think, at a minimum, COAG should have discussed the structure of what was proposed. I happen to think it is incredibly cumbersome; however, despite my view on that, I said we would find a way of working within it. I was willing to compromise and say that we would try to work that out so that we could live with it. The third point is the GST, the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question. Mr E.S. Ripper : My point is about the benefits to WA patients and the underlying analysis — Mr C.J. BARNETT : I understand the question. The Leader of the Opposition is a process person; he does not think for himself. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am actually looking for your underlying analysis. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. Barnett : It is true, all he talks about is process. Mr R.H. Cook : What’s your analysis? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is a matter of principle, my friend. It is not a matter of analysis. The GST was set up under the Howard government just over 10 years ago. Mr E.S. Ripper : You would sacrifice WA patients for your principles? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It was set up as the state revenue base into the future, a large form of revenue over which the state would have exclusive use and would guarantee state services across a range of areas. It was set in stone; it was never to be varied unless every state agreed. What have we got? Just 10 years later, we have a Prime Minister and a group of Premiers sitting around a table discussing tearing up the GST arrangement. As I pointed out to the Prime Minister and my Premier colleagues yesterday, “You may think you’re setting in stone a new health agreement long term into the future, but I can guarantee that, within 10 years, there will be another Prime Minister and another group of Premiers sitting around the table tearing it up.” We will not as a government give up Western Australia’s rightful share to the GST. Bear in mind that Western Australia has already been done over on this. The Labor commonwealth government—the Labor friends in Canberra of members opposite—gives us 68c in the dollar. What do they give themselves? They give themselves 95c in the dollar in New South Wales, 93c in Victoria and 91c in Queensland. All we get is 68c in the dollar. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s crass politics. You know that; you know how the system works. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question, which I think everyone in this place is interested in, as is everyone outside this place. I am having a little bit of a problem hearing the Premier’s answer and I formally call the member for Kwinana and the member for Mandurah for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : If one-third of the total GST pool is taken, we will lose approximately 60 per cent of our remaining GST over which we would have no control at all. I said to the Prime Minister, and publicly in the lead-up to COAG, that if WA goes along with this system and we can agree because there are benefits—the member is right there are significant benefits—we will be willing to pay an equivalent amount of dollars out of our health budget, or consolidated revenue, into the pool. As I said to the Prime Minister at the beginning of yesterday’s discussion, “Prime Minister, if you accept that point, you will have a deal today; you will have everything you sought and you can walk out here with the deal.” It was the Prime Minister’s choice to not accept that offer. That is where we are at. To answer the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Good. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes, good! “Where is the analysis?” We do not need an analysis on matters of principle. Mr E.S. Ripper : You must have Treasury analysis; you must have it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This is a matter of the federation and of the ability of Western Australians to govern themselves. We do not have an analysis; we do not seek an analysis because this is a matter of principle for which the Liberal–National government stands. I infer from the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that he is willing to throw in the GST to Canberra; I am not.
Mr E.S. Ripper : It should be assessed on the totality of its merits. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Let me try to answer your question. What was offered for elective surgery, emergency departments, subacute beds and the funding arrangement are good. I have said that publicly; I do not have any argument with it. On the framework of how the money will flow, the administration and who bears responsibility for what, there was virtually no discussion at all at COAG. That was one of the fundamental issues. We have a good health system in Australia. If we are going to turn it on its head, we want to be confident that health care will improve. That critical issue was not discussed at COAG, and it should have been. Indeed, there were contrivances to make sure we never got to the substance of that issue. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Hang on! I am trying to answer. Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you give us the numbers? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Just calm down—please. Mr E.S. Ripper : I’m worried you won’t answer the question. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am happy to answer your question, but I will not respond to interruptions. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : For goodness sake! Lift the game; come on! On a lot of the real health issues there was good discussion and I stated that I agreed and I appreciated that the commonwealth put offers of real money and a real commitment on the table. On the structure, which I hope members realise is a big issue, the commonwealth’s proposal includes, at a national level, the national health and hospital network fund, the independent hospital pricing authority, the national performance authority and the Australian commission on safety and quality in health care. Four or five new federal bodies will be established. It is meant to be simple. There will also be the local health networks. If someone has a complaint about health care, what will they do? They will go to their local health network, and if they are unhappy, they may get a satisfactory answer but more than likely they will be told, “You couldn’t have that procedure because Canberra is not giving us the money.” If that does not satisfy them, it will be because, “The state hasn’t put in the capital equipment and won’t allow us to do so because they have the service agreement with us.” There will not be a single “the-buck-stops-here” system. There will be three levels: a national, state and local level—that is, three levels of decision making and three levels of administration. That will be three levels of confusion. I do not think that is well designed. I think, at a minimum, COAG should have discussed the structure of what was proposed. I happen to think it is incredibly cumbersome; however, despite my view on that, I said we would find a way of working within it. I was willing to compromise and say that we would try to work that out so that we could live with it. The third point is the GST, the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question. Mr E.S. Ripper : My point is about the benefits to WA patients and the underlying analysis — Mr C.J. BARNETT : I understand the question. The Leader of the Opposition is a process person; he does not think for himself. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am actually looking for your underlying analysis. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. Barnett : It is true, all he talks about is process. Mr R.H. Cook : What’s your analysis? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is a matter of principle, my friend. It is not a matter of analysis. The GST was set up under the Howard government just over 10 years ago. Mr E.S. Ripper : You would sacrifice WA patients for your principles? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It was set up as the state revenue base into the future, a large form of revenue over which the state would have exclusive use and would guarantee state services across a range of areas. It was set in stone; it was never to be varied unless every state agreed. What have we got? Just 10 years later, we have a Prime Minister and a group of Premiers sitting around a table discussing tearing up the GST arrangement. As I pointed out to the Prime Minister and my Premier colleagues yesterday, “You may think you’re setting in stone a new health agreement long term into the future, but I can guarantee that, within 10 years, there will be another Prime Minister and another group of Premiers sitting around the table tearing it up.” We will not as a government give up Western Australia’s rightful share to the GST. Bear in mind that Western Australia has already been done over on this. The Labor commonwealth government—the Labor friends in Canberra of members opposite—gives us 68c in the dollar. What do they give themselves? They give themselves 95c in the dollar in New South Wales, 93c in Victoria and 91c in Queensland. All we get is 68c in the dollar. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s crass politics. You know that; you know how the system works. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question, which I think everyone in this place is interested in, as is everyone outside this place. I am having a little bit of a problem hearing the Premier’s answer and I formally call the member for Kwinana and the member for Mandurah for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : If one-third of the total GST pool is taken, we will lose approximately 60 per cent of our remaining GST over which we would have no control at all. I said to the Prime Minister, and publicly in the lead-up to COAG, that if WA goes along with this system and we can agree because there are benefits—the member is right there are significant benefits—we will be willing to pay an equivalent amount of dollars out of our health budget, or consolidated revenue, into the pool. As I said to the Prime Minister at the beginning of yesterday’s discussion, “Prime Minister, if you accept that point, you will have a deal today; you will have everything you sought and you can walk out here with the deal.” It was the Prime Minister’s choice to not accept that offer. That is where we are at. To answer the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Good. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes, good! “Where is the analysis?” We do not need an analysis on matters of principle. Mr E.S. Ripper : You must have Treasury analysis; you must have it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This is a matter of the federation and of the ability of Western Australians to govern themselves. We do not have an analysis; we do not seek an analysis because this is a matter of principle for which the Liberal–National government stands. I infer from the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that he is willing to throw in the GST to Canberra; I am not.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Let me try to answer your question. What was offered for elective surgery, emergency departments, subacute beds and the funding arrangement are good. I have said that publicly; I do not have any argument with it. On the framework of how the money will flow, the administration and who bears responsibility for what, there was virtually no discussion at all at COAG. That was one of the fundamental issues. We have a good health system in Australia. If we are going to turn it on its head, we want to be confident that health care will improve. That critical issue was not discussed at COAG, and it should have been. Indeed, there were contrivances to make sure we never got to the substance of that issue. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Hang on! I am trying to answer. Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you give us the numbers? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Just calm down—please. Mr E.S. Ripper : I’m worried you won’t answer the question. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am happy to answer your question, but I will not respond to interruptions. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : For goodness sake! Lift the game; come on! On a lot of the real health issues there was good discussion and I stated that I agreed and I appreciated that the commonwealth put offers of real money and a real commitment on the table. On the structure, which I hope members realise is a big issue, the commonwealth’s proposal includes, at a national level, the national health and hospital network fund, the independent hospital pricing authority, the national performance authority and the Australian commission on safety and quality in health care. Four or five new federal bodies will be established. It is meant to be simple. There will also be the local health networks. If someone has a complaint about health care, what will they do? They will go to their local health network, and if they are unhappy, they may get a satisfactory answer but more than likely they will be told, “You couldn’t have that procedure because Canberra is not giving us the money.” If that does not satisfy them, it will be because, “The state hasn’t put in the capital equipment and won’t allow us to do so because they have the service agreement with us.” There will not be a single “the-buck-stops-here” system. There will be three levels: a national, state and local level—that is, three levels of decision making and three levels of administration. That will be three levels of confusion. I do not think that is well designed. I think, at a minimum, COAG should have discussed the structure of what was proposed. I happen to think it is incredibly cumbersome; however, despite my view on that, I said we would find a way of working within it. I was willing to compromise and say that we would try to work that out so that we could live with it. The third point is the GST, the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question. Mr E.S. Ripper : My point is about the benefits to WA patients and the underlying analysis — Mr C.J. BARNETT : I understand the question. The Leader of the Opposition is a process person; he does not think for himself. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am actually looking for your underlying analysis. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. Barnett : It is true, all he talks about is process. Mr R.H. Cook : What’s your analysis? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is a matter of principle, my friend. It is not a matter of analysis. The GST was set up under the Howard government just over 10 years ago. Mr E.S. Ripper : You would sacrifice WA patients for your principles? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It was set up as the state revenue base into the future, a large form of revenue over which the state would have exclusive use and would guarantee state services across a range of areas. It was set in stone; it was never to be varied unless every state agreed. What have we got? Just 10 years later, we have a Prime Minister and a group of Premiers sitting around a table discussing tearing up the GST arrangement. As I pointed out to the Prime Minister and my Premier colleagues yesterday, “You may think you’re setting in stone a new health agreement long term into the future, but I can guarantee that, within 10 years, there will be another Prime Minister and another group of Premiers sitting around the table tearing it up.” We will not as a government give up Western Australia’s rightful share to the GST. Bear in mind that Western Australia has already been done over on this. The Labor commonwealth government—the Labor friends in Canberra of members opposite—gives us 68c in the dollar. What do they give themselves? They give themselves 95c in the dollar in New South Wales, 93c in Victoria and 91c in Queensland. All we get is 68c in the dollar. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s crass politics. You know that; you know how the system works. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question, which I think everyone in this place is interested in, as is everyone outside this place. I am having a little bit of a problem hearing the Premier’s answer and I formally call the member for Kwinana and the member for Mandurah for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : If one-third of the total GST pool is taken, we will lose approximately 60 per cent of our remaining GST over which we would have no control at all. I said to the Prime Minister, and publicly in the lead-up to COAG, that if WA goes along with this system and we can agree because there are benefits—the member is right there are significant benefits—we will be willing to pay an equivalent amount of dollars out of our health budget, or consolidated revenue, into the pool. As I said to the Prime Minister at the beginning of yesterday’s discussion, “Prime Minister, if you accept that point, you will have a deal today; you will have everything you sought and you can walk out here with the deal.” It was the Prime Minister’s choice to not accept that offer. That is where we are at. To answer the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Good. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes, good! “Where is the analysis?” We do not need an analysis on matters of principle. Mr E.S. Ripper : You must have Treasury analysis; you must have it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This is a matter of the federation and of the ability of Western Australians to govern themselves. We do not have an analysis; we do not seek an analysis because this is a matter of principle for which the Liberal–National government stands. I infer from the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that he is willing to throw in the GST to Canberra; I am not.
Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Hang on! I am trying to answer. Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you give us the numbers? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Just calm down—please. Mr E.S. Ripper : I’m worried you won’t answer the question. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am happy to answer your question, but I will not respond to interruptions. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : For goodness sake! Lift the game; come on! On a lot of the real health issues there was good discussion and I stated that I agreed and I appreciated that the commonwealth put offers of real money and a real commitment on the table. On the structure, which I hope members realise is a big issue, the commonwealth’s proposal includes, at a national level, the national health and hospital network fund, the independent hospital pricing authority, the national performance authority and the Australian commission on safety and quality in health care. Four or five new federal bodies will be established. It is meant to be simple. There will also be the local health networks. If someone has a complaint about health care, what will they do? They will go to their local health network, and if they are unhappy, they may get a satisfactory answer but more than likely they will be told, “You couldn’t have that procedure because Canberra is not giving us the money.” If that does not satisfy them, it will be because, “The state hasn’t put in the capital equipment and won’t allow us to do so because they have the service agreement with us.” There will not be a single “the-buck-stops-here” system. There will be three levels: a national, state and local level—that is, three levels of decision making and three levels of administration. That will be three levels of confusion. I do not think that is well designed. I think, at a minimum, COAG should have discussed the structure of what was proposed. I happen to think it is incredibly cumbersome; however, despite my view on that, I said we would find a way of working within it. I was willing to compromise and say that we would try to work that out so that we could live with it. The third point is the GST, the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question. Mr E.S. Ripper : My point is about the benefits to WA patients and the underlying analysis — Mr C.J. BARNETT : I understand the question. The Leader of the Opposition is a process person; he does not think for himself. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am actually looking for your underlying analysis. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. Barnett : It is true, all he talks about is process. Mr R.H. Cook : What’s your analysis? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is a matter of principle, my friend. It is not a matter of analysis. The GST was set up under the Howard government just over 10 years ago. Mr E.S. Ripper : You would sacrifice WA patients for your principles? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It was set up as the state revenue base into the future, a large form of revenue over which the state would have exclusive use and would guarantee state services across a range of areas. It was set in stone; it was never to be varied unless every state agreed. What have we got? Just 10 years later, we have a Prime Minister and a group of Premiers sitting around a table discussing tearing up the GST arrangement. As I pointed out to the Prime Minister and my Premier colleagues yesterday, “You may think you’re setting in stone a new health agreement long term into the future, but I can guarantee that, within 10 years, there will be another Prime Minister and another group of Premiers sitting around the table tearing it up.” We will not as a government give up Western Australia’s rightful share to the GST. Bear in mind that Western Australia has already been done over on this. The Labor commonwealth government—the Labor friends in Canberra of members opposite—gives us 68c in the dollar. What do they give themselves? They give themselves 95c in the dollar in New South Wales, 93c in Victoria and 91c in Queensland. All we get is 68c in the dollar. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s crass politics. You know that; you know how the system works. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question, which I think everyone in this place is interested in, as is everyone outside this place. I am having a little bit of a problem hearing the Premier’s answer and I formally call the member for Kwinana and the member for Mandurah for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : If one-third of the total GST pool is taken, we will lose approximately 60 per cent of our remaining GST over which we would have no control at all. I said to the Prime Minister, and publicly in the lead-up to COAG, that if WA goes along with this system and we can agree because there are benefits—the member is right there are significant benefits—we will be willing to pay an equivalent amount of dollars out of our health budget, or consolidated revenue, into the pool. As I said to the Prime Minister at the beginning of yesterday’s discussion, “Prime Minister, if you accept that point, you will have a deal today; you will have everything you sought and you can walk out here with the deal.” It was the Prime Minister’s choice to not accept that offer. That is where we are at. To answer the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Good. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes, good! “Where is the analysis?” We do not need an analysis on matters of principle. Mr E.S. Ripper : You must have Treasury analysis; you must have it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This is a matter of the federation and of the ability of Western Australians to govern themselves. We do not have an analysis; we do not seek an analysis because this is a matter of principle for which the Liberal–National government stands. I infer from the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that he is willing to throw in the GST to Canberra; I am not.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Hang on! I am trying to answer. Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you give us the numbers? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Just calm down—please. Mr E.S. Ripper : I’m worried you won’t answer the question. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am happy to answer your question, but I will not respond to interruptions. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : For goodness sake! Lift the game; come on! On a lot of the real health issues there was good discussion and I stated that I agreed and I appreciated that the commonwealth put offers of real money and a real commitment on the table. On the structure, which I hope members realise is a big issue, the commonwealth’s proposal includes, at a national level, the national health and hospital network fund, the independent hospital pricing authority, the national performance authority and the Australian commission on safety and quality in health care. Four or five new federal bodies will be established. It is meant to be simple. There will also be the local health networks. If someone has a complaint about health care, what will they do? They will go to their local health network, and if they are unhappy, they may get a satisfactory answer but more than likely they will be told, “You couldn’t have that procedure because Canberra is not giving us the money.” If that does not satisfy them, it will be because, “The state hasn’t put in the capital equipment and won’t allow us to do so because they have the service agreement with us.” There will not be a single “the-buck-stops-here” system. There will be three levels: a national, state and local level—that is, three levels of decision making and three levels of administration. That will be three levels of confusion. I do not think that is well designed. I think, at a minimum, COAG should have discussed the structure of what was proposed. I happen to think it is incredibly cumbersome; however, despite my view on that, I said we would find a way of working within it. I was willing to compromise and say that we would try to work that out so that we could live with it. The third point is the GST, the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question. Mr E.S. Ripper : My point is about the benefits to WA patients and the underlying analysis — Mr C.J. BARNETT : I understand the question. The Leader of the Opposition is a process person; he does not think for himself. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am actually looking for your underlying analysis. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. Barnett : It is true, all he talks about is process. Mr R.H. Cook : What’s your analysis? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is a matter of principle, my friend. It is not a matter of analysis. The GST was set up under the Howard government just over 10 years ago. Mr E.S. Ripper : You would sacrifice WA patients for your principles? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It was set up as the state revenue base into the future, a large form of revenue over which the state would have exclusive use and would guarantee state services across a range of areas. It was set in stone; it was never to be varied unless every state agreed. What have we got? Just 10 years later, we have a Prime Minister and a group of Premiers sitting around a table discussing tearing up the GST arrangement. As I pointed out to the Prime Minister and my Premier colleagues yesterday, “You may think you’re setting in stone a new health agreement long term into the future, but I can guarantee that, within 10 years, there will be another Prime Minister and another group of Premiers sitting around the table tearing it up.” We will not as a government give up Western Australia’s rightful share to the GST. Bear in mind that Western Australia has already been done over on this. The Labor commonwealth government—the Labor friends in Canberra of members opposite—gives us 68c in the dollar. What do they give themselves? They give themselves 95c in the dollar in New South Wales, 93c in Victoria and 91c in Queensland. All we get is 68c in the dollar. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s crass politics. You know that; you know how the system works. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question, which I think everyone in this place is interested in, as is everyone outside this place. I am having a little bit of a problem hearing the Premier’s answer and I formally call the member for Kwinana and the member for Mandurah for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : If one-third of the total GST pool is taken, we will lose approximately 60 per cent of our remaining GST over which we would have no control at all. I said to the Prime Minister, and publicly in the lead-up to COAG, that if WA goes along with this system and we can agree because there are benefits—the member is right there are significant benefits—we will be willing to pay an equivalent amount of dollars out of our health budget, or consolidated revenue, into the pool. As I said to the Prime Minister at the beginning of yesterday’s discussion, “Prime Minister, if you accept that point, you will have a deal today; you will have everything you sought and you can walk out here with the deal.” It was the Prime Minister’s choice to not accept that offer. That is where we are at. To answer the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Good. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes, good! “Where is the analysis?” We do not need an analysis on matters of principle. Mr E.S. Ripper : You must have Treasury analysis; you must have it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This is a matter of the federation and of the ability of Western Australians to govern themselves. We do not have an analysis; we do not seek an analysis because this is a matter of principle for which the Liberal–National government stands. I infer from the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that he is willing to throw in the GST to Canberra; I am not.
Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you give us the numbers? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Just calm down—please. Mr E.S. Ripper : I’m worried you won’t answer the question. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am happy to answer your question, but I will not respond to interruptions. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : For goodness sake! Lift the game; come on! On a lot of the real health issues there was good discussion and I stated that I agreed and I appreciated that the commonwealth put offers of real money and a real commitment on the table. On the structure, which I hope members realise is a big issue, the commonwealth’s proposal includes, at a national level, the national health and hospital network fund, the independent hospital pricing authority, the national performance authority and the Australian commission on safety and quality in health care. Four or five new federal bodies will be established. It is meant to be simple. There will also be the local health networks. If someone has a complaint about health care, what will they do? They will go to their local health network, and if they are unhappy, they may get a satisfactory answer but more than likely they will be told, “You couldn’t have that procedure because Canberra is not giving us the money.” If that does not satisfy them, it will be because, “The state hasn’t put in the capital equipment and won’t allow us to do so because they have the service agreement with us.” There will not be a single “the-buck-stops-here” system. There will be three levels: a national, state and local level—that is, three levels of decision making and three levels of administration. That will be three levels of confusion. I do not think that is well designed. I think, at a minimum, COAG should have discussed the structure of what was proposed. I happen to think it is incredibly cumbersome; however, despite my view on that, I said we would find a way of working within it. I was willing to compromise and say that we would try to work that out so that we could live with it. The third point is the GST, the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question. Mr E.S. Ripper : My point is about the benefits to WA patients and the underlying analysis — Mr C.J. BARNETT : I understand the question. The Leader of the Opposition is a process person; he does not think for himself. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am actually looking for your underlying analysis. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. Barnett : It is true, all he talks about is process. Mr R.H. Cook : What’s your analysis? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is a matter of principle, my friend. It is not a matter of analysis. The GST was set up under the Howard government just over 10 years ago. Mr E.S. Ripper : You would sacrifice WA patients for your principles? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It was set up as the state revenue base into the future, a large form of revenue over which the state would have exclusive use and would guarantee state services across a range of areas. It was set in stone; it was never to be varied unless every state agreed. What have we got? Just 10 years later, we have a Prime Minister and a group of Premiers sitting around a table discussing tearing up the GST arrangement. As I pointed out to the Prime Minister and my Premier colleagues yesterday, “You may think you’re setting in stone a new health agreement long term into the future, but I can guarantee that, within 10 years, there will be another Prime Minister and another group of Premiers sitting around the table tearing it up.” We will not as a government give up Western Australia’s rightful share to the GST. Bear in mind that Western Australia has already been done over on this. The Labor commonwealth government—the Labor friends in Canberra of members opposite—gives us 68c in the dollar. What do they give themselves? They give themselves 95c in the dollar in New South Wales, 93c in Victoria and 91c in Queensland. All we get is 68c in the dollar. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s crass politics. You know that; you know how the system works. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question, which I think everyone in this place is interested in, as is everyone outside this place. I am having a little bit of a problem hearing the Premier’s answer and I formally call the member for Kwinana and the member for Mandurah for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : If one-third of the total GST pool is taken, we will lose approximately 60 per cent of our remaining GST over which we would have no control at all. I said to the Prime Minister, and publicly in the lead-up to COAG, that if WA goes along with this system and we can agree because there are benefits—the member is right there are significant benefits—we will be willing to pay an equivalent amount of dollars out of our health budget, or consolidated revenue, into the pool. As I said to the Prime Minister at the beginning of yesterday’s discussion, “Prime Minister, if you accept that point, you will have a deal today; you will have everything you sought and you can walk out here with the deal.” It was the Prime Minister’s choice to not accept that offer. That is where we are at. To answer the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Good. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes, good! “Where is the analysis?” We do not need an analysis on matters of principle. Mr E.S. Ripper : You must have Treasury analysis; you must have it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This is a matter of the federation and of the ability of Western Australians to govern themselves. We do not have an analysis; we do not seek an analysis because this is a matter of principle for which the Liberal–National government stands. I infer from the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that he is willing to throw in the GST to Canberra; I am not.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Just calm down—please. Mr E.S. Ripper : I’m worried you won’t answer the question. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am happy to answer your question, but I will not respond to interruptions. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : For goodness sake! Lift the game; come on! On a lot of the real health issues there was good discussion and I stated that I agreed and I appreciated that the commonwealth put offers of real money and a real commitment on the table. On the structure, which I hope members realise is a big issue, the commonwealth’s proposal includes, at a national level, the national health and hospital network fund, the independent hospital pricing authority, the national performance authority and the Australian commission on safety and quality in health care. Four or five new federal bodies will be established. It is meant to be simple. There will also be the local health networks. If someone has a complaint about health care, what will they do? They will go to their local health network, and if they are unhappy, they may get a satisfactory answer but more than likely they will be told, “You couldn’t have that procedure because Canberra is not giving us the money.” If that does not satisfy them, it will be because, “The state hasn’t put in the capital equipment and won’t allow us to do so because they have the service agreement with us.” There will not be a single “the-buck-stops-here” system. There will be three levels: a national, state and local level—that is, three levels of decision making and three levels of administration. That will be three levels of confusion. I do not think that is well designed. I think, at a minimum, COAG should have discussed the structure of what was proposed. I happen to think it is incredibly cumbersome; however, despite my view on that, I said we would find a way of working within it. I was willing to compromise and say that we would try to work that out so that we could live with it. The third point is the GST, the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question. Mr E.S. Ripper : My point is about the benefits to WA patients and the underlying analysis — Mr C.J. BARNETT : I understand the question. The Leader of the Opposition is a process person; he does not think for himself. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am actually looking for your underlying analysis. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. Barnett : It is true, all he talks about is process. Mr R.H. Cook : What’s your analysis? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is a matter of principle, my friend. It is not a matter of analysis. The GST was set up under the Howard government just over 10 years ago. Mr E.S. Ripper : You would sacrifice WA patients for your principles? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It was set up as the state revenue base into the future, a large form of revenue over which the state would have exclusive use and would guarantee state services across a range of areas. It was set in stone; it was never to be varied unless every state agreed. What have we got? Just 10 years later, we have a Prime Minister and a group of Premiers sitting around a table discussing tearing up the GST arrangement. As I pointed out to the Prime Minister and my Premier colleagues yesterday, “You may think you’re setting in stone a new health agreement long term into the future, but I can guarantee that, within 10 years, there will be another Prime Minister and another group of Premiers sitting around the table tearing it up.” We will not as a government give up Western Australia’s rightful share to the GST. Bear in mind that Western Australia has already been done over on this. The Labor commonwealth government—the Labor friends in Canberra of members opposite—gives us 68c in the dollar. What do they give themselves? They give themselves 95c in the dollar in New South Wales, 93c in Victoria and 91c in Queensland. All we get is 68c in the dollar. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s crass politics. You know that; you know how the system works. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question, which I think everyone in this place is interested in, as is everyone outside this place. I am having a little bit of a problem hearing the Premier’s answer and I formally call the member for Kwinana and the member for Mandurah for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : If one-third of the total GST pool is taken, we will lose approximately 60 per cent of our remaining GST over which we would have no control at all. I said to the Prime Minister, and publicly in the lead-up to COAG, that if WA goes along with this system and we can agree because there are benefits—the member is right there are significant benefits—we will be willing to pay an equivalent amount of dollars out of our health budget, or consolidated revenue, into the pool. As I said to the Prime Minister at the beginning of yesterday’s discussion, “Prime Minister, if you accept that point, you will have a deal today; you will have everything you sought and you can walk out here with the deal.” It was the Prime Minister’s choice to not accept that offer. That is where we are at. To answer the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Good. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes, good! “Where is the analysis?” We do not need an analysis on matters of principle. Mr E.S. Ripper : You must have Treasury analysis; you must have it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This is a matter of the federation and of the ability of Western Australians to govern themselves. We do not have an analysis; we do not seek an analysis because this is a matter of principle for which the Liberal–National government stands. I infer from the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that he is willing to throw in the GST to Canberra; I am not.
Mr E.S. Ripper : I’m worried you won’t answer the question. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am happy to answer your question, but I will not respond to interruptions. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : For goodness sake! Lift the game; come on! On a lot of the real health issues there was good discussion and I stated that I agreed and I appreciated that the commonwealth put offers of real money and a real commitment on the table. On the structure, which I hope members realise is a big issue, the commonwealth’s proposal includes, at a national level, the national health and hospital network fund, the independent hospital pricing authority, the national performance authority and the Australian commission on safety and quality in health care. Four or five new federal bodies will be established. It is meant to be simple. There will also be the local health networks. If someone has a complaint about health care, what will they do? They will go to their local health network, and if they are unhappy, they may get a satisfactory answer but more than likely they will be told, “You couldn’t have that procedure because Canberra is not giving us the money.” If that does not satisfy them, it will be because, “The state hasn’t put in the capital equipment and won’t allow us to do so because they have the service agreement with us.” There will not be a single “the-buck-stops-here” system. There will be three levels: a national, state and local level—that is, three levels of decision making and three levels of administration. That will be three levels of confusion. I do not think that is well designed. I think, at a minimum, COAG should have discussed the structure of what was proposed. I happen to think it is incredibly cumbersome; however, despite my view on that, I said we would find a way of working within it. I was willing to compromise and say that we would try to work that out so that we could live with it. The third point is the GST, the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question. Mr E.S. Ripper : My point is about the benefits to WA patients and the underlying analysis — Mr C.J. BARNETT : I understand the question. The Leader of the Opposition is a process person; he does not think for himself. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am actually looking for your underlying analysis. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. Barnett : It is true, all he talks about is process. Mr R.H. Cook : What’s your analysis? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is a matter of principle, my friend. It is not a matter of analysis. The GST was set up under the Howard government just over 10 years ago. Mr E.S. Ripper : You would sacrifice WA patients for your principles? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It was set up as the state revenue base into the future, a large form of revenue over which the state would have exclusive use and would guarantee state services across a range of areas. It was set in stone; it was never to be varied unless every state agreed. What have we got? Just 10 years later, we have a Prime Minister and a group of Premiers sitting around a table discussing tearing up the GST arrangement. As I pointed out to the Prime Minister and my Premier colleagues yesterday, “You may think you’re setting in stone a new health agreement long term into the future, but I can guarantee that, within 10 years, there will be another Prime Minister and another group of Premiers sitting around the table tearing it up.” We will not as a government give up Western Australia’s rightful share to the GST. Bear in mind that Western Australia has already been done over on this. The Labor commonwealth government—the Labor friends in Canberra of members opposite—gives us 68c in the dollar. What do they give themselves? They give themselves 95c in the dollar in New South Wales, 93c in Victoria and 91c in Queensland. All we get is 68c in the dollar. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s crass politics. You know that; you know how the system works. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question, which I think everyone in this place is interested in, as is everyone outside this place. I am having a little bit of a problem hearing the Premier’s answer and I formally call the member for Kwinana and the member for Mandurah for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : If one-third of the total GST pool is taken, we will lose approximately 60 per cent of our remaining GST over which we would have no control at all. I said to the Prime Minister, and publicly in the lead-up to COAG, that if WA goes along with this system and we can agree because there are benefits—the member is right there are significant benefits—we will be willing to pay an equivalent amount of dollars out of our health budget, or consolidated revenue, into the pool. As I said to the Prime Minister at the beginning of yesterday’s discussion, “Prime Minister, if you accept that point, you will have a deal today; you will have everything you sought and you can walk out here with the deal.” It was the Prime Minister’s choice to not accept that offer. That is where we are at. To answer the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Good. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes, good! “Where is the analysis?” We do not need an analysis on matters of principle. Mr E.S. Ripper : You must have Treasury analysis; you must have it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This is a matter of the federation and of the ability of Western Australians to govern themselves. We do not have an analysis; we do not seek an analysis because this is a matter of principle for which the Liberal–National government stands. I infer from the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that he is willing to throw in the GST to Canberra; I am not.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am happy to answer your question, but I will not respond to interruptions. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : For goodness sake! Lift the game; come on! On a lot of the real health issues there was good discussion and I stated that I agreed and I appreciated that the commonwealth put offers of real money and a real commitment on the table. On the structure, which I hope members realise is a big issue, the commonwealth’s proposal includes, at a national level, the national health and hospital network fund, the independent hospital pricing authority, the national performance authority and the Australian commission on safety and quality in health care. Four or five new federal bodies will be established. It is meant to be simple. There will also be the local health networks. If someone has a complaint about health care, what will they do? They will go to their local health network, and if they are unhappy, they may get a satisfactory answer but more than likely they will be told, “You couldn’t have that procedure because Canberra is not giving us the money.” If that does not satisfy them, it will be because, “The state hasn’t put in the capital equipment and won’t allow us to do so because they have the service agreement with us.” There will not be a single “the-buck-stops-here” system. There will be three levels: a national, state and local level—that is, three levels of decision making and three levels of administration. That will be three levels of confusion. I do not think that is well designed. I think, at a minimum, COAG should have discussed the structure of what was proposed. I happen to think it is incredibly cumbersome; however, despite my view on that, I said we would find a way of working within it. I was willing to compromise and say that we would try to work that out so that we could live with it. The third point is the GST, the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question. Mr E.S. Ripper : My point is about the benefits to WA patients and the underlying analysis — Mr C.J. BARNETT : I understand the question. The Leader of the Opposition is a process person; he does not think for himself. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am actually looking for your underlying analysis. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. Barnett : It is true, all he talks about is process. Mr R.H. Cook : What’s your analysis? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is a matter of principle, my friend. It is not a matter of analysis. The GST was set up under the Howard government just over 10 years ago. Mr E.S. Ripper : You would sacrifice WA patients for your principles? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It was set up as the state revenue base into the future, a large form of revenue over which the state would have exclusive use and would guarantee state services across a range of areas. It was set in stone; it was never to be varied unless every state agreed. What have we got? Just 10 years later, we have a Prime Minister and a group of Premiers sitting around a table discussing tearing up the GST arrangement. As I pointed out to the Prime Minister and my Premier colleagues yesterday, “You may think you’re setting in stone a new health agreement long term into the future, but I can guarantee that, within 10 years, there will be another Prime Minister and another group of Premiers sitting around the table tearing it up.” We will not as a government give up Western Australia’s rightful share to the GST. Bear in mind that Western Australia has already been done over on this. The Labor commonwealth government—the Labor friends in Canberra of members opposite—gives us 68c in the dollar. What do they give themselves? They give themselves 95c in the dollar in New South Wales, 93c in Victoria and 91c in Queensland. All we get is 68c in the dollar. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s crass politics. You know that; you know how the system works. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question, which I think everyone in this place is interested in, as is everyone outside this place. I am having a little bit of a problem hearing the Premier’s answer and I formally call the member for Kwinana and the member for Mandurah for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : If one-third of the total GST pool is taken, we will lose approximately 60 per cent of our remaining GST over which we would have no control at all. I said to the Prime Minister, and publicly in the lead-up to COAG, that if WA goes along with this system and we can agree because there are benefits—the member is right there are significant benefits—we will be willing to pay an equivalent amount of dollars out of our health budget, or consolidated revenue, into the pool. As I said to the Prime Minister at the beginning of yesterday’s discussion, “Prime Minister, if you accept that point, you will have a deal today; you will have everything you sought and you can walk out here with the deal.” It was the Prime Minister’s choice to not accept that offer. That is where we are at. To answer the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Good. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes, good! “Where is the analysis?” We do not need an analysis on matters of principle. Mr E.S. Ripper : You must have Treasury analysis; you must have it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This is a matter of the federation and of the ability of Western Australians to govern themselves. We do not have an analysis; we do not seek an analysis because this is a matter of principle for which the Liberal–National government stands. I infer from the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that he is willing to throw in the GST to Canberra; I am not.
Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : For goodness sake! Lift the game; come on! On a lot of the real health issues there was good discussion and I stated that I agreed and I appreciated that the commonwealth put offers of real money and a real commitment on the table. On the structure, which I hope members realise is a big issue, the commonwealth’s proposal includes, at a national level, the national health and hospital network fund, the independent hospital pricing authority, the national performance authority and the Australian commission on safety and quality in health care. Four or five new federal bodies will be established. It is meant to be simple. There will also be the local health networks. If someone has a complaint about health care, what will they do? They will go to their local health network, and if they are unhappy, they may get a satisfactory answer but more than likely they will be told, “You couldn’t have that procedure because Canberra is not giving us the money.” If that does not satisfy them, it will be because, “The state hasn’t put in the capital equipment and won’t allow us to do so because they have the service agreement with us.” There will not be a single “the-buck-stops-here” system. There will be three levels: a national, state and local level—that is, three levels of decision making and three levels of administration. That will be three levels of confusion. I do not think that is well designed. I think, at a minimum, COAG should have discussed the structure of what was proposed. I happen to think it is incredibly cumbersome; however, despite my view on that, I said we would find a way of working within it. I was willing to compromise and say that we would try to work that out so that we could live with it. The third point is the GST, the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question. Mr E.S. Ripper : My point is about the benefits to WA patients and the underlying analysis — Mr C.J. BARNETT : I understand the question. The Leader of the Opposition is a process person; he does not think for himself. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am actually looking for your underlying analysis. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. Barnett : It is true, all he talks about is process. Mr R.H. Cook : What’s your analysis? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is a matter of principle, my friend. It is not a matter of analysis. The GST was set up under the Howard government just over 10 years ago. Mr E.S. Ripper : You would sacrifice WA patients for your principles? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It was set up as the state revenue base into the future, a large form of revenue over which the state would have exclusive use and would guarantee state services across a range of areas. It was set in stone; it was never to be varied unless every state agreed. What have we got? Just 10 years later, we have a Prime Minister and a group of Premiers sitting around a table discussing tearing up the GST arrangement. As I pointed out to the Prime Minister and my Premier colleagues yesterday, “You may think you’re setting in stone a new health agreement long term into the future, but I can guarantee that, within 10 years, there will be another Prime Minister and another group of Premiers sitting around the table tearing it up.” We will not as a government give up Western Australia’s rightful share to the GST. Bear in mind that Western Australia has already been done over on this. The Labor commonwealth government—the Labor friends in Canberra of members opposite—gives us 68c in the dollar. What do they give themselves? They give themselves 95c in the dollar in New South Wales, 93c in Victoria and 91c in Queensland. All we get is 68c in the dollar. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s crass politics. You know that; you know how the system works. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question, which I think everyone in this place is interested in, as is everyone outside this place. I am having a little bit of a problem hearing the Premier’s answer and I formally call the member for Kwinana and the member for Mandurah for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : If one-third of the total GST pool is taken, we will lose approximately 60 per cent of our remaining GST over which we would have no control at all. I said to the Prime Minister, and publicly in the lead-up to COAG, that if WA goes along with this system and we can agree because there are benefits—the member is right there are significant benefits—we will be willing to pay an equivalent amount of dollars out of our health budget, or consolidated revenue, into the pool. As I said to the Prime Minister at the beginning of yesterday’s discussion, “Prime Minister, if you accept that point, you will have a deal today; you will have everything you sought and you can walk out here with the deal.” It was the Prime Minister’s choice to not accept that offer. That is where we are at. To answer the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Good. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes, good! “Where is the analysis?” We do not need an analysis on matters of principle. Mr E.S. Ripper : You must have Treasury analysis; you must have it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This is a matter of the federation and of the ability of Western Australians to govern themselves. We do not have an analysis; we do not seek an analysis because this is a matter of principle for which the Liberal–National government stands. I infer from the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that he is willing to throw in the GST to Canberra; I am not.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : For goodness sake! Lift the game; come on! On a lot of the real health issues there was good discussion and I stated that I agreed and I appreciated that the commonwealth put offers of real money and a real commitment on the table. On the structure, which I hope members realise is a big issue, the commonwealth’s proposal includes, at a national level, the national health and hospital network fund, the independent hospital pricing authority, the national performance authority and the Australian commission on safety and quality in health care. Four or five new federal bodies will be established. It is meant to be simple. There will also be the local health networks. If someone has a complaint about health care, what will they do? They will go to their local health network, and if they are unhappy, they may get a satisfactory answer but more than likely they will be told, “You couldn’t have that procedure because Canberra is not giving us the money.” If that does not satisfy them, it will be because, “The state hasn’t put in the capital equipment and won’t allow us to do so because they have the service agreement with us.” There will not be a single “the-buck-stops-here” system. There will be three levels: a national, state and local level—that is, three levels of decision making and three levels of administration. That will be three levels of confusion. I do not think that is well designed. I think, at a minimum, COAG should have discussed the structure of what was proposed. I happen to think it is incredibly cumbersome; however, despite my view on that, I said we would find a way of working within it. I was willing to compromise and say that we would try to work that out so that we could live with it. The third point is the GST, the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question. Mr E.S. Ripper : My point is about the benefits to WA patients and the underlying analysis — Mr C.J. BARNETT : I understand the question. The Leader of the Opposition is a process person; he does not think for himself. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am actually looking for your underlying analysis. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. Barnett : It is true, all he talks about is process. Mr R.H. Cook : What’s your analysis? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is a matter of principle, my friend. It is not a matter of analysis. The GST was set up under the Howard government just over 10 years ago. Mr E.S. Ripper : You would sacrifice WA patients for your principles? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It was set up as the state revenue base into the future, a large form of revenue over which the state would have exclusive use and would guarantee state services across a range of areas. It was set in stone; it was never to be varied unless every state agreed. What have we got? Just 10 years later, we have a Prime Minister and a group of Premiers sitting around a table discussing tearing up the GST arrangement. As I pointed out to the Prime Minister and my Premier colleagues yesterday, “You may think you’re setting in stone a new health agreement long term into the future, but I can guarantee that, within 10 years, there will be another Prime Minister and another group of Premiers sitting around the table tearing it up.” We will not as a government give up Western Australia’s rightful share to the GST. Bear in mind that Western Australia has already been done over on this. The Labor commonwealth government—the Labor friends in Canberra of members opposite—gives us 68c in the dollar. What do they give themselves? They give themselves 95c in the dollar in New South Wales, 93c in Victoria and 91c in Queensland. All we get is 68c in the dollar. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s crass politics. You know that; you know how the system works. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question, which I think everyone in this place is interested in, as is everyone outside this place. I am having a little bit of a problem hearing the Premier’s answer and I formally call the member for Kwinana and the member for Mandurah for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : If one-third of the total GST pool is taken, we will lose approximately 60 per cent of our remaining GST over which we would have no control at all. I said to the Prime Minister, and publicly in the lead-up to COAG, that if WA goes along with this system and we can agree because there are benefits—the member is right there are significant benefits—we will be willing to pay an equivalent amount of dollars out of our health budget, or consolidated revenue, into the pool. As I said to the Prime Minister at the beginning of yesterday’s discussion, “Prime Minister, if you accept that point, you will have a deal today; you will have everything you sought and you can walk out here with the deal.” It was the Prime Minister’s choice to not accept that offer. That is where we are at. To answer the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Good. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes, good! “Where is the analysis?” We do not need an analysis on matters of principle. Mr E.S. Ripper : You must have Treasury analysis; you must have it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This is a matter of the federation and of the ability of Western Australians to govern themselves. We do not have an analysis; we do not seek an analysis because this is a matter of principle for which the Liberal–National government stands. I infer from the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that he is willing to throw in the GST to Canberra; I am not.
On a lot of the real health issues there was good discussion and I stated that I agreed and I appreciated that the commonwealth put offers of real money and a real commitment on the table. On the structure, which I hope members realise is a big issue, the commonwealth’s proposal includes, at a national level, the national health and hospital network fund, the independent hospital pricing authority, the national performance authority and the Australian commission on safety and quality in health care. Four or five new federal bodies will be established. It is meant to be simple. There will also be the local health networks. If someone has a complaint about health care, what will they do? They will go to their local health network, and if they are unhappy, they may get a satisfactory answer but more than likely they will be told, “You couldn’t have that procedure because Canberra is not giving us the money.” If that does not satisfy them, it will be because, “The state hasn’t put in the capital equipment and won’t allow us to do so because they have the service agreement with us.” There will not be a single “the-buck-stops-here” system. There will be three levels: a national, state and local level—that is, three levels of decision making and three levels of administration. That will be three levels of confusion. I do not think that is well designed. I think, at a minimum, COAG should have discussed the structure of what was proposed. I happen to think it is incredibly cumbersome; however, despite my view on that, I said we would find a way of working within it. I was willing to compromise and say that we would try to work that out so that we could live with it. The third point is the GST, the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question. Mr E.S. Ripper : My point is about the benefits to WA patients and the underlying analysis — Mr C.J. BARNETT : I understand the question. The Leader of the Opposition is a process person; he does not think for himself. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am actually looking for your underlying analysis. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. Barnett : It is true, all he talks about is process. Mr R.H. Cook : What’s your analysis? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is a matter of principle, my friend. It is not a matter of analysis. The GST was set up under the Howard government just over 10 years ago. Mr E.S. Ripper : You would sacrifice WA patients for your principles? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It was set up as the state revenue base into the future, a large form of revenue over which the state would have exclusive use and would guarantee state services across a range of areas. It was set in stone; it was never to be varied unless every state agreed. What have we got? Just 10 years later, we have a Prime Minister and a group of Premiers sitting around a table discussing tearing up the GST arrangement. As I pointed out to the Prime Minister and my Premier colleagues yesterday, “You may think you’re setting in stone a new health agreement long term into the future, but I can guarantee that, within 10 years, there will be another Prime Minister and another group of Premiers sitting around the table tearing it up.” We will not as a government give up Western Australia’s rightful share to the GST. Bear in mind that Western Australia has already been done over on this. The Labor commonwealth government—the Labor friends in Canberra of members opposite—gives us 68c in the dollar. What do they give themselves? They give themselves 95c in the dollar in New South Wales, 93c in Victoria and 91c in Queensland. All we get is 68c in the dollar. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s crass politics. You know that; you know how the system works. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question, which I think everyone in this place is interested in, as is everyone outside this place. I am having a little bit of a problem hearing the Premier’s answer and I formally call the member for Kwinana and the member for Mandurah for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : If one-third of the total GST pool is taken, we will lose approximately 60 per cent of our remaining GST over which we would have no control at all. I said to the Prime Minister, and publicly in the lead-up to COAG, that if WA goes along with this system and we can agree because there are benefits—the member is right there are significant benefits—we will be willing to pay an equivalent amount of dollars out of our health budget, or consolidated revenue, into the pool. As I said to the Prime Minister at the beginning of yesterday’s discussion, “Prime Minister, if you accept that point, you will have a deal today; you will have everything you sought and you can walk out here with the deal.” It was the Prime Minister’s choice to not accept that offer. That is where we are at. To answer the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Good. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes, good! “Where is the analysis?” We do not need an analysis on matters of principle. Mr E.S. Ripper : You must have Treasury analysis; you must have it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This is a matter of the federation and of the ability of Western Australians to govern themselves. We do not have an analysis; we do not seek an analysis because this is a matter of principle for which the Liberal–National government stands. I infer from the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that he is willing to throw in the GST to Canberra; I am not.
The third point is the GST, the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question. Mr E.S. Ripper : My point is about the benefits to WA patients and the underlying analysis — Mr C.J. BARNETT : I understand the question. The Leader of the Opposition is a process person; he does not think for himself. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am actually looking for your underlying analysis. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. Barnett : It is true, all he talks about is process. Mr R.H. Cook : What’s your analysis? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is a matter of principle, my friend. It is not a matter of analysis. The GST was set up under the Howard government just over 10 years ago. Mr E.S. Ripper : You would sacrifice WA patients for your principles? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It was set up as the state revenue base into the future, a large form of revenue over which the state would have exclusive use and would guarantee state services across a range of areas. It was set in stone; it was never to be varied unless every state agreed. What have we got? Just 10 years later, we have a Prime Minister and a group of Premiers sitting around a table discussing tearing up the GST arrangement. As I pointed out to the Prime Minister and my Premier colleagues yesterday, “You may think you’re setting in stone a new health agreement long term into the future, but I can guarantee that, within 10 years, there will be another Prime Minister and another group of Premiers sitting around the table tearing it up.” We will not as a government give up Western Australia’s rightful share to the GST. Bear in mind that Western Australia has already been done over on this. The Labor commonwealth government—the Labor friends in Canberra of members opposite—gives us 68c in the dollar. What do they give themselves? They give themselves 95c in the dollar in New South Wales, 93c in Victoria and 91c in Queensland. All we get is 68c in the dollar. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s crass politics. You know that; you know how the system works. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question, which I think everyone in this place is interested in, as is everyone outside this place. I am having a little bit of a problem hearing the Premier’s answer and I formally call the member for Kwinana and the member for Mandurah for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : If one-third of the total GST pool is taken, we will lose approximately 60 per cent of our remaining GST over which we would have no control at all. I said to the Prime Minister, and publicly in the lead-up to COAG, that if WA goes along with this system and we can agree because there are benefits—the member is right there are significant benefits—we will be willing to pay an equivalent amount of dollars out of our health budget, or consolidated revenue, into the pool. As I said to the Prime Minister at the beginning of yesterday’s discussion, “Prime Minister, if you accept that point, you will have a deal today; you will have everything you sought and you can walk out here with the deal.” It was the Prime Minister’s choice to not accept that offer. That is where we are at. To answer the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Good. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes, good! “Where is the analysis?” We do not need an analysis on matters of principle. Mr E.S. Ripper : You must have Treasury analysis; you must have it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This is a matter of the federation and of the ability of Western Australians to govern themselves. We do not have an analysis; we do not seek an analysis because this is a matter of principle for which the Liberal–National government stands. I infer from the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that he is willing to throw in the GST to Canberra; I am not.
Mr E.S. Ripper : My point is about the benefits to WA patients and the underlying analysis — Mr C.J. BARNETT : I understand the question. The Leader of the Opposition is a process person; he does not think for himself. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am actually looking for your underlying analysis. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. Barnett : It is true, all he talks about is process. Mr R.H. Cook : What’s your analysis? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is a matter of principle, my friend. It is not a matter of analysis. The GST was set up under the Howard government just over 10 years ago. Mr E.S. Ripper : You would sacrifice WA patients for your principles? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It was set up as the state revenue base into the future, a large form of revenue over which the state would have exclusive use and would guarantee state services across a range of areas. It was set in stone; it was never to be varied unless every state agreed. What have we got? Just 10 years later, we have a Prime Minister and a group of Premiers sitting around a table discussing tearing up the GST arrangement. As I pointed out to the Prime Minister and my Premier colleagues yesterday, “You may think you’re setting in stone a new health agreement long term into the future, but I can guarantee that, within 10 years, there will be another Prime Minister and another group of Premiers sitting around the table tearing it up.” We will not as a government give up Western Australia’s rightful share to the GST. Bear in mind that Western Australia has already been done over on this. The Labor commonwealth government—the Labor friends in Canberra of members opposite—gives us 68c in the dollar. What do they give themselves? They give themselves 95c in the dollar in New South Wales, 93c in Victoria and 91c in Queensland. All we get is 68c in the dollar. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s crass politics. You know that; you know how the system works. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question, which I think everyone in this place is interested in, as is everyone outside this place. I am having a little bit of a problem hearing the Premier’s answer and I formally call the member for Kwinana and the member for Mandurah for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : If one-third of the total GST pool is taken, we will lose approximately 60 per cent of our remaining GST over which we would have no control at all. I said to the Prime Minister, and publicly in the lead-up to COAG, that if WA goes along with this system and we can agree because there are benefits—the member is right there are significant benefits—we will be willing to pay an equivalent amount of dollars out of our health budget, or consolidated revenue, into the pool. As I said to the Prime Minister at the beginning of yesterday’s discussion, “Prime Minister, if you accept that point, you will have a deal today; you will have everything you sought and you can walk out here with the deal.” It was the Prime Minister’s choice to not accept that offer. That is where we are at. To answer the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Good. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes, good! “Where is the analysis?” We do not need an analysis on matters of principle. Mr E.S. Ripper : You must have Treasury analysis; you must have it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This is a matter of the federation and of the ability of Western Australians to govern themselves. We do not have an analysis; we do not seek an analysis because this is a matter of principle for which the Liberal–National government stands. I infer from the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that he is willing to throw in the GST to Canberra; I am not.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I understand the question. The Leader of the Opposition is a process person; he does not think for himself. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am actually looking for your underlying analysis. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. Barnett : It is true, all he talks about is process. Mr R.H. Cook : What’s your analysis? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is a matter of principle, my friend. It is not a matter of analysis. The GST was set up under the Howard government just over 10 years ago. Mr E.S. Ripper : You would sacrifice WA patients for your principles? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It was set up as the state revenue base into the future, a large form of revenue over which the state would have exclusive use and would guarantee state services across a range of areas. It was set in stone; it was never to be varied unless every state agreed. What have we got? Just 10 years later, we have a Prime Minister and a group of Premiers sitting around a table discussing tearing up the GST arrangement. As I pointed out to the Prime Minister and my Premier colleagues yesterday, “You may think you’re setting in stone a new health agreement long term into the future, but I can guarantee that, within 10 years, there will be another Prime Minister and another group of Premiers sitting around the table tearing it up.” We will not as a government give up Western Australia’s rightful share to the GST. Bear in mind that Western Australia has already been done over on this. The Labor commonwealth government—the Labor friends in Canberra of members opposite—gives us 68c in the dollar. What do they give themselves? They give themselves 95c in the dollar in New South Wales, 93c in Victoria and 91c in Queensland. All we get is 68c in the dollar. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s crass politics. You know that; you know how the system works. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question, which I think everyone in this place is interested in, as is everyone outside this place. I am having a little bit of a problem hearing the Premier’s answer and I formally call the member for Kwinana and the member for Mandurah for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : If one-third of the total GST pool is taken, we will lose approximately 60 per cent of our remaining GST over which we would have no control at all. I said to the Prime Minister, and publicly in the lead-up to COAG, that if WA goes along with this system and we can agree because there are benefits—the member is right there are significant benefits—we will be willing to pay an equivalent amount of dollars out of our health budget, or consolidated revenue, into the pool. As I said to the Prime Minister at the beginning of yesterday’s discussion, “Prime Minister, if you accept that point, you will have a deal today; you will have everything you sought and you can walk out here with the deal.” It was the Prime Minister’s choice to not accept that offer. That is where we are at. To answer the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Good. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes, good! “Where is the analysis?” We do not need an analysis on matters of principle. Mr E.S. Ripper : You must have Treasury analysis; you must have it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This is a matter of the federation and of the ability of Western Australians to govern themselves. We do not have an analysis; we do not seek an analysis because this is a matter of principle for which the Liberal–National government stands. I infer from the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that he is willing to throw in the GST to Canberra; I am not.
Mr E.S. Ripper : I am actually looking for your underlying analysis. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. Barnett : It is true, all he talks about is process. Mr R.H. Cook : What’s your analysis? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is a matter of principle, my friend. It is not a matter of analysis. The GST was set up under the Howard government just over 10 years ago. Mr E.S. Ripper : You would sacrifice WA patients for your principles? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It was set up as the state revenue base into the future, a large form of revenue over which the state would have exclusive use and would guarantee state services across a range of areas. It was set in stone; it was never to be varied unless every state agreed. What have we got? Just 10 years later, we have a Prime Minister and a group of Premiers sitting around a table discussing tearing up the GST arrangement. As I pointed out to the Prime Minister and my Premier colleagues yesterday, “You may think you’re setting in stone a new health agreement long term into the future, but I can guarantee that, within 10 years, there will be another Prime Minister and another group of Premiers sitting around the table tearing it up.” We will not as a government give up Western Australia’s rightful share to the GST. Bear in mind that Western Australia has already been done over on this. The Labor commonwealth government—the Labor friends in Canberra of members opposite—gives us 68c in the dollar. What do they give themselves? They give themselves 95c in the dollar in New South Wales, 93c in Victoria and 91c in Queensland. All we get is 68c in the dollar. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s crass politics. You know that; you know how the system works. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question, which I think everyone in this place is interested in, as is everyone outside this place. I am having a little bit of a problem hearing the Premier’s answer and I formally call the member for Kwinana and the member for Mandurah for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : If one-third of the total GST pool is taken, we will lose approximately 60 per cent of our remaining GST over which we would have no control at all. I said to the Prime Minister, and publicly in the lead-up to COAG, that if WA goes along with this system and we can agree because there are benefits—the member is right there are significant benefits—we will be willing to pay an equivalent amount of dollars out of our health budget, or consolidated revenue, into the pool. As I said to the Prime Minister at the beginning of yesterday’s discussion, “Prime Minister, if you accept that point, you will have a deal today; you will have everything you sought and you can walk out here with the deal.” It was the Prime Minister’s choice to not accept that offer. That is where we are at. To answer the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Good. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes, good! “Where is the analysis?” We do not need an analysis on matters of principle. Mr E.S. Ripper : You must have Treasury analysis; you must have it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This is a matter of the federation and of the ability of Western Australians to govern themselves. We do not have an analysis; we do not seek an analysis because this is a matter of principle for which the Liberal–National government stands. I infer from the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that he is willing to throw in the GST to Canberra; I am not.
Several members interjected. Mr C.J. Barnett : It is true, all he talks about is process. Mr R.H. Cook : What’s your analysis? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is a matter of principle, my friend. It is not a matter of analysis. The GST was set up under the Howard government just over 10 years ago. Mr E.S. Ripper : You would sacrifice WA patients for your principles? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It was set up as the state revenue base into the future, a large form of revenue over which the state would have exclusive use and would guarantee state services across a range of areas. It was set in stone; it was never to be varied unless every state agreed. What have we got? Just 10 years later, we have a Prime Minister and a group of Premiers sitting around a table discussing tearing up the GST arrangement. As I pointed out to the Prime Minister and my Premier colleagues yesterday, “You may think you’re setting in stone a new health agreement long term into the future, but I can guarantee that, within 10 years, there will be another Prime Minister and another group of Premiers sitting around the table tearing it up.” We will not as a government give up Western Australia’s rightful share to the GST. Bear in mind that Western Australia has already been done over on this. The Labor commonwealth government—the Labor friends in Canberra of members opposite—gives us 68c in the dollar. What do they give themselves? They give themselves 95c in the dollar in New South Wales, 93c in Victoria and 91c in Queensland. All we get is 68c in the dollar. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s crass politics. You know that; you know how the system works. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question, which I think everyone in this place is interested in, as is everyone outside this place. I am having a little bit of a problem hearing the Premier’s answer and I formally call the member for Kwinana and the member for Mandurah for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : If one-third of the total GST pool is taken, we will lose approximately 60 per cent of our remaining GST over which we would have no control at all. I said to the Prime Minister, and publicly in the lead-up to COAG, that if WA goes along with this system and we can agree because there are benefits—the member is right there are significant benefits—we will be willing to pay an equivalent amount of dollars out of our health budget, or consolidated revenue, into the pool. As I said to the Prime Minister at the beginning of yesterday’s discussion, “Prime Minister, if you accept that point, you will have a deal today; you will have everything you sought and you can walk out here with the deal.” It was the Prime Minister’s choice to not accept that offer. That is where we are at. To answer the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Good. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes, good! “Where is the analysis?” We do not need an analysis on matters of principle. Mr E.S. Ripper : You must have Treasury analysis; you must have it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This is a matter of the federation and of the ability of Western Australians to govern themselves. We do not have an analysis; we do not seek an analysis because this is a matter of principle for which the Liberal–National government stands. I infer from the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that he is willing to throw in the GST to Canberra; I am not.
Mr C.J. Barnett : It is true, all he talks about is process. Mr R.H. Cook : What’s your analysis? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is a matter of principle, my friend. It is not a matter of analysis. The GST was set up under the Howard government just over 10 years ago. Mr E.S. Ripper : You would sacrifice WA patients for your principles? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It was set up as the state revenue base into the future, a large form of revenue over which the state would have exclusive use and would guarantee state services across a range of areas. It was set in stone; it was never to be varied unless every state agreed. What have we got? Just 10 years later, we have a Prime Minister and a group of Premiers sitting around a table discussing tearing up the GST arrangement. As I pointed out to the Prime Minister and my Premier colleagues yesterday, “You may think you’re setting in stone a new health agreement long term into the future, but I can guarantee that, within 10 years, there will be another Prime Minister and another group of Premiers sitting around the table tearing it up.” We will not as a government give up Western Australia’s rightful share to the GST. Bear in mind that Western Australia has already been done over on this. The Labor commonwealth government—the Labor friends in Canberra of members opposite—gives us 68c in the dollar. What do they give themselves? They give themselves 95c in the dollar in New South Wales, 93c in Victoria and 91c in Queensland. All we get is 68c in the dollar. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s crass politics. You know that; you know how the system works. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question, which I think everyone in this place is interested in, as is everyone outside this place. I am having a little bit of a problem hearing the Premier’s answer and I formally call the member for Kwinana and the member for Mandurah for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : If one-third of the total GST pool is taken, we will lose approximately 60 per cent of our remaining GST over which we would have no control at all. I said to the Prime Minister, and publicly in the lead-up to COAG, that if WA goes along with this system and we can agree because there are benefits—the member is right there are significant benefits—we will be willing to pay an equivalent amount of dollars out of our health budget, or consolidated revenue, into the pool. As I said to the Prime Minister at the beginning of yesterday’s discussion, “Prime Minister, if you accept that point, you will have a deal today; you will have everything you sought and you can walk out here with the deal.” It was the Prime Minister’s choice to not accept that offer. That is where we are at. To answer the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Good. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes, good! “Where is the analysis?” We do not need an analysis on matters of principle. Mr E.S. Ripper : You must have Treasury analysis; you must have it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This is a matter of the federation and of the ability of Western Australians to govern themselves. We do not have an analysis; we do not seek an analysis because this is a matter of principle for which the Liberal–National government stands. I infer from the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that he is willing to throw in the GST to Canberra; I am not.
Mr R.H. Cook : What’s your analysis? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is a matter of principle, my friend. It is not a matter of analysis. The GST was set up under the Howard government just over 10 years ago. Mr E.S. Ripper : You would sacrifice WA patients for your principles? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It was set up as the state revenue base into the future, a large form of revenue over which the state would have exclusive use and would guarantee state services across a range of areas. It was set in stone; it was never to be varied unless every state agreed. What have we got? Just 10 years later, we have a Prime Minister and a group of Premiers sitting around a table discussing tearing up the GST arrangement. As I pointed out to the Prime Minister and my Premier colleagues yesterday, “You may think you’re setting in stone a new health agreement long term into the future, but I can guarantee that, within 10 years, there will be another Prime Minister and another group of Premiers sitting around the table tearing it up.” We will not as a government give up Western Australia’s rightful share to the GST. Bear in mind that Western Australia has already been done over on this. The Labor commonwealth government—the Labor friends in Canberra of members opposite—gives us 68c in the dollar. What do they give themselves? They give themselves 95c in the dollar in New South Wales, 93c in Victoria and 91c in Queensland. All we get is 68c in the dollar. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s crass politics. You know that; you know how the system works. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question, which I think everyone in this place is interested in, as is everyone outside this place. I am having a little bit of a problem hearing the Premier’s answer and I formally call the member for Kwinana and the member for Mandurah for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : If one-third of the total GST pool is taken, we will lose approximately 60 per cent of our remaining GST over which we would have no control at all. I said to the Prime Minister, and publicly in the lead-up to COAG, that if WA goes along with this system and we can agree because there are benefits—the member is right there are significant benefits—we will be willing to pay an equivalent amount of dollars out of our health budget, or consolidated revenue, into the pool. As I said to the Prime Minister at the beginning of yesterday’s discussion, “Prime Minister, if you accept that point, you will have a deal today; you will have everything you sought and you can walk out here with the deal.” It was the Prime Minister’s choice to not accept that offer. That is where we are at. To answer the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Good. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes, good! “Where is the analysis?” We do not need an analysis on matters of principle. Mr E.S. Ripper : You must have Treasury analysis; you must have it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This is a matter of the federation and of the ability of Western Australians to govern themselves. We do not have an analysis; we do not seek an analysis because this is a matter of principle for which the Liberal–National government stands. I infer from the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that he is willing to throw in the GST to Canberra; I am not.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is a matter of principle, my friend. It is not a matter of analysis. The GST was set up under the Howard government just over 10 years ago. Mr E.S. Ripper : You would sacrifice WA patients for your principles? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It was set up as the state revenue base into the future, a large form of revenue over which the state would have exclusive use and would guarantee state services across a range of areas. It was set in stone; it was never to be varied unless every state agreed. What have we got? Just 10 years later, we have a Prime Minister and a group of Premiers sitting around a table discussing tearing up the GST arrangement. As I pointed out to the Prime Minister and my Premier colleagues yesterday, “You may think you’re setting in stone a new health agreement long term into the future, but I can guarantee that, within 10 years, there will be another Prime Minister and another group of Premiers sitting around the table tearing it up.” We will not as a government give up Western Australia’s rightful share to the GST. Bear in mind that Western Australia has already been done over on this. The Labor commonwealth government—the Labor friends in Canberra of members opposite—gives us 68c in the dollar. What do they give themselves? They give themselves 95c in the dollar in New South Wales, 93c in Victoria and 91c in Queensland. All we get is 68c in the dollar. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s crass politics. You know that; you know how the system works. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question, which I think everyone in this place is interested in, as is everyone outside this place. I am having a little bit of a problem hearing the Premier’s answer and I formally call the member for Kwinana and the member for Mandurah for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : If one-third of the total GST pool is taken, we will lose approximately 60 per cent of our remaining GST over which we would have no control at all. I said to the Prime Minister, and publicly in the lead-up to COAG, that if WA goes along with this system and we can agree because there are benefits—the member is right there are significant benefits—we will be willing to pay an equivalent amount of dollars out of our health budget, or consolidated revenue, into the pool. As I said to the Prime Minister at the beginning of yesterday’s discussion, “Prime Minister, if you accept that point, you will have a deal today; you will have everything you sought and you can walk out here with the deal.” It was the Prime Minister’s choice to not accept that offer. That is where we are at. To answer the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Good. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes, good! “Where is the analysis?” We do not need an analysis on matters of principle. Mr E.S. Ripper : You must have Treasury analysis; you must have it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This is a matter of the federation and of the ability of Western Australians to govern themselves. We do not have an analysis; we do not seek an analysis because this is a matter of principle for which the Liberal–National government stands. I infer from the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that he is willing to throw in the GST to Canberra; I am not.
Mr E.S. Ripper : You would sacrifice WA patients for your principles? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It was set up as the state revenue base into the future, a large form of revenue over which the state would have exclusive use and would guarantee state services across a range of areas. It was set in stone; it was never to be varied unless every state agreed. What have we got? Just 10 years later, we have a Prime Minister and a group of Premiers sitting around a table discussing tearing up the GST arrangement. As I pointed out to the Prime Minister and my Premier colleagues yesterday, “You may think you’re setting in stone a new health agreement long term into the future, but I can guarantee that, within 10 years, there will be another Prime Minister and another group of Premiers sitting around the table tearing it up.” We will not as a government give up Western Australia’s rightful share to the GST. Bear in mind that Western Australia has already been done over on this. The Labor commonwealth government—the Labor friends in Canberra of members opposite—gives us 68c in the dollar. What do they give themselves? They give themselves 95c in the dollar in New South Wales, 93c in Victoria and 91c in Queensland. All we get is 68c in the dollar. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s crass politics. You know that; you know how the system works. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question, which I think everyone in this place is interested in, as is everyone outside this place. I am having a little bit of a problem hearing the Premier’s answer and I formally call the member for Kwinana and the member for Mandurah for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : If one-third of the total GST pool is taken, we will lose approximately 60 per cent of our remaining GST over which we would have no control at all. I said to the Prime Minister, and publicly in the lead-up to COAG, that if WA goes along with this system and we can agree because there are benefits—the member is right there are significant benefits—we will be willing to pay an equivalent amount of dollars out of our health budget, or consolidated revenue, into the pool. As I said to the Prime Minister at the beginning of yesterday’s discussion, “Prime Minister, if you accept that point, you will have a deal today; you will have everything you sought and you can walk out here with the deal.” It was the Prime Minister’s choice to not accept that offer. That is where we are at. To answer the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Good. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes, good! “Where is the analysis?” We do not need an analysis on matters of principle. Mr E.S. Ripper : You must have Treasury analysis; you must have it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This is a matter of the federation and of the ability of Western Australians to govern themselves. We do not have an analysis; we do not seek an analysis because this is a matter of principle for which the Liberal–National government stands. I infer from the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that he is willing to throw in the GST to Canberra; I am not.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : It was set up as the state revenue base into the future, a large form of revenue over which the state would have exclusive use and would guarantee state services across a range of areas. It was set in stone; it was never to be varied unless every state agreed. What have we got? Just 10 years later, we have a Prime Minister and a group of Premiers sitting around a table discussing tearing up the GST arrangement. As I pointed out to the Prime Minister and my Premier colleagues yesterday, “You may think you’re setting in stone a new health agreement long term into the future, but I can guarantee that, within 10 years, there will be another Prime Minister and another group of Premiers sitting around the table tearing it up.” We will not as a government give up Western Australia’s rightful share to the GST. Bear in mind that Western Australia has already been done over on this. The Labor commonwealth government—the Labor friends in Canberra of members opposite—gives us 68c in the dollar. What do they give themselves? They give themselves 95c in the dollar in New South Wales, 93c in Victoria and 91c in Queensland. All we get is 68c in the dollar. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s crass politics. You know that; you know how the system works. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question, which I think everyone in this place is interested in, as is everyone outside this place. I am having a little bit of a problem hearing the Premier’s answer and I formally call the member for Kwinana and the member for Mandurah for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : If one-third of the total GST pool is taken, we will lose approximately 60 per cent of our remaining GST over which we would have no control at all. I said to the Prime Minister, and publicly in the lead-up to COAG, that if WA goes along with this system and we can agree because there are benefits—the member is right there are significant benefits—we will be willing to pay an equivalent amount of dollars out of our health budget, or consolidated revenue, into the pool. As I said to the Prime Minister at the beginning of yesterday’s discussion, “Prime Minister, if you accept that point, you will have a deal today; you will have everything you sought and you can walk out here with the deal.” It was the Prime Minister’s choice to not accept that offer. That is where we are at. To answer the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Good. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes, good! “Where is the analysis?” We do not need an analysis on matters of principle. Mr E.S. Ripper : You must have Treasury analysis; you must have it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This is a matter of the federation and of the ability of Western Australians to govern themselves. We do not have an analysis; we do not seek an analysis because this is a matter of principle for which the Liberal–National government stands. I infer from the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that he is willing to throw in the GST to Canberra; I am not.
Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s crass politics. You know that; you know how the system works. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question, which I think everyone in this place is interested in, as is everyone outside this place. I am having a little bit of a problem hearing the Premier’s answer and I formally call the member for Kwinana and the member for Mandurah for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : If one-third of the total GST pool is taken, we will lose approximately 60 per cent of our remaining GST over which we would have no control at all. I said to the Prime Minister, and publicly in the lead-up to COAG, that if WA goes along with this system and we can agree because there are benefits—the member is right there are significant benefits—we will be willing to pay an equivalent amount of dollars out of our health budget, or consolidated revenue, into the pool. As I said to the Prime Minister at the beginning of yesterday’s discussion, “Prime Minister, if you accept that point, you will have a deal today; you will have everything you sought and you can walk out here with the deal.” It was the Prime Minister’s choice to not accept that offer. That is where we are at. To answer the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Good. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes, good! “Where is the analysis?” We do not need an analysis on matters of principle. Mr E.S. Ripper : You must have Treasury analysis; you must have it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This is a matter of the federation and of the ability of Western Australians to govern themselves. We do not have an analysis; we do not seek an analysis because this is a matter of principle for which the Liberal–National government stands. I infer from the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that he is willing to throw in the GST to Canberra; I am not.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question, which I think everyone in this place is interested in, as is everyone outside this place. I am having a little bit of a problem hearing the Premier’s answer and I formally call the member for Kwinana and the member for Mandurah for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : If one-third of the total GST pool is taken, we will lose approximately 60 per cent of our remaining GST over which we would have no control at all. I said to the Prime Minister, and publicly in the lead-up to COAG, that if WA goes along with this system and we can agree because there are benefits—the member is right there are significant benefits—we will be willing to pay an equivalent amount of dollars out of our health budget, or consolidated revenue, into the pool. As I said to the Prime Minister at the beginning of yesterday’s discussion, “Prime Minister, if you accept that point, you will have a deal today; you will have everything you sought and you can walk out here with the deal.” It was the Prime Minister’s choice to not accept that offer. That is where we are at. To answer the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Good. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes, good! “Where is the analysis?” We do not need an analysis on matters of principle. Mr E.S. Ripper : You must have Treasury analysis; you must have it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This is a matter of the federation and of the ability of Western Australians to govern themselves. We do not have an analysis; we do not seek an analysis because this is a matter of principle for which the Liberal–National government stands. I infer from the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that he is willing to throw in the GST to Canberra; I am not.
The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question, which I think everyone in this place is interested in, as is everyone outside this place. I am having a little bit of a problem hearing the Premier’s answer and I formally call the member for Kwinana and the member for Mandurah for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : If one-third of the total GST pool is taken, we will lose approximately 60 per cent of our remaining GST over which we would have no control at all. I said to the Prime Minister, and publicly in the lead-up to COAG, that if WA goes along with this system and we can agree because there are benefits—the member is right there are significant benefits—we will be willing to pay an equivalent amount of dollars out of our health budget, or consolidated revenue, into the pool. As I said to the Prime Minister at the beginning of yesterday’s discussion, “Prime Minister, if you accept that point, you will have a deal today; you will have everything you sought and you can walk out here with the deal.” It was the Prime Minister’s choice to not accept that offer. That is where we are at. To answer the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Good. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes, good! “Where is the analysis?” We do not need an analysis on matters of principle. Mr E.S. Ripper : You must have Treasury analysis; you must have it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This is a matter of the federation and of the ability of Western Australians to govern themselves. We do not have an analysis; we do not seek an analysis because this is a matter of principle for which the Liberal–National government stands. I infer from the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that he is willing to throw in the GST to Canberra; I am not.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : If one-third of the total GST pool is taken, we will lose approximately 60 per cent of our remaining GST over which we would have no control at all. I said to the Prime Minister, and publicly in the lead-up to COAG, that if WA goes along with this system and we can agree because there are benefits—the member is right there are significant benefits—we will be willing to pay an equivalent amount of dollars out of our health budget, or consolidated revenue, into the pool. As I said to the Prime Minister at the beginning of yesterday’s discussion, “Prime Minister, if you accept that point, you will have a deal today; you will have everything you sought and you can walk out here with the deal.” It was the Prime Minister’s choice to not accept that offer. That is where we are at. To answer the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Good. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes, good! “Where is the analysis?” We do not need an analysis on matters of principle. Mr E.S. Ripper : You must have Treasury analysis; you must have it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This is a matter of the federation and of the ability of Western Australians to govern themselves. We do not have an analysis; we do not seek an analysis because this is a matter of principle for which the Liberal–National government stands. I infer from the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that he is willing to throw in the GST to Canberra; I am not.
Mr E.S. Ripper : Good. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes, good! “Where is the analysis?” We do not need an analysis on matters of principle. Mr E.S. Ripper : You must have Treasury analysis; you must have it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This is a matter of the federation and of the ability of Western Australians to govern themselves. We do not have an analysis; we do not seek an analysis because this is a matter of principle for which the Liberal–National government stands. I infer from the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that he is willing to throw in the GST to Canberra; I am not.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes, good! “Where is the analysis?” We do not need an analysis on matters of principle. Mr E.S. Ripper : You must have Treasury analysis; you must have it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This is a matter of the federation and of the ability of Western Australians to govern themselves. We do not have an analysis; we do not seek an analysis because this is a matter of principle for which the Liberal–National government stands. I infer from the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that he is willing to throw in the GST to Canberra; I am not.
Mr E.S. Ripper : You must have Treasury analysis; you must have it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This is a matter of the federation and of the ability of Western Australians to govern themselves. We do not have an analysis; we do not seek an analysis because this is a matter of principle for which the Liberal–National government stands. I infer from the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that he is willing to throw in the GST to Canberra; I am not.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : This is a matter of the federation and of the ability of Western Australians to govern themselves. We do not have an analysis; we do not seek an analysis because this is a matter of principle for which the Liberal–National government stands. I infer from the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that he is willing to throw in the GST to Canberra; I am not.
Will the Premier release today the public service analysis to justify his decision that Western Australia will be better off without the national health plan despite that plan delivering $550 million extra to the WA health system over the next four years, including 135 extra acute beds for WA hospitals, an additional $66 million towards training doctors and health professionals and an additional $18 million for youth mental health and mental health nurses? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for that question. It was an interesting COAG meeting. The first day of the meeting, COAG as a council met throughout the day and we talked about elective surgery, emergency departments, subacute beds and the commonwealth’s genuine commitment to pick up most of the growth funding in the out years—by that, I mean beyond 2014. On the second day of the COAG meeting, I and others said that the big issues are the structure of this proposed fund and GST. Do members know what? They got five to 10 minutes at the end. Day 2 was basically a Labor Party meeting. That was a degeneration of the COAG process and virtually nothing was done. It turned from a genuine meeting of the leaders of governments in Australia to a Labor Party caucus function on the second day. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Hang on! I am trying to answer — The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked some questions. I am sure we are all interested in hearing the answers. Mr E.S. Ripper : I thought you were calling me to order. The SPEAKER : No, Leader of the Opposition. My advice at this point is that some members in this place be a little quieter than they are at the moment. Mr C.J. BARNETT : In looking at what the Prime Minister and the commonwealth put on the table, there are some good aspects to it, there is no doubt about it. Mr E.S. Ripper : It should be assessed on the totality of its merits. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Let me try to answer your question. What was offered for elective surgery, emergency departments, subacute beds and the funding arrangement are good. I have said that publicly; I do not have any argument with it. On the framework of how the money will flow, the administration and who bears responsibility for what, there was virtually no discussion at all at COAG. That was one of the fundamental issues. We have a good health system in Australia. If we are going to turn it on its head, we want to be confident that health care will improve. That critical issue was not discussed at COAG, and it should have been. Indeed, there were contrivances to make sure we never got to the substance of that issue. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Hang on! I am trying to answer. Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you give us the numbers? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Just calm down—please. Mr E.S. Ripper : I’m worried you won’t answer the question. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am happy to answer your question, but I will not respond to interruptions. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : For goodness sake! Lift the game; come on! On a lot of the real health issues there was good discussion and I stated that I agreed and I appreciated that the commonwealth put offers of real money and a real commitment on the table. On the structure, which I hope members realise is a big issue, the commonwealth’s proposal includes, at a national level, the national health and hospital network fund, the independent hospital pricing authority, the national performance authority and the Australian commission on safety and quality in health care. Four or five new federal bodies will be established. It is meant to be simple. There will also be the local health networks. If someone has a complaint about health care, what will they do? They will go to their local health network, and if they are unhappy, they may get a satisfactory answer but more than likely they will be told, “You couldn’t have that procedure because Canberra is not giving us the money.” If that does not satisfy them, it will be because, “The state hasn’t put in the capital equipment and won’t allow us to do so because they have the service agreement with us.” There will not be a single “the-buck-stops-here” system. There will be three levels: a national, state and local level—that is, three levels of decision making and three levels of administration. That will be three levels of confusion. I do not think that is well designed. I think, at a minimum, COAG should have discussed the structure of what was proposed. I happen to think it is incredibly cumbersome; however, despite my view on that, I said we would find a way of working within it. I was willing to compromise and say that we would try to work that out so that we could live with it. The third point is the GST, the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question. Mr E.S. Ripper : My point is about the benefits to WA patients and the underlying analysis — Mr C.J. BARNETT : I understand the question. The Leader of the Opposition is a process person; he does not think for himself. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am actually looking for your underlying analysis. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. Barnett : It is true, all he talks about is process. Mr R.H. Cook : What’s your analysis? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is a matter of principle, my friend. It is not a matter of analysis. The GST was set up under the Howard government just over 10 years ago. Mr E.S. Ripper : You would sacrifice WA patients for your principles? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It was set up as the state revenue base into the future, a large form of revenue over which the state would have exclusive use and would guarantee state services across a range of areas. It was set in stone; it was never to be varied unless every state agreed. What have we got? Just 10 years later, we have a Prime Minister and a group of Premiers sitting around a table discussing tearing up the GST arrangement. As I pointed out to the Prime Minister and my Premier colleagues yesterday, “You may think you’re setting in stone a new health agreement long term into the future, but I can guarantee that, within 10 years, there will be another Prime Minister and another group of Premiers sitting around the table tearing it up.” We will not as a government give up Western Australia’s rightful share to the GST. Bear in mind that Western Australia has already been done over on this. The Labor commonwealth government—the Labor friends in Canberra of members opposite—gives us 68c in the dollar. What do they give themselves? They give themselves 95c in the dollar in New South Wales, 93c in Victoria and 91c in Queensland. All we get is 68c in the dollar. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s crass politics. You know that; you know how the system works. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question, which I think everyone in this place is interested in, as is everyone outside this place. I am having a little bit of a problem hearing the Premier’s answer and I formally call the member for Kwinana and the member for Mandurah for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : If one-third of the total GST pool is taken, we will lose approximately 60 per cent of our remaining GST over which we would have no control at all. I said to the Prime Minister, and publicly in the lead-up to COAG, that if WA goes along with this system and we can agree because there are benefits—the member is right there are significant benefits—we will be willing to pay an equivalent amount of dollars out of our health budget, or consolidated revenue, into the pool. As I said to the Prime Minister at the beginning of yesterday’s discussion, “Prime Minister, if you accept that point, you will have a deal today; you will have everything you sought and you can walk out here with the deal.” It was the Prime Minister’s choice to not accept that offer. That is where we are at. To answer the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Good. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes, good! “Where is the analysis?” We do not need an analysis on matters of principle. Mr E.S. Ripper : You must have Treasury analysis; you must have it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This is a matter of the federation and of the ability of Western Australians to govern themselves. We do not have an analysis; we do not seek an analysis because this is a matter of principle for which the Liberal–National government stands. I infer from the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that he is willing to throw in the GST to Canberra; I am not.
Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for that question. It was an interesting COAG meeting. The first day of the meeting, COAG as a council met throughout the day and we talked about elective surgery, emergency departments, subacute beds and the commonwealth’s genuine commitment to pick up most of the growth funding in the out years—by that, I mean beyond 2014. On the second day of the COAG meeting, I and others said that the big issues are the structure of this proposed fund and GST. Do members know what? They got five to 10 minutes at the end. Day 2 was basically a Labor Party meeting. That was a degeneration of the COAG process and virtually nothing was done. It turned from a genuine meeting of the leaders of governments in Australia to a Labor Party caucus function on the second day. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Hang on! I am trying to answer — The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked some questions. I am sure we are all interested in hearing the answers. Mr E.S. Ripper : I thought you were calling me to order. The SPEAKER : No, Leader of the Opposition. My advice at this point is that some members in this place be a little quieter than they are at the moment. Mr C.J. BARNETT : In looking at what the Prime Minister and the commonwealth put on the table, there are some good aspects to it, there is no doubt about it. Mr E.S. Ripper : It should be assessed on the totality of its merits. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Let me try to answer your question. What was offered for elective surgery, emergency departments, subacute beds and the funding arrangement are good. I have said that publicly; I do not have any argument with it. On the framework of how the money will flow, the administration and who bears responsibility for what, there was virtually no discussion at all at COAG. That was one of the fundamental issues. We have a good health system in Australia. If we are going to turn it on its head, we want to be confident that health care will improve. That critical issue was not discussed at COAG, and it should have been. Indeed, there were contrivances to make sure we never got to the substance of that issue. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Hang on! I am trying to answer. Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you give us the numbers? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Just calm down—please. Mr E.S. Ripper : I’m worried you won’t answer the question. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am happy to answer your question, but I will not respond to interruptions. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : For goodness sake! Lift the game; come on! On a lot of the real health issues there was good discussion and I stated that I agreed and I appreciated that the commonwealth put offers of real money and a real commitment on the table. On the structure, which I hope members realise is a big issue, the commonwealth’s proposal includes, at a national level, the national health and hospital network fund, the independent hospital pricing authority, the national performance authority and the Australian commission on safety and quality in health care. Four or five new federal bodies will be established. It is meant to be simple. There will also be the local health networks. If someone has a complaint about health care, what will they do? They will go to their local health network, and if they are unhappy, they may get a satisfactory answer but more than likely they will be told, “You couldn’t have that procedure because Canberra is not giving us the money.” If that does not satisfy them, it will be because, “The state hasn’t put in the capital equipment and won’t allow us to do so because they have the service agreement with us.” There will not be a single “the-buck-stops-here” system. There will be three levels: a national, state and local level—that is, three levels of decision making and three levels of administration. That will be three levels of confusion. I do not think that is well designed. I think, at a minimum, COAG should have discussed the structure of what was proposed. I happen to think it is incredibly cumbersome; however, despite my view on that, I said we would find a way of working within it. I was willing to compromise and say that we would try to work that out so that we could live with it. The third point is the GST, the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question. Mr E.S. Ripper : My point is about the benefits to WA patients and the underlying analysis — Mr C.J. BARNETT : I understand the question. The Leader of the Opposition is a process person; he does not think for himself. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am actually looking for your underlying analysis. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. Barnett : It is true, all he talks about is process. Mr R.H. Cook : What’s your analysis? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is a matter of principle, my friend. It is not a matter of analysis. The GST was set up under the Howard government just over 10 years ago. Mr E.S. Ripper : You would sacrifice WA patients for your principles? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It was set up as the state revenue base into the future, a large form of revenue over which the state would have exclusive use and would guarantee state services across a range of areas. It was set in stone; it was never to be varied unless every state agreed. What have we got? Just 10 years later, we have a Prime Minister and a group of Premiers sitting around a table discussing tearing up the GST arrangement. As I pointed out to the Prime Minister and my Premier colleagues yesterday, “You may think you’re setting in stone a new health agreement long term into the future, but I can guarantee that, within 10 years, there will be another Prime Minister and another group of Premiers sitting around the table tearing it up.” We will not as a government give up Western Australia’s rightful share to the GST. Bear in mind that Western Australia has already been done over on this. The Labor commonwealth government—the Labor friends in Canberra of members opposite—gives us 68c in the dollar. What do they give themselves? They give themselves 95c in the dollar in New South Wales, 93c in Victoria and 91c in Queensland. All we get is 68c in the dollar. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s crass politics. You know that; you know how the system works. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question, which I think everyone in this place is interested in, as is everyone outside this place. I am having a little bit of a problem hearing the Premier’s answer and I formally call the member for Kwinana and the member for Mandurah for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : If one-third of the total GST pool is taken, we will lose approximately 60 per cent of our remaining GST over which we would have no control at all. I said to the Prime Minister, and publicly in the lead-up to COAG, that if WA goes along with this system and we can agree because there are benefits—the member is right there are significant benefits—we will be willing to pay an equivalent amount of dollars out of our health budget, or consolidated revenue, into the pool. As I said to the Prime Minister at the beginning of yesterday’s discussion, “Prime Minister, if you accept that point, you will have a deal today; you will have everything you sought and you can walk out here with the deal.” It was the Prime Minister’s choice to not accept that offer. That is where we are at. To answer the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Good. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes, good! “Where is the analysis?” We do not need an analysis on matters of principle. Mr E.S. Ripper : You must have Treasury analysis; you must have it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This is a matter of the federation and of the ability of Western Australians to govern themselves. We do not have an analysis; we do not seek an analysis because this is a matter of principle for which the Liberal–National government stands. I infer from the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that he is willing to throw in the GST to Canberra; I am not.
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for that question. It was an interesting COAG meeting. The first day of the meeting, COAG as a council met throughout the day and we talked about elective surgery, emergency departments, subacute beds and the commonwealth’s genuine commitment to pick up most of the growth funding in the out years—by that, I mean beyond 2014. On the second day of the COAG meeting, I and others said that the big issues are the structure of this proposed fund and GST. Do members know what? They got five to 10 minutes at the end. Day 2 was basically a Labor Party meeting. That was a degeneration of the COAG process and virtually nothing was done. It turned from a genuine meeting of the leaders of governments in Australia to a Labor Party caucus function on the second day. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Hang on! I am trying to answer — The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked some questions. I am sure we are all interested in hearing the answers. Mr E.S. Ripper : I thought you were calling me to order. The SPEAKER : No, Leader of the Opposition. My advice at this point is that some members in this place be a little quieter than they are at the moment. Mr C.J. BARNETT : In looking at what the Prime Minister and the commonwealth put on the table, there are some good aspects to it, there is no doubt about it. Mr E.S. Ripper : It should be assessed on the totality of its merits. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Let me try to answer your question. What was offered for elective surgery, emergency departments, subacute beds and the funding arrangement are good. I have said that publicly; I do not have any argument with it. On the framework of how the money will flow, the administration and who bears responsibility for what, there was virtually no discussion at all at COAG. That was one of the fundamental issues. We have a good health system in Australia. If we are going to turn it on its head, we want to be confident that health care will improve. That critical issue was not discussed at COAG, and it should have been. Indeed, there were contrivances to make sure we never got to the substance of that issue. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Hang on! I am trying to answer. Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you give us the numbers? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Just calm down—please. Mr E.S. Ripper : I’m worried you won’t answer the question. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am happy to answer your question, but I will not respond to interruptions. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : For goodness sake! Lift the game; come on! On a lot of the real health issues there was good discussion and I stated that I agreed and I appreciated that the commonwealth put offers of real money and a real commitment on the table. On the structure, which I hope members realise is a big issue, the commonwealth’s proposal includes, at a national level, the national health and hospital network fund, the independent hospital pricing authority, the national performance authority and the Australian commission on safety and quality in health care. Four or five new federal bodies will be established. It is meant to be simple. There will also be the local health networks. If someone has a complaint about health care, what will they do? They will go to their local health network, and if they are unhappy, they may get a satisfactory answer but more than likely they will be told, “You couldn’t have that procedure because Canberra is not giving us the money.” If that does not satisfy them, it will be because, “The state hasn’t put in the capital equipment and won’t allow us to do so because they have the service agreement with us.” There will not be a single “the-buck-stops-here” system. There will be three levels: a national, state and local level—that is, three levels of decision making and three levels of administration. That will be three levels of confusion. I do not think that is well designed. I think, at a minimum, COAG should have discussed the structure of what was proposed. I happen to think it is incredibly cumbersome; however, despite my view on that, I said we would find a way of working within it. I was willing to compromise and say that we would try to work that out so that we could live with it. The third point is the GST, the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question. Mr E.S. Ripper : My point is about the benefits to WA patients and the underlying analysis — Mr C.J. BARNETT : I understand the question. The Leader of the Opposition is a process person; he does not think for himself. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am actually looking for your underlying analysis. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. Barnett : It is true, all he talks about is process. Mr R.H. Cook : What’s your analysis? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is a matter of principle, my friend. It is not a matter of analysis. The GST was set up under the Howard government just over 10 years ago. Mr E.S. Ripper : You would sacrifice WA patients for your principles? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It was set up as the state revenue base into the future, a large form of revenue over which the state would have exclusive use and would guarantee state services across a range of areas. It was set in stone; it was never to be varied unless every state agreed. What have we got? Just 10 years later, we have a Prime Minister and a group of Premiers sitting around a table discussing tearing up the GST arrangement. As I pointed out to the Prime Minister and my Premier colleagues yesterday, “You may think you’re setting in stone a new health agreement long term into the future, but I can guarantee that, within 10 years, there will be another Prime Minister and another group of Premiers sitting around the table tearing it up.” We will not as a government give up Western Australia’s rightful share to the GST. Bear in mind that Western Australia has already been done over on this. The Labor commonwealth government—the Labor friends in Canberra of members opposite—gives us 68c in the dollar. What do they give themselves? They give themselves 95c in the dollar in New South Wales, 93c in Victoria and 91c in Queensland. All we get is 68c in the dollar. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s crass politics. You know that; you know how the system works. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question, which I think everyone in this place is interested in, as is everyone outside this place. I am having a little bit of a problem hearing the Premier’s answer and I formally call the member for Kwinana and the member for Mandurah for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : If one-third of the total GST pool is taken, we will lose approximately 60 per cent of our remaining GST over which we would have no control at all. I said to the Prime Minister, and publicly in the lead-up to COAG, that if WA goes along with this system and we can agree because there are benefits—the member is right there are significant benefits—we will be willing to pay an equivalent amount of dollars out of our health budget, or consolidated revenue, into the pool. As I said to the Prime Minister at the beginning of yesterday’s discussion, “Prime Minister, if you accept that point, you will have a deal today; you will have everything you sought and you can walk out here with the deal.” It was the Prime Minister’s choice to not accept that offer. That is where we are at. To answer the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Good. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes, good! “Where is the analysis?” We do not need an analysis on matters of principle. Mr E.S. Ripper : You must have Treasury analysis; you must have it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This is a matter of the federation and of the ability of Western Australians to govern themselves. We do not have an analysis; we do not seek an analysis because this is a matter of principle for which the Liberal–National government stands. I infer from the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that he is willing to throw in the GST to Canberra; I am not.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Hang on! I am trying to answer — The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked some questions. I am sure we are all interested in hearing the answers. Mr E.S. Ripper : I thought you were calling me to order. The SPEAKER : No, Leader of the Opposition. My advice at this point is that some members in this place be a little quieter than they are at the moment. Mr C.J. BARNETT : In looking at what the Prime Minister and the commonwealth put on the table, there are some good aspects to it, there is no doubt about it. Mr E.S. Ripper : It should be assessed on the totality of its merits. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Let me try to answer your question. What was offered for elective surgery, emergency departments, subacute beds and the funding arrangement are good. I have said that publicly; I do not have any argument with it. On the framework of how the money will flow, the administration and who bears responsibility for what, there was virtually no discussion at all at COAG. That was one of the fundamental issues. We have a good health system in Australia. If we are going to turn it on its head, we want to be confident that health care will improve. That critical issue was not discussed at COAG, and it should have been. Indeed, there were contrivances to make sure we never got to the substance of that issue. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Hang on! I am trying to answer. Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you give us the numbers? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Just calm down—please. Mr E.S. Ripper : I’m worried you won’t answer the question. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am happy to answer your question, but I will not respond to interruptions. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : For goodness sake! Lift the game; come on! On a lot of the real health issues there was good discussion and I stated that I agreed and I appreciated that the commonwealth put offers of real money and a real commitment on the table. On the structure, which I hope members realise is a big issue, the commonwealth’s proposal includes, at a national level, the national health and hospital network fund, the independent hospital pricing authority, the national performance authority and the Australian commission on safety and quality in health care. Four or five new federal bodies will be established. It is meant to be simple. There will also be the local health networks. If someone has a complaint about health care, what will they do? They will go to their local health network, and if they are unhappy, they may get a satisfactory answer but more than likely they will be told, “You couldn’t have that procedure because Canberra is not giving us the money.” If that does not satisfy them, it will be because, “The state hasn’t put in the capital equipment and won’t allow us to do so because they have the service agreement with us.” There will not be a single “the-buck-stops-here” system. There will be three levels: a national, state and local level—that is, three levels of decision making and three levels of administration. That will be three levels of confusion. I do not think that is well designed. I think, at a minimum, COAG should have discussed the structure of what was proposed. I happen to think it is incredibly cumbersome; however, despite my view on that, I said we would find a way of working within it. I was willing to compromise and say that we would try to work that out so that we could live with it. The third point is the GST, the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question. Mr E.S. Ripper : My point is about the benefits to WA patients and the underlying analysis — Mr C.J. BARNETT : I understand the question. The Leader of the Opposition is a process person; he does not think for himself. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am actually looking for your underlying analysis. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. Barnett : It is true, all he talks about is process. Mr R.H. Cook : What’s your analysis? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is a matter of principle, my friend. It is not a matter of analysis. The GST was set up under the Howard government just over 10 years ago. Mr E.S. Ripper : You would sacrifice WA patients for your principles? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It was set up as the state revenue base into the future, a large form of revenue over which the state would have exclusive use and would guarantee state services across a range of areas. It was set in stone; it was never to be varied unless every state agreed. What have we got? Just 10 years later, we have a Prime Minister and a group of Premiers sitting around a table discussing tearing up the GST arrangement. As I pointed out to the Prime Minister and my Premier colleagues yesterday, “You may think you’re setting in stone a new health agreement long term into the future, but I can guarantee that, within 10 years, there will be another Prime Minister and another group of Premiers sitting around the table tearing it up.” We will not as a government give up Western Australia’s rightful share to the GST. Bear in mind that Western Australia has already been done over on this. The Labor commonwealth government—the Labor friends in Canberra of members opposite—gives us 68c in the dollar. What do they give themselves? They give themselves 95c in the dollar in New South Wales, 93c in Victoria and 91c in Queensland. All we get is 68c in the dollar. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s crass politics. You know that; you know how the system works. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question, which I think everyone in this place is interested in, as is everyone outside this place. I am having a little bit of a problem hearing the Premier’s answer and I formally call the member for Kwinana and the member for Mandurah for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : If one-third of the total GST pool is taken, we will lose approximately 60 per cent of our remaining GST over which we would have no control at all. I said to the Prime Minister, and publicly in the lead-up to COAG, that if WA goes along with this system and we can agree because there are benefits—the member is right there are significant benefits—we will be willing to pay an equivalent amount of dollars out of our health budget, or consolidated revenue, into the pool. As I said to the Prime Minister at the beginning of yesterday’s discussion, “Prime Minister, if you accept that point, you will have a deal today; you will have everything you sought and you can walk out here with the deal.” It was the Prime Minister’s choice to not accept that offer. That is where we are at. To answer the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Good. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes, good! “Where is the analysis?” We do not need an analysis on matters of principle. Mr E.S. Ripper : You must have Treasury analysis; you must have it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This is a matter of the federation and of the ability of Western Australians to govern themselves. We do not have an analysis; we do not seek an analysis because this is a matter of principle for which the Liberal–National government stands. I infer from the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that he is willing to throw in the GST to Canberra; I am not.
The SPEAKER : Order! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Hang on! I am trying to answer — The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked some questions. I am sure we are all interested in hearing the answers. Mr E.S. Ripper : I thought you were calling me to order. The SPEAKER : No, Leader of the Opposition. My advice at this point is that some members in this place be a little quieter than they are at the moment. Mr C.J. BARNETT : In looking at what the Prime Minister and the commonwealth put on the table, there are some good aspects to it, there is no doubt about it. Mr E.S. Ripper : It should be assessed on the totality of its merits. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Let me try to answer your question. What was offered for elective surgery, emergency departments, subacute beds and the funding arrangement are good. I have said that publicly; I do not have any argument with it. On the framework of how the money will flow, the administration and who bears responsibility for what, there was virtually no discussion at all at COAG. That was one of the fundamental issues. We have a good health system in Australia. If we are going to turn it on its head, we want to be confident that health care will improve. That critical issue was not discussed at COAG, and it should have been. Indeed, there were contrivances to make sure we never got to the substance of that issue. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Hang on! I am trying to answer. Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you give us the numbers? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Just calm down—please. Mr E.S. Ripper : I’m worried you won’t answer the question. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am happy to answer your question, but I will not respond to interruptions. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : For goodness sake! Lift the game; come on! On a lot of the real health issues there was good discussion and I stated that I agreed and I appreciated that the commonwealth put offers of real money and a real commitment on the table. On the structure, which I hope members realise is a big issue, the commonwealth’s proposal includes, at a national level, the national health and hospital network fund, the independent hospital pricing authority, the national performance authority and the Australian commission on safety and quality in health care. Four or five new federal bodies will be established. It is meant to be simple. There will also be the local health networks. If someone has a complaint about health care, what will they do? They will go to their local health network, and if they are unhappy, they may get a satisfactory answer but more than likely they will be told, “You couldn’t have that procedure because Canberra is not giving us the money.” If that does not satisfy them, it will be because, “The state hasn’t put in the capital equipment and won’t allow us to do so because they have the service agreement with us.” There will not be a single “the-buck-stops-here” system. There will be three levels: a national, state and local level—that is, three levels of decision making and three levels of administration. That will be three levels of confusion. I do not think that is well designed. I think, at a minimum, COAG should have discussed the structure of what was proposed. I happen to think it is incredibly cumbersome; however, despite my view on that, I said we would find a way of working within it. I was willing to compromise and say that we would try to work that out so that we could live with it. The third point is the GST, the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question. Mr E.S. Ripper : My point is about the benefits to WA patients and the underlying analysis — Mr C.J. BARNETT : I understand the question. The Leader of the Opposition is a process person; he does not think for himself. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am actually looking for your underlying analysis. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. Barnett : It is true, all he talks about is process. Mr R.H. Cook : What’s your analysis? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is a matter of principle, my friend. It is not a matter of analysis. The GST was set up under the Howard government just over 10 years ago. Mr E.S. Ripper : You would sacrifice WA patients for your principles? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It was set up as the state revenue base into the future, a large form of revenue over which the state would have exclusive use and would guarantee state services across a range of areas. It was set in stone; it was never to be varied unless every state agreed. What have we got? Just 10 years later, we have a Prime Minister and a group of Premiers sitting around a table discussing tearing up the GST arrangement. As I pointed out to the Prime Minister and my Premier colleagues yesterday, “You may think you’re setting in stone a new health agreement long term into the future, but I can guarantee that, within 10 years, there will be another Prime Minister and another group of Premiers sitting around the table tearing it up.” We will not as a government give up Western Australia’s rightful share to the GST. Bear in mind that Western Australia has already been done over on this. The Labor commonwealth government—the Labor friends in Canberra of members opposite—gives us 68c in the dollar. What do they give themselves? They give themselves 95c in the dollar in New South Wales, 93c in Victoria and 91c in Queensland. All we get is 68c in the dollar. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s crass politics. You know that; you know how the system works. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question, which I think everyone in this place is interested in, as is everyone outside this place. I am having a little bit of a problem hearing the Premier’s answer and I formally call the member for Kwinana and the member for Mandurah for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : If one-third of the total GST pool is taken, we will lose approximately 60 per cent of our remaining GST over which we would have no control at all. I said to the Prime Minister, and publicly in the lead-up to COAG, that if WA goes along with this system and we can agree because there are benefits—the member is right there are significant benefits—we will be willing to pay an equivalent amount of dollars out of our health budget, or consolidated revenue, into the pool. As I said to the Prime Minister at the beginning of yesterday’s discussion, “Prime Minister, if you accept that point, you will have a deal today; you will have everything you sought and you can walk out here with the deal.” It was the Prime Minister’s choice to not accept that offer. That is where we are at. To answer the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Good. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes, good! “Where is the analysis?” We do not need an analysis on matters of principle. Mr E.S. Ripper : You must have Treasury analysis; you must have it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This is a matter of the federation and of the ability of Western Australians to govern themselves. We do not have an analysis; we do not seek an analysis because this is a matter of principle for which the Liberal–National government stands. I infer from the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that he is willing to throw in the GST to Canberra; I am not.
Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Hang on! I am trying to answer — The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked some questions. I am sure we are all interested in hearing the answers. Mr E.S. Ripper : I thought you were calling me to order. The SPEAKER : No, Leader of the Opposition. My advice at this point is that some members in this place be a little quieter than they are at the moment. Mr C.J. BARNETT : In looking at what the Prime Minister and the commonwealth put on the table, there are some good aspects to it, there is no doubt about it. Mr E.S. Ripper : It should be assessed on the totality of its merits. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Let me try to answer your question. What was offered for elective surgery, emergency departments, subacute beds and the funding arrangement are good. I have said that publicly; I do not have any argument with it. On the framework of how the money will flow, the administration and who bears responsibility for what, there was virtually no discussion at all at COAG. That was one of the fundamental issues. We have a good health system in Australia. If we are going to turn it on its head, we want to be confident that health care will improve. That critical issue was not discussed at COAG, and it should have been. Indeed, there were contrivances to make sure we never got to the substance of that issue. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Hang on! I am trying to answer. Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you give us the numbers? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Just calm down—please. Mr E.S. Ripper : I’m worried you won’t answer the question. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am happy to answer your question, but I will not respond to interruptions. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : For goodness sake! Lift the game; come on! On a lot of the real health issues there was good discussion and I stated that I agreed and I appreciated that the commonwealth put offers of real money and a real commitment on the table. On the structure, which I hope members realise is a big issue, the commonwealth’s proposal includes, at a national level, the national health and hospital network fund, the independent hospital pricing authority, the national performance authority and the Australian commission on safety and quality in health care. Four or five new federal bodies will be established. It is meant to be simple. There will also be the local health networks. If someone has a complaint about health care, what will they do? They will go to their local health network, and if they are unhappy, they may get a satisfactory answer but more than likely they will be told, “You couldn’t have that procedure because Canberra is not giving us the money.” If that does not satisfy them, it will be because, “The state hasn’t put in the capital equipment and won’t allow us to do so because they have the service agreement with us.” There will not be a single “the-buck-stops-here” system. There will be three levels: a national, state and local level—that is, three levels of decision making and three levels of administration. That will be three levels of confusion. I do not think that is well designed. I think, at a minimum, COAG should have discussed the structure of what was proposed. I happen to think it is incredibly cumbersome; however, despite my view on that, I said we would find a way of working within it. I was willing to compromise and say that we would try to work that out so that we could live with it. The third point is the GST, the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question. Mr E.S. Ripper : My point is about the benefits to WA patients and the underlying analysis — Mr C.J. BARNETT : I understand the question. The Leader of the Opposition is a process person; he does not think for himself. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am actually looking for your underlying analysis. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. Barnett : It is true, all he talks about is process. Mr R.H. Cook : What’s your analysis? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is a matter of principle, my friend. It is not a matter of analysis. The GST was set up under the Howard government just over 10 years ago. Mr E.S. Ripper : You would sacrifice WA patients for your principles? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It was set up as the state revenue base into the future, a large form of revenue over which the state would have exclusive use and would guarantee state services across a range of areas. It was set in stone; it was never to be varied unless every state agreed. What have we got? Just 10 years later, we have a Prime Minister and a group of Premiers sitting around a table discussing tearing up the GST arrangement. As I pointed out to the Prime Minister and my Premier colleagues yesterday, “You may think you’re setting in stone a new health agreement long term into the future, but I can guarantee that, within 10 years, there will be another Prime Minister and another group of Premiers sitting around the table tearing it up.” We will not as a government give up Western Australia’s rightful share to the GST. Bear in mind that Western Australia has already been done over on this. The Labor commonwealth government—the Labor friends in Canberra of members opposite—gives us 68c in the dollar. What do they give themselves? They give themselves 95c in the dollar in New South Wales, 93c in Victoria and 91c in Queensland. All we get is 68c in the dollar. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s crass politics. You know that; you know how the system works. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question, which I think everyone in this place is interested in, as is everyone outside this place. I am having a little bit of a problem hearing the Premier’s answer and I formally call the member for Kwinana and the member for Mandurah for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : If one-third of the total GST pool is taken, we will lose approximately 60 per cent of our remaining GST over which we would have no control at all. I said to the Prime Minister, and publicly in the lead-up to COAG, that if WA goes along with this system and we can agree because there are benefits—the member is right there are significant benefits—we will be willing to pay an equivalent amount of dollars out of our health budget, or consolidated revenue, into the pool. As I said to the Prime Minister at the beginning of yesterday’s discussion, “Prime Minister, if you accept that point, you will have a deal today; you will have everything you sought and you can walk out here with the deal.” It was the Prime Minister’s choice to not accept that offer. That is where we are at. To answer the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Good. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes, good! “Where is the analysis?” We do not need an analysis on matters of principle. Mr E.S. Ripper : You must have Treasury analysis; you must have it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This is a matter of the federation and of the ability of Western Australians to govern themselves. We do not have an analysis; we do not seek an analysis because this is a matter of principle for which the Liberal–National government stands. I infer from the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that he is willing to throw in the GST to Canberra; I am not.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Hang on! I am trying to answer — The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked some questions. I am sure we are all interested in hearing the answers. Mr E.S. Ripper : I thought you were calling me to order. The SPEAKER : No, Leader of the Opposition. My advice at this point is that some members in this place be a little quieter than they are at the moment. Mr C.J. BARNETT : In looking at what the Prime Minister and the commonwealth put on the table, there are some good aspects to it, there is no doubt about it. Mr E.S. Ripper : It should be assessed on the totality of its merits. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Let me try to answer your question. What was offered for elective surgery, emergency departments, subacute beds and the funding arrangement are good. I have said that publicly; I do not have any argument with it. On the framework of how the money will flow, the administration and who bears responsibility for what, there was virtually no discussion at all at COAG. That was one of the fundamental issues. We have a good health system in Australia. If we are going to turn it on its head, we want to be confident that health care will improve. That critical issue was not discussed at COAG, and it should have been. Indeed, there were contrivances to make sure we never got to the substance of that issue. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Hang on! I am trying to answer. Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you give us the numbers? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Just calm down—please. Mr E.S. Ripper : I’m worried you won’t answer the question. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am happy to answer your question, but I will not respond to interruptions. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : For goodness sake! Lift the game; come on! On a lot of the real health issues there was good discussion and I stated that I agreed and I appreciated that the commonwealth put offers of real money and a real commitment on the table. On the structure, which I hope members realise is a big issue, the commonwealth’s proposal includes, at a national level, the national health and hospital network fund, the independent hospital pricing authority, the national performance authority and the Australian commission on safety and quality in health care. Four or five new federal bodies will be established. It is meant to be simple. There will also be the local health networks. If someone has a complaint about health care, what will they do? They will go to their local health network, and if they are unhappy, they may get a satisfactory answer but more than likely they will be told, “You couldn’t have that procedure because Canberra is not giving us the money.” If that does not satisfy them, it will be because, “The state hasn’t put in the capital equipment and won’t allow us to do so because they have the service agreement with us.” There will not be a single “the-buck-stops-here” system. There will be three levels: a national, state and local level—that is, three levels of decision making and three levels of administration. That will be three levels of confusion. I do not think that is well designed. I think, at a minimum, COAG should have discussed the structure of what was proposed. I happen to think it is incredibly cumbersome; however, despite my view on that, I said we would find a way of working within it. I was willing to compromise and say that we would try to work that out so that we could live with it. The third point is the GST, the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question. Mr E.S. Ripper : My point is about the benefits to WA patients and the underlying analysis — Mr C.J. BARNETT : I understand the question. The Leader of the Opposition is a process person; he does not think for himself. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am actually looking for your underlying analysis. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. Barnett : It is true, all he talks about is process. Mr R.H. Cook : What’s your analysis? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is a matter of principle, my friend. It is not a matter of analysis. The GST was set up under the Howard government just over 10 years ago. Mr E.S. Ripper : You would sacrifice WA patients for your principles? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It was set up as the state revenue base into the future, a large form of revenue over which the state would have exclusive use and would guarantee state services across a range of areas. It was set in stone; it was never to be varied unless every state agreed. What have we got? Just 10 years later, we have a Prime Minister and a group of Premiers sitting around a table discussing tearing up the GST arrangement. As I pointed out to the Prime Minister and my Premier colleagues yesterday, “You may think you’re setting in stone a new health agreement long term into the future, but I can guarantee that, within 10 years, there will be another Prime Minister and another group of Premiers sitting around the table tearing it up.” We will not as a government give up Western Australia’s rightful share to the GST. Bear in mind that Western Australia has already been done over on this. The Labor commonwealth government—the Labor friends in Canberra of members opposite—gives us 68c in the dollar. What do they give themselves? They give themselves 95c in the dollar in New South Wales, 93c in Victoria and 91c in Queensland. All we get is 68c in the dollar. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s crass politics. You know that; you know how the system works. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question, which I think everyone in this place is interested in, as is everyone outside this place. I am having a little bit of a problem hearing the Premier’s answer and I formally call the member for Kwinana and the member for Mandurah for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : If one-third of the total GST pool is taken, we will lose approximately 60 per cent of our remaining GST over which we would have no control at all. I said to the Prime Minister, and publicly in the lead-up to COAG, that if WA goes along with this system and we can agree because there are benefits—the member is right there are significant benefits—we will be willing to pay an equivalent amount of dollars out of our health budget, or consolidated revenue, into the pool. As I said to the Prime Minister at the beginning of yesterday’s discussion, “Prime Minister, if you accept that point, you will have a deal today; you will have everything you sought and you can walk out here with the deal.” It was the Prime Minister’s choice to not accept that offer. That is where we are at. To answer the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Good. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes, good! “Where is the analysis?” We do not need an analysis on matters of principle. Mr E.S. Ripper : You must have Treasury analysis; you must have it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This is a matter of the federation and of the ability of Western Australians to govern themselves. We do not have an analysis; we do not seek an analysis because this is a matter of principle for which the Liberal–National government stands. I infer from the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that he is willing to throw in the GST to Canberra; I am not.
The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked some questions. I am sure we are all interested in hearing the answers. Mr E.S. Ripper : I thought you were calling me to order. The SPEAKER : No, Leader of the Opposition. My advice at this point is that some members in this place be a little quieter than they are at the moment. Mr C.J. BARNETT : In looking at what the Prime Minister and the commonwealth put on the table, there are some good aspects to it, there is no doubt about it. Mr E.S. Ripper : It should be assessed on the totality of its merits. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Let me try to answer your question. What was offered for elective surgery, emergency departments, subacute beds and the funding arrangement are good. I have said that publicly; I do not have any argument with it. On the framework of how the money will flow, the administration and who bears responsibility for what, there was virtually no discussion at all at COAG. That was one of the fundamental issues. We have a good health system in Australia. If we are going to turn it on its head, we want to be confident that health care will improve. That critical issue was not discussed at COAG, and it should have been. Indeed, there were contrivances to make sure we never got to the substance of that issue. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Hang on! I am trying to answer. Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you give us the numbers? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Just calm down—please. Mr E.S. Ripper : I’m worried you won’t answer the question. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am happy to answer your question, but I will not respond to interruptions. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : For goodness sake! Lift the game; come on! On a lot of the real health issues there was good discussion and I stated that I agreed and I appreciated that the commonwealth put offers of real money and a real commitment on the table. On the structure, which I hope members realise is a big issue, the commonwealth’s proposal includes, at a national level, the national health and hospital network fund, the independent hospital pricing authority, the national performance authority and the Australian commission on safety and quality in health care. Four or five new federal bodies will be established. It is meant to be simple. There will also be the local health networks. If someone has a complaint about health care, what will they do? They will go to their local health network, and if they are unhappy, they may get a satisfactory answer but more than likely they will be told, “You couldn’t have that procedure because Canberra is not giving us the money.” If that does not satisfy them, it will be because, “The state hasn’t put in the capital equipment and won’t allow us to do so because they have the service agreement with us.” There will not be a single “the-buck-stops-here” system. There will be three levels: a national, state and local level—that is, three levels of decision making and three levels of administration. That will be three levels of confusion. I do not think that is well designed. I think, at a minimum, COAG should have discussed the structure of what was proposed. I happen to think it is incredibly cumbersome; however, despite my view on that, I said we would find a way of working within it. I was willing to compromise and say that we would try to work that out so that we could live with it. The third point is the GST, the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question. Mr E.S. Ripper : My point is about the benefits to WA patients and the underlying analysis — Mr C.J. BARNETT : I understand the question. The Leader of the Opposition is a process person; he does not think for himself. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am actually looking for your underlying analysis. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. Barnett : It is true, all he talks about is process. Mr R.H. Cook : What’s your analysis? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is a matter of principle, my friend. It is not a matter of analysis. The GST was set up under the Howard government just over 10 years ago. Mr E.S. Ripper : You would sacrifice WA patients for your principles? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It was set up as the state revenue base into the future, a large form of revenue over which the state would have exclusive use and would guarantee state services across a range of areas. It was set in stone; it was never to be varied unless every state agreed. What have we got? Just 10 years later, we have a Prime Minister and a group of Premiers sitting around a table discussing tearing up the GST arrangement. As I pointed out to the Prime Minister and my Premier colleagues yesterday, “You may think you’re setting in stone a new health agreement long term into the future, but I can guarantee that, within 10 years, there will be another Prime Minister and another group of Premiers sitting around the table tearing it up.” We will not as a government give up Western Australia’s rightful share to the GST. Bear in mind that Western Australia has already been done over on this. The Labor commonwealth government—the Labor friends in Canberra of members opposite—gives us 68c in the dollar. What do they give themselves? They give themselves 95c in the dollar in New South Wales, 93c in Victoria and 91c in Queensland. All we get is 68c in the dollar. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s crass politics. You know that; you know how the system works. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question, which I think everyone in this place is interested in, as is everyone outside this place. I am having a little bit of a problem hearing the Premier’s answer and I formally call the member for Kwinana and the member for Mandurah for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : If one-third of the total GST pool is taken, we will lose approximately 60 per cent of our remaining GST over which we would have no control at all. I said to the Prime Minister, and publicly in the lead-up to COAG, that if WA goes along with this system and we can agree because there are benefits—the member is right there are significant benefits—we will be willing to pay an equivalent amount of dollars out of our health budget, or consolidated revenue, into the pool. As I said to the Prime Minister at the beginning of yesterday’s discussion, “Prime Minister, if you accept that point, you will have a deal today; you will have everything you sought and you can walk out here with the deal.” It was the Prime Minister’s choice to not accept that offer. That is where we are at. To answer the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Good. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes, good! “Where is the analysis?” We do not need an analysis on matters of principle. Mr E.S. Ripper : You must have Treasury analysis; you must have it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This is a matter of the federation and of the ability of Western Australians to govern themselves. We do not have an analysis; we do not seek an analysis because this is a matter of principle for which the Liberal–National government stands. I infer from the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that he is willing to throw in the GST to Canberra; I am not.
Mr E.S. Ripper : I thought you were calling me to order. The SPEAKER : No, Leader of the Opposition. My advice at this point is that some members in this place be a little quieter than they are at the moment. Mr C.J. BARNETT : In looking at what the Prime Minister and the commonwealth put on the table, there are some good aspects to it, there is no doubt about it. Mr E.S. Ripper : It should be assessed on the totality of its merits. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Let me try to answer your question. What was offered for elective surgery, emergency departments, subacute beds and the funding arrangement are good. I have said that publicly; I do not have any argument with it. On the framework of how the money will flow, the administration and who bears responsibility for what, there was virtually no discussion at all at COAG. That was one of the fundamental issues. We have a good health system in Australia. If we are going to turn it on its head, we want to be confident that health care will improve. That critical issue was not discussed at COAG, and it should have been. Indeed, there were contrivances to make sure we never got to the substance of that issue. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Hang on! I am trying to answer. Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you give us the numbers? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Just calm down—please. Mr E.S. Ripper : I’m worried you won’t answer the question. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am happy to answer your question, but I will not respond to interruptions. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : For goodness sake! Lift the game; come on! On a lot of the real health issues there was good discussion and I stated that I agreed and I appreciated that the commonwealth put offers of real money and a real commitment on the table. On the structure, which I hope members realise is a big issue, the commonwealth’s proposal includes, at a national level, the national health and hospital network fund, the independent hospital pricing authority, the national performance authority and the Australian commission on safety and quality in health care. Four or five new federal bodies will be established. It is meant to be simple. There will also be the local health networks. If someone has a complaint about health care, what will they do? They will go to their local health network, and if they are unhappy, they may get a satisfactory answer but more than likely they will be told, “You couldn’t have that procedure because Canberra is not giving us the money.” If that does not satisfy them, it will be because, “The state hasn’t put in the capital equipment and won’t allow us to do so because they have the service agreement with us.” There will not be a single “the-buck-stops-here” system. There will be three levels: a national, state and local level—that is, three levels of decision making and three levels of administration. That will be three levels of confusion. I do not think that is well designed. I think, at a minimum, COAG should have discussed the structure of what was proposed. I happen to think it is incredibly cumbersome; however, despite my view on that, I said we would find a way of working within it. I was willing to compromise and say that we would try to work that out so that we could live with it. The third point is the GST, the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question. Mr E.S. Ripper : My point is about the benefits to WA patients and the underlying analysis — Mr C.J. BARNETT : I understand the question. The Leader of the Opposition is a process person; he does not think for himself. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am actually looking for your underlying analysis. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. Barnett : It is true, all he talks about is process. Mr R.H. Cook : What’s your analysis? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is a matter of principle, my friend. It is not a matter of analysis. The GST was set up under the Howard government just over 10 years ago. Mr E.S. Ripper : You would sacrifice WA patients for your principles? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It was set up as the state revenue base into the future, a large form of revenue over which the state would have exclusive use and would guarantee state services across a range of areas. It was set in stone; it was never to be varied unless every state agreed. What have we got? Just 10 years later, we have a Prime Minister and a group of Premiers sitting around a table discussing tearing up the GST arrangement. As I pointed out to the Prime Minister and my Premier colleagues yesterday, “You may think you’re setting in stone a new health agreement long term into the future, but I can guarantee that, within 10 years, there will be another Prime Minister and another group of Premiers sitting around the table tearing it up.” We will not as a government give up Western Australia’s rightful share to the GST. Bear in mind that Western Australia has already been done over on this. The Labor commonwealth government—the Labor friends in Canberra of members opposite—gives us 68c in the dollar. What do they give themselves? They give themselves 95c in the dollar in New South Wales, 93c in Victoria and 91c in Queensland. All we get is 68c in the dollar. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s crass politics. You know that; you know how the system works. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question, which I think everyone in this place is interested in, as is everyone outside this place. I am having a little bit of a problem hearing the Premier’s answer and I formally call the member for Kwinana and the member for Mandurah for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : If one-third of the total GST pool is taken, we will lose approximately 60 per cent of our remaining GST over which we would have no control at all. I said to the Prime Minister, and publicly in the lead-up to COAG, that if WA goes along with this system and we can agree because there are benefits—the member is right there are significant benefits—we will be willing to pay an equivalent amount of dollars out of our health budget, or consolidated revenue, into the pool. As I said to the Prime Minister at the beginning of yesterday’s discussion, “Prime Minister, if you accept that point, you will have a deal today; you will have everything you sought and you can walk out here with the deal.” It was the Prime Minister’s choice to not accept that offer. That is where we are at. To answer the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Good. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes, good! “Where is the analysis?” We do not need an analysis on matters of principle. Mr E.S. Ripper : You must have Treasury analysis; you must have it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This is a matter of the federation and of the ability of Western Australians to govern themselves. We do not have an analysis; we do not seek an analysis because this is a matter of principle for which the Liberal–National government stands. I infer from the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that he is willing to throw in the GST to Canberra; I am not.
The SPEAKER : No, Leader of the Opposition. My advice at this point is that some members in this place be a little quieter than they are at the moment. Mr C.J. BARNETT : In looking at what the Prime Minister and the commonwealth put on the table, there are some good aspects to it, there is no doubt about it. Mr E.S. Ripper : It should be assessed on the totality of its merits. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Let me try to answer your question. What was offered for elective surgery, emergency departments, subacute beds and the funding arrangement are good. I have said that publicly; I do not have any argument with it. On the framework of how the money will flow, the administration and who bears responsibility for what, there was virtually no discussion at all at COAG. That was one of the fundamental issues. We have a good health system in Australia. If we are going to turn it on its head, we want to be confident that health care will improve. That critical issue was not discussed at COAG, and it should have been. Indeed, there were contrivances to make sure we never got to the substance of that issue. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Hang on! I am trying to answer. Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you give us the numbers? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Just calm down—please. Mr E.S. Ripper : I’m worried you won’t answer the question. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am happy to answer your question, but I will not respond to interruptions. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : For goodness sake! Lift the game; come on! On a lot of the real health issues there was good discussion and I stated that I agreed and I appreciated that the commonwealth put offers of real money and a real commitment on the table. On the structure, which I hope members realise is a big issue, the commonwealth’s proposal includes, at a national level, the national health and hospital network fund, the independent hospital pricing authority, the national performance authority and the Australian commission on safety and quality in health care. Four or five new federal bodies will be established. It is meant to be simple. There will also be the local health networks. If someone has a complaint about health care, what will they do? They will go to their local health network, and if they are unhappy, they may get a satisfactory answer but more than likely they will be told, “You couldn’t have that procedure because Canberra is not giving us the money.” If that does not satisfy them, it will be because, “The state hasn’t put in the capital equipment and won’t allow us to do so because they have the service agreement with us.” There will not be a single “the-buck-stops-here” system. There will be three levels: a national, state and local level—that is, three levels of decision making and three levels of administration. That will be three levels of confusion. I do not think that is well designed. I think, at a minimum, COAG should have discussed the structure of what was proposed. I happen to think it is incredibly cumbersome; however, despite my view on that, I said we would find a way of working within it. I was willing to compromise and say that we would try to work that out so that we could live with it. The third point is the GST, the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question. Mr E.S. Ripper : My point is about the benefits to WA patients and the underlying analysis — Mr C.J. BARNETT : I understand the question. The Leader of the Opposition is a process person; he does not think for himself. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am actually looking for your underlying analysis. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. Barnett : It is true, all he talks about is process. Mr R.H. Cook : What’s your analysis? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is a matter of principle, my friend. It is not a matter of analysis. The GST was set up under the Howard government just over 10 years ago. Mr E.S. Ripper : You would sacrifice WA patients for your principles? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It was set up as the state revenue base into the future, a large form of revenue over which the state would have exclusive use and would guarantee state services across a range of areas. It was set in stone; it was never to be varied unless every state agreed. What have we got? Just 10 years later, we have a Prime Minister and a group of Premiers sitting around a table discussing tearing up the GST arrangement. As I pointed out to the Prime Minister and my Premier colleagues yesterday, “You may think you’re setting in stone a new health agreement long term into the future, but I can guarantee that, within 10 years, there will be another Prime Minister and another group of Premiers sitting around the table tearing it up.” We will not as a government give up Western Australia’s rightful share to the GST. Bear in mind that Western Australia has already been done over on this. The Labor commonwealth government—the Labor friends in Canberra of members opposite—gives us 68c in the dollar. What do they give themselves? They give themselves 95c in the dollar in New South Wales, 93c in Victoria and 91c in Queensland. All we get is 68c in the dollar. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s crass politics. You know that; you know how the system works. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question, which I think everyone in this place is interested in, as is everyone outside this place. I am having a little bit of a problem hearing the Premier’s answer and I formally call the member for Kwinana and the member for Mandurah for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : If one-third of the total GST pool is taken, we will lose approximately 60 per cent of our remaining GST over which we would have no control at all. I said to the Prime Minister, and publicly in the lead-up to COAG, that if WA goes along with this system and we can agree because there are benefits—the member is right there are significant benefits—we will be willing to pay an equivalent amount of dollars out of our health budget, or consolidated revenue, into the pool. As I said to the Prime Minister at the beginning of yesterday’s discussion, “Prime Minister, if you accept that point, you will have a deal today; you will have everything you sought and you can walk out here with the deal.” It was the Prime Minister’s choice to not accept that offer. That is where we are at. To answer the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Good. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes, good! “Where is the analysis?” We do not need an analysis on matters of principle. Mr E.S. Ripper : You must have Treasury analysis; you must have it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This is a matter of the federation and of the ability of Western Australians to govern themselves. We do not have an analysis; we do not seek an analysis because this is a matter of principle for which the Liberal–National government stands. I infer from the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that he is willing to throw in the GST to Canberra; I am not.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : In looking at what the Prime Minister and the commonwealth put on the table, there are some good aspects to it, there is no doubt about it. Mr E.S. Ripper : It should be assessed on the totality of its merits. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Let me try to answer your question. What was offered for elective surgery, emergency departments, subacute beds and the funding arrangement are good. I have said that publicly; I do not have any argument with it. On the framework of how the money will flow, the administration and who bears responsibility for what, there was virtually no discussion at all at COAG. That was one of the fundamental issues. We have a good health system in Australia. If we are going to turn it on its head, we want to be confident that health care will improve. That critical issue was not discussed at COAG, and it should have been. Indeed, there were contrivances to make sure we never got to the substance of that issue. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Hang on! I am trying to answer. Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you give us the numbers? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Just calm down—please. Mr E.S. Ripper : I’m worried you won’t answer the question. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am happy to answer your question, but I will not respond to interruptions. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : For goodness sake! Lift the game; come on! On a lot of the real health issues there was good discussion and I stated that I agreed and I appreciated that the commonwealth put offers of real money and a real commitment on the table. On the structure, which I hope members realise is a big issue, the commonwealth’s proposal includes, at a national level, the national health and hospital network fund, the independent hospital pricing authority, the national performance authority and the Australian commission on safety and quality in health care. Four or five new federal bodies will be established. It is meant to be simple. There will also be the local health networks. If someone has a complaint about health care, what will they do? They will go to their local health network, and if they are unhappy, they may get a satisfactory answer but more than likely they will be told, “You couldn’t have that procedure because Canberra is not giving us the money.” If that does not satisfy them, it will be because, “The state hasn’t put in the capital equipment and won’t allow us to do so because they have the service agreement with us.” There will not be a single “the-buck-stops-here” system. There will be three levels: a national, state and local level—that is, three levels of decision making and three levels of administration. That will be three levels of confusion. I do not think that is well designed. I think, at a minimum, COAG should have discussed the structure of what was proposed. I happen to think it is incredibly cumbersome; however, despite my view on that, I said we would find a way of working within it. I was willing to compromise and say that we would try to work that out so that we could live with it. The third point is the GST, the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question. Mr E.S. Ripper : My point is about the benefits to WA patients and the underlying analysis — Mr C.J. BARNETT : I understand the question. The Leader of the Opposition is a process person; he does not think for himself. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am actually looking for your underlying analysis. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. Barnett : It is true, all he talks about is process. Mr R.H. Cook : What’s your analysis? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is a matter of principle, my friend. It is not a matter of analysis. The GST was set up under the Howard government just over 10 years ago. Mr E.S. Ripper : You would sacrifice WA patients for your principles? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It was set up as the state revenue base into the future, a large form of revenue over which the state would have exclusive use and would guarantee state services across a range of areas. It was set in stone; it was never to be varied unless every state agreed. What have we got? Just 10 years later, we have a Prime Minister and a group of Premiers sitting around a table discussing tearing up the GST arrangement. As I pointed out to the Prime Minister and my Premier colleagues yesterday, “You may think you’re setting in stone a new health agreement long term into the future, but I can guarantee that, within 10 years, there will be another Prime Minister and another group of Premiers sitting around the table tearing it up.” We will not as a government give up Western Australia’s rightful share to the GST. Bear in mind that Western Australia has already been done over on this. The Labor commonwealth government—the Labor friends in Canberra of members opposite—gives us 68c in the dollar. What do they give themselves? They give themselves 95c in the dollar in New South Wales, 93c in Victoria and 91c in Queensland. All we get is 68c in the dollar. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s crass politics. You know that; you know how the system works. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question, which I think everyone in this place is interested in, as is everyone outside this place. I am having a little bit of a problem hearing the Premier’s answer and I formally call the member for Kwinana and the member for Mandurah for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : If one-third of the total GST pool is taken, we will lose approximately 60 per cent of our remaining GST over which we would have no control at all. I said to the Prime Minister, and publicly in the lead-up to COAG, that if WA goes along with this system and we can agree because there are benefits—the member is right there are significant benefits—we will be willing to pay an equivalent amount of dollars out of our health budget, or consolidated revenue, into the pool. As I said to the Prime Minister at the beginning of yesterday’s discussion, “Prime Minister, if you accept that point, you will have a deal today; you will have everything you sought and you can walk out here with the deal.” It was the Prime Minister’s choice to not accept that offer. That is where we are at. To answer the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Good. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes, good! “Where is the analysis?” We do not need an analysis on matters of principle. Mr E.S. Ripper : You must have Treasury analysis; you must have it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This is a matter of the federation and of the ability of Western Australians to govern themselves. We do not have an analysis; we do not seek an analysis because this is a matter of principle for which the Liberal–National government stands. I infer from the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that he is willing to throw in the GST to Canberra; I am not.
Mr E.S. Ripper : It should be assessed on the totality of its merits. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Let me try to answer your question. What was offered for elective surgery, emergency departments, subacute beds and the funding arrangement are good. I have said that publicly; I do not have any argument with it. On the framework of how the money will flow, the administration and who bears responsibility for what, there was virtually no discussion at all at COAG. That was one of the fundamental issues. We have a good health system in Australia. If we are going to turn it on its head, we want to be confident that health care will improve. That critical issue was not discussed at COAG, and it should have been. Indeed, there were contrivances to make sure we never got to the substance of that issue. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Hang on! I am trying to answer. Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you give us the numbers? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Just calm down—please. Mr E.S. Ripper : I’m worried you won’t answer the question. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am happy to answer your question, but I will not respond to interruptions. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : For goodness sake! Lift the game; come on! On a lot of the real health issues there was good discussion and I stated that I agreed and I appreciated that the commonwealth put offers of real money and a real commitment on the table. On the structure, which I hope members realise is a big issue, the commonwealth’s proposal includes, at a national level, the national health and hospital network fund, the independent hospital pricing authority, the national performance authority and the Australian commission on safety and quality in health care. Four or five new federal bodies will be established. It is meant to be simple. There will also be the local health networks. If someone has a complaint about health care, what will they do? They will go to their local health network, and if they are unhappy, they may get a satisfactory answer but more than likely they will be told, “You couldn’t have that procedure because Canberra is not giving us the money.” If that does not satisfy them, it will be because, “The state hasn’t put in the capital equipment and won’t allow us to do so because they have the service agreement with us.” There will not be a single “the-buck-stops-here” system. There will be three levels: a national, state and local level—that is, three levels of decision making and three levels of administration. That will be three levels of confusion. I do not think that is well designed. I think, at a minimum, COAG should have discussed the structure of what was proposed. I happen to think it is incredibly cumbersome; however, despite my view on that, I said we would find a way of working within it. I was willing to compromise and say that we would try to work that out so that we could live with it. The third point is the GST, the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question. Mr E.S. Ripper : My point is about the benefits to WA patients and the underlying analysis — Mr C.J. BARNETT : I understand the question. The Leader of the Opposition is a process person; he does not think for himself. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am actually looking for your underlying analysis. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. Barnett : It is true, all he talks about is process. Mr R.H. Cook : What’s your analysis? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is a matter of principle, my friend. It is not a matter of analysis. The GST was set up under the Howard government just over 10 years ago. Mr E.S. Ripper : You would sacrifice WA patients for your principles? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It was set up as the state revenue base into the future, a large form of revenue over which the state would have exclusive use and would guarantee state services across a range of areas. It was set in stone; it was never to be varied unless every state agreed. What have we got? Just 10 years later, we have a Prime Minister and a group of Premiers sitting around a table discussing tearing up the GST arrangement. As I pointed out to the Prime Minister and my Premier colleagues yesterday, “You may think you’re setting in stone a new health agreement long term into the future, but I can guarantee that, within 10 years, there will be another Prime Minister and another group of Premiers sitting around the table tearing it up.” We will not as a government give up Western Australia’s rightful share to the GST. Bear in mind that Western Australia has already been done over on this. The Labor commonwealth government—the Labor friends in Canberra of members opposite—gives us 68c in the dollar. What do they give themselves? They give themselves 95c in the dollar in New South Wales, 93c in Victoria and 91c in Queensland. All we get is 68c in the dollar. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s crass politics. You know that; you know how the system works. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question, which I think everyone in this place is interested in, as is everyone outside this place. I am having a little bit of a problem hearing the Premier’s answer and I formally call the member for Kwinana and the member for Mandurah for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : If one-third of the total GST pool is taken, we will lose approximately 60 per cent of our remaining GST over which we would have no control at all. I said to the Prime Minister, and publicly in the lead-up to COAG, that if WA goes along with this system and we can agree because there are benefits—the member is right there are significant benefits—we will be willing to pay an equivalent amount of dollars out of our health budget, or consolidated revenue, into the pool. As I said to the Prime Minister at the beginning of yesterday’s discussion, “Prime Minister, if you accept that point, you will have a deal today; you will have everything you sought and you can walk out here with the deal.” It was the Prime Minister’s choice to not accept that offer. That is where we are at. To answer the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Good. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes, good! “Where is the analysis?” We do not need an analysis on matters of principle. Mr E.S. Ripper : You must have Treasury analysis; you must have it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This is a matter of the federation and of the ability of Western Australians to govern themselves. We do not have an analysis; we do not seek an analysis because this is a matter of principle for which the Liberal–National government stands. I infer from the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that he is willing to throw in the GST to Canberra; I am not.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Let me try to answer your question. What was offered for elective surgery, emergency departments, subacute beds and the funding arrangement are good. I have said that publicly; I do not have any argument with it. On the framework of how the money will flow, the administration and who bears responsibility for what, there was virtually no discussion at all at COAG. That was one of the fundamental issues. We have a good health system in Australia. If we are going to turn it on its head, we want to be confident that health care will improve. That critical issue was not discussed at COAG, and it should have been. Indeed, there were contrivances to make sure we never got to the substance of that issue. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Hang on! I am trying to answer. Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you give us the numbers? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Just calm down—please. Mr E.S. Ripper : I’m worried you won’t answer the question. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am happy to answer your question, but I will not respond to interruptions. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : For goodness sake! Lift the game; come on! On a lot of the real health issues there was good discussion and I stated that I agreed and I appreciated that the commonwealth put offers of real money and a real commitment on the table. On the structure, which I hope members realise is a big issue, the commonwealth’s proposal includes, at a national level, the national health and hospital network fund, the independent hospital pricing authority, the national performance authority and the Australian commission on safety and quality in health care. Four or five new federal bodies will be established. It is meant to be simple. There will also be the local health networks. If someone has a complaint about health care, what will they do? They will go to their local health network, and if they are unhappy, they may get a satisfactory answer but more than likely they will be told, “You couldn’t have that procedure because Canberra is not giving us the money.” If that does not satisfy them, it will be because, “The state hasn’t put in the capital equipment and won’t allow us to do so because they have the service agreement with us.” There will not be a single “the-buck-stops-here” system. There will be three levels: a national, state and local level—that is, three levels of decision making and three levels of administration. That will be three levels of confusion. I do not think that is well designed. I think, at a minimum, COAG should have discussed the structure of what was proposed. I happen to think it is incredibly cumbersome; however, despite my view on that, I said we would find a way of working within it. I was willing to compromise and say that we would try to work that out so that we could live with it. The third point is the GST, the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question. Mr E.S. Ripper : My point is about the benefits to WA patients and the underlying analysis — Mr C.J. BARNETT : I understand the question. The Leader of the Opposition is a process person; he does not think for himself. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am actually looking for your underlying analysis. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. Barnett : It is true, all he talks about is process. Mr R.H. Cook : What’s your analysis? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is a matter of principle, my friend. It is not a matter of analysis. The GST was set up under the Howard government just over 10 years ago. Mr E.S. Ripper : You would sacrifice WA patients for your principles? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It was set up as the state revenue base into the future, a large form of revenue over which the state would have exclusive use and would guarantee state services across a range of areas. It was set in stone; it was never to be varied unless every state agreed. What have we got? Just 10 years later, we have a Prime Minister and a group of Premiers sitting around a table discussing tearing up the GST arrangement. As I pointed out to the Prime Minister and my Premier colleagues yesterday, “You may think you’re setting in stone a new health agreement long term into the future, but I can guarantee that, within 10 years, there will be another Prime Minister and another group of Premiers sitting around the table tearing it up.” We will not as a government give up Western Australia’s rightful share to the GST. Bear in mind that Western Australia has already been done over on this. The Labor commonwealth government—the Labor friends in Canberra of members opposite—gives us 68c in the dollar. What do they give themselves? They give themselves 95c in the dollar in New South Wales, 93c in Victoria and 91c in Queensland. All we get is 68c in the dollar. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s crass politics. You know that; you know how the system works. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question, which I think everyone in this place is interested in, as is everyone outside this place. I am having a little bit of a problem hearing the Premier’s answer and I formally call the member for Kwinana and the member for Mandurah for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : If one-third of the total GST pool is taken, we will lose approximately 60 per cent of our remaining GST over which we would have no control at all. I said to the Prime Minister, and publicly in the lead-up to COAG, that if WA goes along with this system and we can agree because there are benefits—the member is right there are significant benefits—we will be willing to pay an equivalent amount of dollars out of our health budget, or consolidated revenue, into the pool. As I said to the Prime Minister at the beginning of yesterday’s discussion, “Prime Minister, if you accept that point, you will have a deal today; you will have everything you sought and you can walk out here with the deal.” It was the Prime Minister’s choice to not accept that offer. That is where we are at. To answer the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Good. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes, good! “Where is the analysis?” We do not need an analysis on matters of principle. Mr E.S. Ripper : You must have Treasury analysis; you must have it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This is a matter of the federation and of the ability of Western Australians to govern themselves. We do not have an analysis; we do not seek an analysis because this is a matter of principle for which the Liberal–National government stands. I infer from the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that he is willing to throw in the GST to Canberra; I am not.
Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Hang on! I am trying to answer. Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you give us the numbers? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Just calm down—please. Mr E.S. Ripper : I’m worried you won’t answer the question. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am happy to answer your question, but I will not respond to interruptions. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : For goodness sake! Lift the game; come on! On a lot of the real health issues there was good discussion and I stated that I agreed and I appreciated that the commonwealth put offers of real money and a real commitment on the table. On the structure, which I hope members realise is a big issue, the commonwealth’s proposal includes, at a national level, the national health and hospital network fund, the independent hospital pricing authority, the national performance authority and the Australian commission on safety and quality in health care. Four or five new federal bodies will be established. It is meant to be simple. There will also be the local health networks. If someone has a complaint about health care, what will they do? They will go to their local health network, and if they are unhappy, they may get a satisfactory answer but more than likely they will be told, “You couldn’t have that procedure because Canberra is not giving us the money.” If that does not satisfy them, it will be because, “The state hasn’t put in the capital equipment and won’t allow us to do so because they have the service agreement with us.” There will not be a single “the-buck-stops-here” system. There will be three levels: a national, state and local level—that is, three levels of decision making and three levels of administration. That will be three levels of confusion. I do not think that is well designed. I think, at a minimum, COAG should have discussed the structure of what was proposed. I happen to think it is incredibly cumbersome; however, despite my view on that, I said we would find a way of working within it. I was willing to compromise and say that we would try to work that out so that we could live with it. The third point is the GST, the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question. Mr E.S. Ripper : My point is about the benefits to WA patients and the underlying analysis — Mr C.J. BARNETT : I understand the question. The Leader of the Opposition is a process person; he does not think for himself. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am actually looking for your underlying analysis. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. Barnett : It is true, all he talks about is process. Mr R.H. Cook : What’s your analysis? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is a matter of principle, my friend. It is not a matter of analysis. The GST was set up under the Howard government just over 10 years ago. Mr E.S. Ripper : You would sacrifice WA patients for your principles? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It was set up as the state revenue base into the future, a large form of revenue over which the state would have exclusive use and would guarantee state services across a range of areas. It was set in stone; it was never to be varied unless every state agreed. What have we got? Just 10 years later, we have a Prime Minister and a group of Premiers sitting around a table discussing tearing up the GST arrangement. As I pointed out to the Prime Minister and my Premier colleagues yesterday, “You may think you’re setting in stone a new health agreement long term into the future, but I can guarantee that, within 10 years, there will be another Prime Minister and another group of Premiers sitting around the table tearing it up.” We will not as a government give up Western Australia’s rightful share to the GST. Bear in mind that Western Australia has already been done over on this. The Labor commonwealth government—the Labor friends in Canberra of members opposite—gives us 68c in the dollar. What do they give themselves? They give themselves 95c in the dollar in New South Wales, 93c in Victoria and 91c in Queensland. All we get is 68c in the dollar. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s crass politics. You know that; you know how the system works. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question, which I think everyone in this place is interested in, as is everyone outside this place. I am having a little bit of a problem hearing the Premier’s answer and I formally call the member for Kwinana and the member for Mandurah for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : If one-third of the total GST pool is taken, we will lose approximately 60 per cent of our remaining GST over which we would have no control at all. I said to the Prime Minister, and publicly in the lead-up to COAG, that if WA goes along with this system and we can agree because there are benefits—the member is right there are significant benefits—we will be willing to pay an equivalent amount of dollars out of our health budget, or consolidated revenue, into the pool. As I said to the Prime Minister at the beginning of yesterday’s discussion, “Prime Minister, if you accept that point, you will have a deal today; you will have everything you sought and you can walk out here with the deal.” It was the Prime Minister’s choice to not accept that offer. That is where we are at. To answer the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Good. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes, good! “Where is the analysis?” We do not need an analysis on matters of principle. Mr E.S. Ripper : You must have Treasury analysis; you must have it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This is a matter of the federation and of the ability of Western Australians to govern themselves. We do not have an analysis; we do not seek an analysis because this is a matter of principle for which the Liberal–National government stands. I infer from the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that he is willing to throw in the GST to Canberra; I am not.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Hang on! I am trying to answer. Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you give us the numbers? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Just calm down—please. Mr E.S. Ripper : I’m worried you won’t answer the question. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am happy to answer your question, but I will not respond to interruptions. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : For goodness sake! Lift the game; come on! On a lot of the real health issues there was good discussion and I stated that I agreed and I appreciated that the commonwealth put offers of real money and a real commitment on the table. On the structure, which I hope members realise is a big issue, the commonwealth’s proposal includes, at a national level, the national health and hospital network fund, the independent hospital pricing authority, the national performance authority and the Australian commission on safety and quality in health care. Four or five new federal bodies will be established. It is meant to be simple. There will also be the local health networks. If someone has a complaint about health care, what will they do? They will go to their local health network, and if they are unhappy, they may get a satisfactory answer but more than likely they will be told, “You couldn’t have that procedure because Canberra is not giving us the money.” If that does not satisfy them, it will be because, “The state hasn’t put in the capital equipment and won’t allow us to do so because they have the service agreement with us.” There will not be a single “the-buck-stops-here” system. There will be three levels: a national, state and local level—that is, three levels of decision making and three levels of administration. That will be three levels of confusion. I do not think that is well designed. I think, at a minimum, COAG should have discussed the structure of what was proposed. I happen to think it is incredibly cumbersome; however, despite my view on that, I said we would find a way of working within it. I was willing to compromise and say that we would try to work that out so that we could live with it. The third point is the GST, the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question. Mr E.S. Ripper : My point is about the benefits to WA patients and the underlying analysis — Mr C.J. BARNETT : I understand the question. The Leader of the Opposition is a process person; he does not think for himself. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am actually looking for your underlying analysis. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. Barnett : It is true, all he talks about is process. Mr R.H. Cook : What’s your analysis? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is a matter of principle, my friend. It is not a matter of analysis. The GST was set up under the Howard government just over 10 years ago. Mr E.S. Ripper : You would sacrifice WA patients for your principles? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It was set up as the state revenue base into the future, a large form of revenue over which the state would have exclusive use and would guarantee state services across a range of areas. It was set in stone; it was never to be varied unless every state agreed. What have we got? Just 10 years later, we have a Prime Minister and a group of Premiers sitting around a table discussing tearing up the GST arrangement. As I pointed out to the Prime Minister and my Premier colleagues yesterday, “You may think you’re setting in stone a new health agreement long term into the future, but I can guarantee that, within 10 years, there will be another Prime Minister and another group of Premiers sitting around the table tearing it up.” We will not as a government give up Western Australia’s rightful share to the GST. Bear in mind that Western Australia has already been done over on this. The Labor commonwealth government—the Labor friends in Canberra of members opposite—gives us 68c in the dollar. What do they give themselves? They give themselves 95c in the dollar in New South Wales, 93c in Victoria and 91c in Queensland. All we get is 68c in the dollar. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s crass politics. You know that; you know how the system works. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question, which I think everyone in this place is interested in, as is everyone outside this place. I am having a little bit of a problem hearing the Premier’s answer and I formally call the member for Kwinana and the member for Mandurah for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : If one-third of the total GST pool is taken, we will lose approximately 60 per cent of our remaining GST over which we would have no control at all. I said to the Prime Minister, and publicly in the lead-up to COAG, that if WA goes along with this system and we can agree because there are benefits—the member is right there are significant benefits—we will be willing to pay an equivalent amount of dollars out of our health budget, or consolidated revenue, into the pool. As I said to the Prime Minister at the beginning of yesterday’s discussion, “Prime Minister, if you accept that point, you will have a deal today; you will have everything you sought and you can walk out here with the deal.” It was the Prime Minister’s choice to not accept that offer. That is where we are at. To answer the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Good. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes, good! “Where is the analysis?” We do not need an analysis on matters of principle. Mr E.S. Ripper : You must have Treasury analysis; you must have it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This is a matter of the federation and of the ability of Western Australians to govern themselves. We do not have an analysis; we do not seek an analysis because this is a matter of principle for which the Liberal–National government stands. I infer from the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that he is willing to throw in the GST to Canberra; I am not.
Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you give us the numbers? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Just calm down—please. Mr E.S. Ripper : I’m worried you won’t answer the question. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am happy to answer your question, but I will not respond to interruptions. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : For goodness sake! Lift the game; come on! On a lot of the real health issues there was good discussion and I stated that I agreed and I appreciated that the commonwealth put offers of real money and a real commitment on the table. On the structure, which I hope members realise is a big issue, the commonwealth’s proposal includes, at a national level, the national health and hospital network fund, the independent hospital pricing authority, the national performance authority and the Australian commission on safety and quality in health care. Four or five new federal bodies will be established. It is meant to be simple. There will also be the local health networks. If someone has a complaint about health care, what will they do? They will go to their local health network, and if they are unhappy, they may get a satisfactory answer but more than likely they will be told, “You couldn’t have that procedure because Canberra is not giving us the money.” If that does not satisfy them, it will be because, “The state hasn’t put in the capital equipment and won’t allow us to do so because they have the service agreement with us.” There will not be a single “the-buck-stops-here” system. There will be three levels: a national, state and local level—that is, three levels of decision making and three levels of administration. That will be three levels of confusion. I do not think that is well designed. I think, at a minimum, COAG should have discussed the structure of what was proposed. I happen to think it is incredibly cumbersome; however, despite my view on that, I said we would find a way of working within it. I was willing to compromise and say that we would try to work that out so that we could live with it. The third point is the GST, the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question. Mr E.S. Ripper : My point is about the benefits to WA patients and the underlying analysis — Mr C.J. BARNETT : I understand the question. The Leader of the Opposition is a process person; he does not think for himself. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am actually looking for your underlying analysis. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. Barnett : It is true, all he talks about is process. Mr R.H. Cook : What’s your analysis? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is a matter of principle, my friend. It is not a matter of analysis. The GST was set up under the Howard government just over 10 years ago. Mr E.S. Ripper : You would sacrifice WA patients for your principles? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It was set up as the state revenue base into the future, a large form of revenue over which the state would have exclusive use and would guarantee state services across a range of areas. It was set in stone; it was never to be varied unless every state agreed. What have we got? Just 10 years later, we have a Prime Minister and a group of Premiers sitting around a table discussing tearing up the GST arrangement. As I pointed out to the Prime Minister and my Premier colleagues yesterday, “You may think you’re setting in stone a new health agreement long term into the future, but I can guarantee that, within 10 years, there will be another Prime Minister and another group of Premiers sitting around the table tearing it up.” We will not as a government give up Western Australia’s rightful share to the GST. Bear in mind that Western Australia has already been done over on this. The Labor commonwealth government—the Labor friends in Canberra of members opposite—gives us 68c in the dollar. What do they give themselves? They give themselves 95c in the dollar in New South Wales, 93c in Victoria and 91c in Queensland. All we get is 68c in the dollar. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s crass politics. You know that; you know how the system works. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question, which I think everyone in this place is interested in, as is everyone outside this place. I am having a little bit of a problem hearing the Premier’s answer and I formally call the member for Kwinana and the member for Mandurah for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : If one-third of the total GST pool is taken, we will lose approximately 60 per cent of our remaining GST over which we would have no control at all. I said to the Prime Minister, and publicly in the lead-up to COAG, that if WA goes along with this system and we can agree because there are benefits—the member is right there are significant benefits—we will be willing to pay an equivalent amount of dollars out of our health budget, or consolidated revenue, into the pool. As I said to the Prime Minister at the beginning of yesterday’s discussion, “Prime Minister, if you accept that point, you will have a deal today; you will have everything you sought and you can walk out here with the deal.” It was the Prime Minister’s choice to not accept that offer. That is where we are at. To answer the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Good. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes, good! “Where is the analysis?” We do not need an analysis on matters of principle. Mr E.S. Ripper : You must have Treasury analysis; you must have it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This is a matter of the federation and of the ability of Western Australians to govern themselves. We do not have an analysis; we do not seek an analysis because this is a matter of principle for which the Liberal–National government stands. I infer from the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that he is willing to throw in the GST to Canberra; I am not.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Just calm down—please. Mr E.S. Ripper : I’m worried you won’t answer the question. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am happy to answer your question, but I will not respond to interruptions. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : For goodness sake! Lift the game; come on! On a lot of the real health issues there was good discussion and I stated that I agreed and I appreciated that the commonwealth put offers of real money and a real commitment on the table. On the structure, which I hope members realise is a big issue, the commonwealth’s proposal includes, at a national level, the national health and hospital network fund, the independent hospital pricing authority, the national performance authority and the Australian commission on safety and quality in health care. Four or five new federal bodies will be established. It is meant to be simple. There will also be the local health networks. If someone has a complaint about health care, what will they do? They will go to their local health network, and if they are unhappy, they may get a satisfactory answer but more than likely they will be told, “You couldn’t have that procedure because Canberra is not giving us the money.” If that does not satisfy them, it will be because, “The state hasn’t put in the capital equipment and won’t allow us to do so because they have the service agreement with us.” There will not be a single “the-buck-stops-here” system. There will be three levels: a national, state and local level—that is, three levels of decision making and three levels of administration. That will be three levels of confusion. I do not think that is well designed. I think, at a minimum, COAG should have discussed the structure of what was proposed. I happen to think it is incredibly cumbersome; however, despite my view on that, I said we would find a way of working within it. I was willing to compromise and say that we would try to work that out so that we could live with it. The third point is the GST, the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question. Mr E.S. Ripper : My point is about the benefits to WA patients and the underlying analysis — Mr C.J. BARNETT : I understand the question. The Leader of the Opposition is a process person; he does not think for himself. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am actually looking for your underlying analysis. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. Barnett : It is true, all he talks about is process. Mr R.H. Cook : What’s your analysis? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is a matter of principle, my friend. It is not a matter of analysis. The GST was set up under the Howard government just over 10 years ago. Mr E.S. Ripper : You would sacrifice WA patients for your principles? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It was set up as the state revenue base into the future, a large form of revenue over which the state would have exclusive use and would guarantee state services across a range of areas. It was set in stone; it was never to be varied unless every state agreed. What have we got? Just 10 years later, we have a Prime Minister and a group of Premiers sitting around a table discussing tearing up the GST arrangement. As I pointed out to the Prime Minister and my Premier colleagues yesterday, “You may think you’re setting in stone a new health agreement long term into the future, but I can guarantee that, within 10 years, there will be another Prime Minister and another group of Premiers sitting around the table tearing it up.” We will not as a government give up Western Australia’s rightful share to the GST. Bear in mind that Western Australia has already been done over on this. The Labor commonwealth government—the Labor friends in Canberra of members opposite—gives us 68c in the dollar. What do they give themselves? They give themselves 95c in the dollar in New South Wales, 93c in Victoria and 91c in Queensland. All we get is 68c in the dollar. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s crass politics. You know that; you know how the system works. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question, which I think everyone in this place is interested in, as is everyone outside this place. I am having a little bit of a problem hearing the Premier’s answer and I formally call the member for Kwinana and the member for Mandurah for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : If one-third of the total GST pool is taken, we will lose approximately 60 per cent of our remaining GST over which we would have no control at all. I said to the Prime Minister, and publicly in the lead-up to COAG, that if WA goes along with this system and we can agree because there are benefits—the member is right there are significant benefits—we will be willing to pay an equivalent amount of dollars out of our health budget, or consolidated revenue, into the pool. As I said to the Prime Minister at the beginning of yesterday’s discussion, “Prime Minister, if you accept that point, you will have a deal today; you will have everything you sought and you can walk out here with the deal.” It was the Prime Minister’s choice to not accept that offer. That is where we are at. To answer the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Good. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes, good! “Where is the analysis?” We do not need an analysis on matters of principle. Mr E.S. Ripper : You must have Treasury analysis; you must have it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This is a matter of the federation and of the ability of Western Australians to govern themselves. We do not have an analysis; we do not seek an analysis because this is a matter of principle for which the Liberal–National government stands. I infer from the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that he is willing to throw in the GST to Canberra; I am not.
Mr E.S. Ripper : I’m worried you won’t answer the question. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am happy to answer your question, but I will not respond to interruptions. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : For goodness sake! Lift the game; come on! On a lot of the real health issues there was good discussion and I stated that I agreed and I appreciated that the commonwealth put offers of real money and a real commitment on the table. On the structure, which I hope members realise is a big issue, the commonwealth’s proposal includes, at a national level, the national health and hospital network fund, the independent hospital pricing authority, the national performance authority and the Australian commission on safety and quality in health care. Four or five new federal bodies will be established. It is meant to be simple. There will also be the local health networks. If someone has a complaint about health care, what will they do? They will go to their local health network, and if they are unhappy, they may get a satisfactory answer but more than likely they will be told, “You couldn’t have that procedure because Canberra is not giving us the money.” If that does not satisfy them, it will be because, “The state hasn’t put in the capital equipment and won’t allow us to do so because they have the service agreement with us.” There will not be a single “the-buck-stops-here” system. There will be three levels: a national, state and local level—that is, three levels of decision making and three levels of administration. That will be three levels of confusion. I do not think that is well designed. I think, at a minimum, COAG should have discussed the structure of what was proposed. I happen to think it is incredibly cumbersome; however, despite my view on that, I said we would find a way of working within it. I was willing to compromise and say that we would try to work that out so that we could live with it. The third point is the GST, the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question. Mr E.S. Ripper : My point is about the benefits to WA patients and the underlying analysis — Mr C.J. BARNETT : I understand the question. The Leader of the Opposition is a process person; he does not think for himself. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am actually looking for your underlying analysis. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. Barnett : It is true, all he talks about is process. Mr R.H. Cook : What’s your analysis? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is a matter of principle, my friend. It is not a matter of analysis. The GST was set up under the Howard government just over 10 years ago. Mr E.S. Ripper : You would sacrifice WA patients for your principles? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It was set up as the state revenue base into the future, a large form of revenue over which the state would have exclusive use and would guarantee state services across a range of areas. It was set in stone; it was never to be varied unless every state agreed. What have we got? Just 10 years later, we have a Prime Minister and a group of Premiers sitting around a table discussing tearing up the GST arrangement. As I pointed out to the Prime Minister and my Premier colleagues yesterday, “You may think you’re setting in stone a new health agreement long term into the future, but I can guarantee that, within 10 years, there will be another Prime Minister and another group of Premiers sitting around the table tearing it up.” We will not as a government give up Western Australia’s rightful share to the GST. Bear in mind that Western Australia has already been done over on this. The Labor commonwealth government—the Labor friends in Canberra of members opposite—gives us 68c in the dollar. What do they give themselves? They give themselves 95c in the dollar in New South Wales, 93c in Victoria and 91c in Queensland. All we get is 68c in the dollar. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s crass politics. You know that; you know how the system works. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question, which I think everyone in this place is interested in, as is everyone outside this place. I am having a little bit of a problem hearing the Premier’s answer and I formally call the member for Kwinana and the member for Mandurah for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : If one-third of the total GST pool is taken, we will lose approximately 60 per cent of our remaining GST over which we would have no control at all. I said to the Prime Minister, and publicly in the lead-up to COAG, that if WA goes along with this system and we can agree because there are benefits—the member is right there are significant benefits—we will be willing to pay an equivalent amount of dollars out of our health budget, or consolidated revenue, into the pool. As I said to the Prime Minister at the beginning of yesterday’s discussion, “Prime Minister, if you accept that point, you will have a deal today; you will have everything you sought and you can walk out here with the deal.” It was the Prime Minister’s choice to not accept that offer. That is where we are at. To answer the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Good. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes, good! “Where is the analysis?” We do not need an analysis on matters of principle. Mr E.S. Ripper : You must have Treasury analysis; you must have it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This is a matter of the federation and of the ability of Western Australians to govern themselves. We do not have an analysis; we do not seek an analysis because this is a matter of principle for which the Liberal–National government stands. I infer from the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that he is willing to throw in the GST to Canberra; I am not.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am happy to answer your question, but I will not respond to interruptions. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : For goodness sake! Lift the game; come on! On a lot of the real health issues there was good discussion and I stated that I agreed and I appreciated that the commonwealth put offers of real money and a real commitment on the table. On the structure, which I hope members realise is a big issue, the commonwealth’s proposal includes, at a national level, the national health and hospital network fund, the independent hospital pricing authority, the national performance authority and the Australian commission on safety and quality in health care. Four or five new federal bodies will be established. It is meant to be simple. There will also be the local health networks. If someone has a complaint about health care, what will they do? They will go to their local health network, and if they are unhappy, they may get a satisfactory answer but more than likely they will be told, “You couldn’t have that procedure because Canberra is not giving us the money.” If that does not satisfy them, it will be because, “The state hasn’t put in the capital equipment and won’t allow us to do so because they have the service agreement with us.” There will not be a single “the-buck-stops-here” system. There will be three levels: a national, state and local level—that is, three levels of decision making and three levels of administration. That will be three levels of confusion. I do not think that is well designed. I think, at a minimum, COAG should have discussed the structure of what was proposed. I happen to think it is incredibly cumbersome; however, despite my view on that, I said we would find a way of working within it. I was willing to compromise and say that we would try to work that out so that we could live with it. The third point is the GST, the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question. Mr E.S. Ripper : My point is about the benefits to WA patients and the underlying analysis — Mr C.J. BARNETT : I understand the question. The Leader of the Opposition is a process person; he does not think for himself. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am actually looking for your underlying analysis. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. Barnett : It is true, all he talks about is process. Mr R.H. Cook : What’s your analysis? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is a matter of principle, my friend. It is not a matter of analysis. The GST was set up under the Howard government just over 10 years ago. Mr E.S. Ripper : You would sacrifice WA patients for your principles? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It was set up as the state revenue base into the future, a large form of revenue over which the state would have exclusive use and would guarantee state services across a range of areas. It was set in stone; it was never to be varied unless every state agreed. What have we got? Just 10 years later, we have a Prime Minister and a group of Premiers sitting around a table discussing tearing up the GST arrangement. As I pointed out to the Prime Minister and my Premier colleagues yesterday, “You may think you’re setting in stone a new health agreement long term into the future, but I can guarantee that, within 10 years, there will be another Prime Minister and another group of Premiers sitting around the table tearing it up.” We will not as a government give up Western Australia’s rightful share to the GST. Bear in mind that Western Australia has already been done over on this. The Labor commonwealth government—the Labor friends in Canberra of members opposite—gives us 68c in the dollar. What do they give themselves? They give themselves 95c in the dollar in New South Wales, 93c in Victoria and 91c in Queensland. All we get is 68c in the dollar. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s crass politics. You know that; you know how the system works. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question, which I think everyone in this place is interested in, as is everyone outside this place. I am having a little bit of a problem hearing the Premier’s answer and I formally call the member for Kwinana and the member for Mandurah for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : If one-third of the total GST pool is taken, we will lose approximately 60 per cent of our remaining GST over which we would have no control at all. I said to the Prime Minister, and publicly in the lead-up to COAG, that if WA goes along with this system and we can agree because there are benefits—the member is right there are significant benefits—we will be willing to pay an equivalent amount of dollars out of our health budget, or consolidated revenue, into the pool. As I said to the Prime Minister at the beginning of yesterday’s discussion, “Prime Minister, if you accept that point, you will have a deal today; you will have everything you sought and you can walk out here with the deal.” It was the Prime Minister’s choice to not accept that offer. That is where we are at. To answer the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Good. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes, good! “Where is the analysis?” We do not need an analysis on matters of principle. Mr E.S. Ripper : You must have Treasury analysis; you must have it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This is a matter of the federation and of the ability of Western Australians to govern themselves. We do not have an analysis; we do not seek an analysis because this is a matter of principle for which the Liberal–National government stands. I infer from the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that he is willing to throw in the GST to Canberra; I am not.
Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : For goodness sake! Lift the game; come on! On a lot of the real health issues there was good discussion and I stated that I agreed and I appreciated that the commonwealth put offers of real money and a real commitment on the table. On the structure, which I hope members realise is a big issue, the commonwealth’s proposal includes, at a national level, the national health and hospital network fund, the independent hospital pricing authority, the national performance authority and the Australian commission on safety and quality in health care. Four or five new federal bodies will be established. It is meant to be simple. There will also be the local health networks. If someone has a complaint about health care, what will they do? They will go to their local health network, and if they are unhappy, they may get a satisfactory answer but more than likely they will be told, “You couldn’t have that procedure because Canberra is not giving us the money.” If that does not satisfy them, it will be because, “The state hasn’t put in the capital equipment and won’t allow us to do so because they have the service agreement with us.” There will not be a single “the-buck-stops-here” system. There will be three levels: a national, state and local level—that is, three levels of decision making and three levels of administration. That will be three levels of confusion. I do not think that is well designed. I think, at a minimum, COAG should have discussed the structure of what was proposed. I happen to think it is incredibly cumbersome; however, despite my view on that, I said we would find a way of working within it. I was willing to compromise and say that we would try to work that out so that we could live with it. The third point is the GST, the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question. Mr E.S. Ripper : My point is about the benefits to WA patients and the underlying analysis — Mr C.J. BARNETT : I understand the question. The Leader of the Opposition is a process person; he does not think for himself. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am actually looking for your underlying analysis. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. Barnett : It is true, all he talks about is process. Mr R.H. Cook : What’s your analysis? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is a matter of principle, my friend. It is not a matter of analysis. The GST was set up under the Howard government just over 10 years ago. Mr E.S. Ripper : You would sacrifice WA patients for your principles? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It was set up as the state revenue base into the future, a large form of revenue over which the state would have exclusive use and would guarantee state services across a range of areas. It was set in stone; it was never to be varied unless every state agreed. What have we got? Just 10 years later, we have a Prime Minister and a group of Premiers sitting around a table discussing tearing up the GST arrangement. As I pointed out to the Prime Minister and my Premier colleagues yesterday, “You may think you’re setting in stone a new health agreement long term into the future, but I can guarantee that, within 10 years, there will be another Prime Minister and another group of Premiers sitting around the table tearing it up.” We will not as a government give up Western Australia’s rightful share to the GST. Bear in mind that Western Australia has already been done over on this. The Labor commonwealth government—the Labor friends in Canberra of members opposite—gives us 68c in the dollar. What do they give themselves? They give themselves 95c in the dollar in New South Wales, 93c in Victoria and 91c in Queensland. All we get is 68c in the dollar. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s crass politics. You know that; you know how the system works. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question, which I think everyone in this place is interested in, as is everyone outside this place. I am having a little bit of a problem hearing the Premier’s answer and I formally call the member for Kwinana and the member for Mandurah for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : If one-third of the total GST pool is taken, we will lose approximately 60 per cent of our remaining GST over which we would have no control at all. I said to the Prime Minister, and publicly in the lead-up to COAG, that if WA goes along with this system and we can agree because there are benefits—the member is right there are significant benefits—we will be willing to pay an equivalent amount of dollars out of our health budget, or consolidated revenue, into the pool. As I said to the Prime Minister at the beginning of yesterday’s discussion, “Prime Minister, if you accept that point, you will have a deal today; you will have everything you sought and you can walk out here with the deal.” It was the Prime Minister’s choice to not accept that offer. That is where we are at. To answer the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Good. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes, good! “Where is the analysis?” We do not need an analysis on matters of principle. Mr E.S. Ripper : You must have Treasury analysis; you must have it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This is a matter of the federation and of the ability of Western Australians to govern themselves. We do not have an analysis; we do not seek an analysis because this is a matter of principle for which the Liberal–National government stands. I infer from the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that he is willing to throw in the GST to Canberra; I am not.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : For goodness sake! Lift the game; come on! On a lot of the real health issues there was good discussion and I stated that I agreed and I appreciated that the commonwealth put offers of real money and a real commitment on the table. On the structure, which I hope members realise is a big issue, the commonwealth’s proposal includes, at a national level, the national health and hospital network fund, the independent hospital pricing authority, the national performance authority and the Australian commission on safety and quality in health care. Four or five new federal bodies will be established. It is meant to be simple. There will also be the local health networks. If someone has a complaint about health care, what will they do? They will go to their local health network, and if they are unhappy, they may get a satisfactory answer but more than likely they will be told, “You couldn’t have that procedure because Canberra is not giving us the money.” If that does not satisfy them, it will be because, “The state hasn’t put in the capital equipment and won’t allow us to do so because they have the service agreement with us.” There will not be a single “the-buck-stops-here” system. There will be three levels: a national, state and local level—that is, three levels of decision making and three levels of administration. That will be three levels of confusion. I do not think that is well designed. I think, at a minimum, COAG should have discussed the structure of what was proposed. I happen to think it is incredibly cumbersome; however, despite my view on that, I said we would find a way of working within it. I was willing to compromise and say that we would try to work that out so that we could live with it. The third point is the GST, the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question. Mr E.S. Ripper : My point is about the benefits to WA patients and the underlying analysis — Mr C.J. BARNETT : I understand the question. The Leader of the Opposition is a process person; he does not think for himself. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am actually looking for your underlying analysis. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. Barnett : It is true, all he talks about is process. Mr R.H. Cook : What’s your analysis? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is a matter of principle, my friend. It is not a matter of analysis. The GST was set up under the Howard government just over 10 years ago. Mr E.S. Ripper : You would sacrifice WA patients for your principles? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It was set up as the state revenue base into the future, a large form of revenue over which the state would have exclusive use and would guarantee state services across a range of areas. It was set in stone; it was never to be varied unless every state agreed. What have we got? Just 10 years later, we have a Prime Minister and a group of Premiers sitting around a table discussing tearing up the GST arrangement. As I pointed out to the Prime Minister and my Premier colleagues yesterday, “You may think you’re setting in stone a new health agreement long term into the future, but I can guarantee that, within 10 years, there will be another Prime Minister and another group of Premiers sitting around the table tearing it up.” We will not as a government give up Western Australia’s rightful share to the GST. Bear in mind that Western Australia has already been done over on this. The Labor commonwealth government—the Labor friends in Canberra of members opposite—gives us 68c in the dollar. What do they give themselves? They give themselves 95c in the dollar in New South Wales, 93c in Victoria and 91c in Queensland. All we get is 68c in the dollar. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s crass politics. You know that; you know how the system works. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question, which I think everyone in this place is interested in, as is everyone outside this place. I am having a little bit of a problem hearing the Premier’s answer and I formally call the member for Kwinana and the member for Mandurah for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : If one-third of the total GST pool is taken, we will lose approximately 60 per cent of our remaining GST over which we would have no control at all. I said to the Prime Minister, and publicly in the lead-up to COAG, that if WA goes along with this system and we can agree because there are benefits—the member is right there are significant benefits—we will be willing to pay an equivalent amount of dollars out of our health budget, or consolidated revenue, into the pool. As I said to the Prime Minister at the beginning of yesterday’s discussion, “Prime Minister, if you accept that point, you will have a deal today; you will have everything you sought and you can walk out here with the deal.” It was the Prime Minister’s choice to not accept that offer. That is where we are at. To answer the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Good. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes, good! “Where is the analysis?” We do not need an analysis on matters of principle. Mr E.S. Ripper : You must have Treasury analysis; you must have it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This is a matter of the federation and of the ability of Western Australians to govern themselves. We do not have an analysis; we do not seek an analysis because this is a matter of principle for which the Liberal–National government stands. I infer from the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that he is willing to throw in the GST to Canberra; I am not.
On a lot of the real health issues there was good discussion and I stated that I agreed and I appreciated that the commonwealth put offers of real money and a real commitment on the table. On the structure, which I hope members realise is a big issue, the commonwealth’s proposal includes, at a national level, the national health and hospital network fund, the independent hospital pricing authority, the national performance authority and the Australian commission on safety and quality in health care. Four or five new federal bodies will be established. It is meant to be simple. There will also be the local health networks. If someone has a complaint about health care, what will they do? They will go to their local health network, and if they are unhappy, they may get a satisfactory answer but more than likely they will be told, “You couldn’t have that procedure because Canberra is not giving us the money.” If that does not satisfy them, it will be because, “The state hasn’t put in the capital equipment and won’t allow us to do so because they have the service agreement with us.” There will not be a single “the-buck-stops-here” system. There will be three levels: a national, state and local level—that is, three levels of decision making and three levels of administration. That will be three levels of confusion. I do not think that is well designed. I think, at a minimum, COAG should have discussed the structure of what was proposed. I happen to think it is incredibly cumbersome; however, despite my view on that, I said we would find a way of working within it. I was willing to compromise and say that we would try to work that out so that we could live with it. The third point is the GST, the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question. Mr E.S. Ripper : My point is about the benefits to WA patients and the underlying analysis — Mr C.J. BARNETT : I understand the question. The Leader of the Opposition is a process person; he does not think for himself. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am actually looking for your underlying analysis. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. Barnett : It is true, all he talks about is process. Mr R.H. Cook : What’s your analysis? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is a matter of principle, my friend. It is not a matter of analysis. The GST was set up under the Howard government just over 10 years ago. Mr E.S. Ripper : You would sacrifice WA patients for your principles? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It was set up as the state revenue base into the future, a large form of revenue over which the state would have exclusive use and would guarantee state services across a range of areas. It was set in stone; it was never to be varied unless every state agreed. What have we got? Just 10 years later, we have a Prime Minister and a group of Premiers sitting around a table discussing tearing up the GST arrangement. As I pointed out to the Prime Minister and my Premier colleagues yesterday, “You may think you’re setting in stone a new health agreement long term into the future, but I can guarantee that, within 10 years, there will be another Prime Minister and another group of Premiers sitting around the table tearing it up.” We will not as a government give up Western Australia’s rightful share to the GST. Bear in mind that Western Australia has already been done over on this. The Labor commonwealth government—the Labor friends in Canberra of members opposite—gives us 68c in the dollar. What do they give themselves? They give themselves 95c in the dollar in New South Wales, 93c in Victoria and 91c in Queensland. All we get is 68c in the dollar. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s crass politics. You know that; you know how the system works. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question, which I think everyone in this place is interested in, as is everyone outside this place. I am having a little bit of a problem hearing the Premier’s answer and I formally call the member for Kwinana and the member for Mandurah for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : If one-third of the total GST pool is taken, we will lose approximately 60 per cent of our remaining GST over which we would have no control at all. I said to the Prime Minister, and publicly in the lead-up to COAG, that if WA goes along with this system and we can agree because there are benefits—the member is right there are significant benefits—we will be willing to pay an equivalent amount of dollars out of our health budget, or consolidated revenue, into the pool. As I said to the Prime Minister at the beginning of yesterday’s discussion, “Prime Minister, if you accept that point, you will have a deal today; you will have everything you sought and you can walk out here with the deal.” It was the Prime Minister’s choice to not accept that offer. That is where we are at. To answer the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Good. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes, good! “Where is the analysis?” We do not need an analysis on matters of principle. Mr E.S. Ripper : You must have Treasury analysis; you must have it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This is a matter of the federation and of the ability of Western Australians to govern themselves. We do not have an analysis; we do not seek an analysis because this is a matter of principle for which the Liberal–National government stands. I infer from the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that he is willing to throw in the GST to Canberra; I am not.
The third point is the GST, the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question. Mr E.S. Ripper : My point is about the benefits to WA patients and the underlying analysis — Mr C.J. BARNETT : I understand the question. The Leader of the Opposition is a process person; he does not think for himself. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am actually looking for your underlying analysis. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. Barnett : It is true, all he talks about is process. Mr R.H. Cook : What’s your analysis? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is a matter of principle, my friend. It is not a matter of analysis. The GST was set up under the Howard government just over 10 years ago. Mr E.S. Ripper : You would sacrifice WA patients for your principles? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It was set up as the state revenue base into the future, a large form of revenue over which the state would have exclusive use and would guarantee state services across a range of areas. It was set in stone; it was never to be varied unless every state agreed. What have we got? Just 10 years later, we have a Prime Minister and a group of Premiers sitting around a table discussing tearing up the GST arrangement. As I pointed out to the Prime Minister and my Premier colleagues yesterday, “You may think you’re setting in stone a new health agreement long term into the future, but I can guarantee that, within 10 years, there will be another Prime Minister and another group of Premiers sitting around the table tearing it up.” We will not as a government give up Western Australia’s rightful share to the GST. Bear in mind that Western Australia has already been done over on this. The Labor commonwealth government—the Labor friends in Canberra of members opposite—gives us 68c in the dollar. What do they give themselves? They give themselves 95c in the dollar in New South Wales, 93c in Victoria and 91c in Queensland. All we get is 68c in the dollar. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s crass politics. You know that; you know how the system works. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question, which I think everyone in this place is interested in, as is everyone outside this place. I am having a little bit of a problem hearing the Premier’s answer and I formally call the member for Kwinana and the member for Mandurah for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : If one-third of the total GST pool is taken, we will lose approximately 60 per cent of our remaining GST over which we would have no control at all. I said to the Prime Minister, and publicly in the lead-up to COAG, that if WA goes along with this system and we can agree because there are benefits—the member is right there are significant benefits—we will be willing to pay an equivalent amount of dollars out of our health budget, or consolidated revenue, into the pool. As I said to the Prime Minister at the beginning of yesterday’s discussion, “Prime Minister, if you accept that point, you will have a deal today; you will have everything you sought and you can walk out here with the deal.” It was the Prime Minister’s choice to not accept that offer. That is where we are at. To answer the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Good. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes, good! “Where is the analysis?” We do not need an analysis on matters of principle. Mr E.S. Ripper : You must have Treasury analysis; you must have it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This is a matter of the federation and of the ability of Western Australians to govern themselves. We do not have an analysis; we do not seek an analysis because this is a matter of principle for which the Liberal–National government stands. I infer from the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that he is willing to throw in the GST to Canberra; I am not.
Mr E.S. Ripper : My point is about the benefits to WA patients and the underlying analysis — Mr C.J. BARNETT : I understand the question. The Leader of the Opposition is a process person; he does not think for himself. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am actually looking for your underlying analysis. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. Barnett : It is true, all he talks about is process. Mr R.H. Cook : What’s your analysis? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is a matter of principle, my friend. It is not a matter of analysis. The GST was set up under the Howard government just over 10 years ago. Mr E.S. Ripper : You would sacrifice WA patients for your principles? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It was set up as the state revenue base into the future, a large form of revenue over which the state would have exclusive use and would guarantee state services across a range of areas. It was set in stone; it was never to be varied unless every state agreed. What have we got? Just 10 years later, we have a Prime Minister and a group of Premiers sitting around a table discussing tearing up the GST arrangement. As I pointed out to the Prime Minister and my Premier colleagues yesterday, “You may think you’re setting in stone a new health agreement long term into the future, but I can guarantee that, within 10 years, there will be another Prime Minister and another group of Premiers sitting around the table tearing it up.” We will not as a government give up Western Australia’s rightful share to the GST. Bear in mind that Western Australia has already been done over on this. The Labor commonwealth government—the Labor friends in Canberra of members opposite—gives us 68c in the dollar. What do they give themselves? They give themselves 95c in the dollar in New South Wales, 93c in Victoria and 91c in Queensland. All we get is 68c in the dollar. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s crass politics. You know that; you know how the system works. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question, which I think everyone in this place is interested in, as is everyone outside this place. I am having a little bit of a problem hearing the Premier’s answer and I formally call the member for Kwinana and the member for Mandurah for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : If one-third of the total GST pool is taken, we will lose approximately 60 per cent of our remaining GST over which we would have no control at all. I said to the Prime Minister, and publicly in the lead-up to COAG, that if WA goes along with this system and we can agree because there are benefits—the member is right there are significant benefits—we will be willing to pay an equivalent amount of dollars out of our health budget, or consolidated revenue, into the pool. As I said to the Prime Minister at the beginning of yesterday’s discussion, “Prime Minister, if you accept that point, you will have a deal today; you will have everything you sought and you can walk out here with the deal.” It was the Prime Minister’s choice to not accept that offer. That is where we are at. To answer the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Good. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes, good! “Where is the analysis?” We do not need an analysis on matters of principle. Mr E.S. Ripper : You must have Treasury analysis; you must have it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This is a matter of the federation and of the ability of Western Australians to govern themselves. We do not have an analysis; we do not seek an analysis because this is a matter of principle for which the Liberal–National government stands. I infer from the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that he is willing to throw in the GST to Canberra; I am not.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I understand the question. The Leader of the Opposition is a process person; he does not think for himself. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am actually looking for your underlying analysis. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. Barnett : It is true, all he talks about is process. Mr R.H. Cook : What’s your analysis? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is a matter of principle, my friend. It is not a matter of analysis. The GST was set up under the Howard government just over 10 years ago. Mr E.S. Ripper : You would sacrifice WA patients for your principles? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It was set up as the state revenue base into the future, a large form of revenue over which the state would have exclusive use and would guarantee state services across a range of areas. It was set in stone; it was never to be varied unless every state agreed. What have we got? Just 10 years later, we have a Prime Minister and a group of Premiers sitting around a table discussing tearing up the GST arrangement. As I pointed out to the Prime Minister and my Premier colleagues yesterday, “You may think you’re setting in stone a new health agreement long term into the future, but I can guarantee that, within 10 years, there will be another Prime Minister and another group of Premiers sitting around the table tearing it up.” We will not as a government give up Western Australia’s rightful share to the GST. Bear in mind that Western Australia has already been done over on this. The Labor commonwealth government—the Labor friends in Canberra of members opposite—gives us 68c in the dollar. What do they give themselves? They give themselves 95c in the dollar in New South Wales, 93c in Victoria and 91c in Queensland. All we get is 68c in the dollar. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s crass politics. You know that; you know how the system works. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question, which I think everyone in this place is interested in, as is everyone outside this place. I am having a little bit of a problem hearing the Premier’s answer and I formally call the member for Kwinana and the member for Mandurah for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : If one-third of the total GST pool is taken, we will lose approximately 60 per cent of our remaining GST over which we would have no control at all. I said to the Prime Minister, and publicly in the lead-up to COAG, that if WA goes along with this system and we can agree because there are benefits—the member is right there are significant benefits—we will be willing to pay an equivalent amount of dollars out of our health budget, or consolidated revenue, into the pool. As I said to the Prime Minister at the beginning of yesterday’s discussion, “Prime Minister, if you accept that point, you will have a deal today; you will have everything you sought and you can walk out here with the deal.” It was the Prime Minister’s choice to not accept that offer. That is where we are at. To answer the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Good. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes, good! “Where is the analysis?” We do not need an analysis on matters of principle. Mr E.S. Ripper : You must have Treasury analysis; you must have it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This is a matter of the federation and of the ability of Western Australians to govern themselves. We do not have an analysis; we do not seek an analysis because this is a matter of principle for which the Liberal–National government stands. I infer from the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that he is willing to throw in the GST to Canberra; I am not.
Mr E.S. Ripper : I am actually looking for your underlying analysis. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. Barnett : It is true, all he talks about is process. Mr R.H. Cook : What’s your analysis? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is a matter of principle, my friend. It is not a matter of analysis. The GST was set up under the Howard government just over 10 years ago. Mr E.S. Ripper : You would sacrifice WA patients for your principles? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It was set up as the state revenue base into the future, a large form of revenue over which the state would have exclusive use and would guarantee state services across a range of areas. It was set in stone; it was never to be varied unless every state agreed. What have we got? Just 10 years later, we have a Prime Minister and a group of Premiers sitting around a table discussing tearing up the GST arrangement. As I pointed out to the Prime Minister and my Premier colleagues yesterday, “You may think you’re setting in stone a new health agreement long term into the future, but I can guarantee that, within 10 years, there will be another Prime Minister and another group of Premiers sitting around the table tearing it up.” We will not as a government give up Western Australia’s rightful share to the GST. Bear in mind that Western Australia has already been done over on this. The Labor commonwealth government—the Labor friends in Canberra of members opposite—gives us 68c in the dollar. What do they give themselves? They give themselves 95c in the dollar in New South Wales, 93c in Victoria and 91c in Queensland. All we get is 68c in the dollar. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s crass politics. You know that; you know how the system works. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question, which I think everyone in this place is interested in, as is everyone outside this place. I am having a little bit of a problem hearing the Premier’s answer and I formally call the member for Kwinana and the member for Mandurah for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : If one-third of the total GST pool is taken, we will lose approximately 60 per cent of our remaining GST over which we would have no control at all. I said to the Prime Minister, and publicly in the lead-up to COAG, that if WA goes along with this system and we can agree because there are benefits—the member is right there are significant benefits—we will be willing to pay an equivalent amount of dollars out of our health budget, or consolidated revenue, into the pool. As I said to the Prime Minister at the beginning of yesterday’s discussion, “Prime Minister, if you accept that point, you will have a deal today; you will have everything you sought and you can walk out here with the deal.” It was the Prime Minister’s choice to not accept that offer. That is where we are at. To answer the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Good. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes, good! “Where is the analysis?” We do not need an analysis on matters of principle. Mr E.S. Ripper : You must have Treasury analysis; you must have it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This is a matter of the federation and of the ability of Western Australians to govern themselves. We do not have an analysis; we do not seek an analysis because this is a matter of principle for which the Liberal–National government stands. I infer from the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that he is willing to throw in the GST to Canberra; I am not.
Several members interjected. Mr C.J. Barnett : It is true, all he talks about is process. Mr R.H. Cook : What’s your analysis? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is a matter of principle, my friend. It is not a matter of analysis. The GST was set up under the Howard government just over 10 years ago. Mr E.S. Ripper : You would sacrifice WA patients for your principles? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It was set up as the state revenue base into the future, a large form of revenue over which the state would have exclusive use and would guarantee state services across a range of areas. It was set in stone; it was never to be varied unless every state agreed. What have we got? Just 10 years later, we have a Prime Minister and a group of Premiers sitting around a table discussing tearing up the GST arrangement. As I pointed out to the Prime Minister and my Premier colleagues yesterday, “You may think you’re setting in stone a new health agreement long term into the future, but I can guarantee that, within 10 years, there will be another Prime Minister and another group of Premiers sitting around the table tearing it up.” We will not as a government give up Western Australia’s rightful share to the GST. Bear in mind that Western Australia has already been done over on this. The Labor commonwealth government—the Labor friends in Canberra of members opposite—gives us 68c in the dollar. What do they give themselves? They give themselves 95c in the dollar in New South Wales, 93c in Victoria and 91c in Queensland. All we get is 68c in the dollar. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s crass politics. You know that; you know how the system works. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question, which I think everyone in this place is interested in, as is everyone outside this place. I am having a little bit of a problem hearing the Premier’s answer and I formally call the member for Kwinana and the member for Mandurah for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : If one-third of the total GST pool is taken, we will lose approximately 60 per cent of our remaining GST over which we would have no control at all. I said to the Prime Minister, and publicly in the lead-up to COAG, that if WA goes along with this system and we can agree because there are benefits—the member is right there are significant benefits—we will be willing to pay an equivalent amount of dollars out of our health budget, or consolidated revenue, into the pool. As I said to the Prime Minister at the beginning of yesterday’s discussion, “Prime Minister, if you accept that point, you will have a deal today; you will have everything you sought and you can walk out here with the deal.” It was the Prime Minister’s choice to not accept that offer. That is where we are at. To answer the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Good. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes, good! “Where is the analysis?” We do not need an analysis on matters of principle. Mr E.S. Ripper : You must have Treasury analysis; you must have it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This is a matter of the federation and of the ability of Western Australians to govern themselves. We do not have an analysis; we do not seek an analysis because this is a matter of principle for which the Liberal–National government stands. I infer from the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that he is willing to throw in the GST to Canberra; I am not.
Mr C.J. Barnett : It is true, all he talks about is process. Mr R.H. Cook : What’s your analysis? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is a matter of principle, my friend. It is not a matter of analysis. The GST was set up under the Howard government just over 10 years ago. Mr E.S. Ripper : You would sacrifice WA patients for your principles? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It was set up as the state revenue base into the future, a large form of revenue over which the state would have exclusive use and would guarantee state services across a range of areas. It was set in stone; it was never to be varied unless every state agreed. What have we got? Just 10 years later, we have a Prime Minister and a group of Premiers sitting around a table discussing tearing up the GST arrangement. As I pointed out to the Prime Minister and my Premier colleagues yesterday, “You may think you’re setting in stone a new health agreement long term into the future, but I can guarantee that, within 10 years, there will be another Prime Minister and another group of Premiers sitting around the table tearing it up.” We will not as a government give up Western Australia’s rightful share to the GST. Bear in mind that Western Australia has already been done over on this. The Labor commonwealth government—the Labor friends in Canberra of members opposite—gives us 68c in the dollar. What do they give themselves? They give themselves 95c in the dollar in New South Wales, 93c in Victoria and 91c in Queensland. All we get is 68c in the dollar. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s crass politics. You know that; you know how the system works. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question, which I think everyone in this place is interested in, as is everyone outside this place. I am having a little bit of a problem hearing the Premier’s answer and I formally call the member for Kwinana and the member for Mandurah for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : If one-third of the total GST pool is taken, we will lose approximately 60 per cent of our remaining GST over which we would have no control at all. I said to the Prime Minister, and publicly in the lead-up to COAG, that if WA goes along with this system and we can agree because there are benefits—the member is right there are significant benefits—we will be willing to pay an equivalent amount of dollars out of our health budget, or consolidated revenue, into the pool. As I said to the Prime Minister at the beginning of yesterday’s discussion, “Prime Minister, if you accept that point, you will have a deal today; you will have everything you sought and you can walk out here with the deal.” It was the Prime Minister’s choice to not accept that offer. That is where we are at. To answer the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Good. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes, good! “Where is the analysis?” We do not need an analysis on matters of principle. Mr E.S. Ripper : You must have Treasury analysis; you must have it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This is a matter of the federation and of the ability of Western Australians to govern themselves. We do not have an analysis; we do not seek an analysis because this is a matter of principle for which the Liberal–National government stands. I infer from the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that he is willing to throw in the GST to Canberra; I am not.
Mr R.H. Cook : What’s your analysis? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is a matter of principle, my friend. It is not a matter of analysis. The GST was set up under the Howard government just over 10 years ago. Mr E.S. Ripper : You would sacrifice WA patients for your principles? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It was set up as the state revenue base into the future, a large form of revenue over which the state would have exclusive use and would guarantee state services across a range of areas. It was set in stone; it was never to be varied unless every state agreed. What have we got? Just 10 years later, we have a Prime Minister and a group of Premiers sitting around a table discussing tearing up the GST arrangement. As I pointed out to the Prime Minister and my Premier colleagues yesterday, “You may think you’re setting in stone a new health agreement long term into the future, but I can guarantee that, within 10 years, there will be another Prime Minister and another group of Premiers sitting around the table tearing it up.” We will not as a government give up Western Australia’s rightful share to the GST. Bear in mind that Western Australia has already been done over on this. The Labor commonwealth government—the Labor friends in Canberra of members opposite—gives us 68c in the dollar. What do they give themselves? They give themselves 95c in the dollar in New South Wales, 93c in Victoria and 91c in Queensland. All we get is 68c in the dollar. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s crass politics. You know that; you know how the system works. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question, which I think everyone in this place is interested in, as is everyone outside this place. I am having a little bit of a problem hearing the Premier’s answer and I formally call the member for Kwinana and the member for Mandurah for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : If one-third of the total GST pool is taken, we will lose approximately 60 per cent of our remaining GST over which we would have no control at all. I said to the Prime Minister, and publicly in the lead-up to COAG, that if WA goes along with this system and we can agree because there are benefits—the member is right there are significant benefits—we will be willing to pay an equivalent amount of dollars out of our health budget, or consolidated revenue, into the pool. As I said to the Prime Minister at the beginning of yesterday’s discussion, “Prime Minister, if you accept that point, you will have a deal today; you will have everything you sought and you can walk out here with the deal.” It was the Prime Minister’s choice to not accept that offer. That is where we are at. To answer the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Good. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes, good! “Where is the analysis?” We do not need an analysis on matters of principle. Mr E.S. Ripper : You must have Treasury analysis; you must have it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This is a matter of the federation and of the ability of Western Australians to govern themselves. We do not have an analysis; we do not seek an analysis because this is a matter of principle for which the Liberal–National government stands. I infer from the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that he is willing to throw in the GST to Canberra; I am not.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is a matter of principle, my friend. It is not a matter of analysis. The GST was set up under the Howard government just over 10 years ago. Mr E.S. Ripper : You would sacrifice WA patients for your principles? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It was set up as the state revenue base into the future, a large form of revenue over which the state would have exclusive use and would guarantee state services across a range of areas. It was set in stone; it was never to be varied unless every state agreed. What have we got? Just 10 years later, we have a Prime Minister and a group of Premiers sitting around a table discussing tearing up the GST arrangement. As I pointed out to the Prime Minister and my Premier colleagues yesterday, “You may think you’re setting in stone a new health agreement long term into the future, but I can guarantee that, within 10 years, there will be another Prime Minister and another group of Premiers sitting around the table tearing it up.” We will not as a government give up Western Australia’s rightful share to the GST. Bear in mind that Western Australia has already been done over on this. The Labor commonwealth government—the Labor friends in Canberra of members opposite—gives us 68c in the dollar. What do they give themselves? They give themselves 95c in the dollar in New South Wales, 93c in Victoria and 91c in Queensland. All we get is 68c in the dollar. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s crass politics. You know that; you know how the system works. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question, which I think everyone in this place is interested in, as is everyone outside this place. I am having a little bit of a problem hearing the Premier’s answer and I formally call the member for Kwinana and the member for Mandurah for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : If one-third of the total GST pool is taken, we will lose approximately 60 per cent of our remaining GST over which we would have no control at all. I said to the Prime Minister, and publicly in the lead-up to COAG, that if WA goes along with this system and we can agree because there are benefits—the member is right there are significant benefits—we will be willing to pay an equivalent amount of dollars out of our health budget, or consolidated revenue, into the pool. As I said to the Prime Minister at the beginning of yesterday’s discussion, “Prime Minister, if you accept that point, you will have a deal today; you will have everything you sought and you can walk out here with the deal.” It was the Prime Minister’s choice to not accept that offer. That is where we are at. To answer the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Good. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes, good! “Where is the analysis?” We do not need an analysis on matters of principle. Mr E.S. Ripper : You must have Treasury analysis; you must have it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This is a matter of the federation and of the ability of Western Australians to govern themselves. We do not have an analysis; we do not seek an analysis because this is a matter of principle for which the Liberal–National government stands. I infer from the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that he is willing to throw in the GST to Canberra; I am not.
Mr E.S. Ripper : You would sacrifice WA patients for your principles? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It was set up as the state revenue base into the future, a large form of revenue over which the state would have exclusive use and would guarantee state services across a range of areas. It was set in stone; it was never to be varied unless every state agreed. What have we got? Just 10 years later, we have a Prime Minister and a group of Premiers sitting around a table discussing tearing up the GST arrangement. As I pointed out to the Prime Minister and my Premier colleagues yesterday, “You may think you’re setting in stone a new health agreement long term into the future, but I can guarantee that, within 10 years, there will be another Prime Minister and another group of Premiers sitting around the table tearing it up.” We will not as a government give up Western Australia’s rightful share to the GST. Bear in mind that Western Australia has already been done over on this. The Labor commonwealth government—the Labor friends in Canberra of members opposite—gives us 68c in the dollar. What do they give themselves? They give themselves 95c in the dollar in New South Wales, 93c in Victoria and 91c in Queensland. All we get is 68c in the dollar. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s crass politics. You know that; you know how the system works. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question, which I think everyone in this place is interested in, as is everyone outside this place. I am having a little bit of a problem hearing the Premier’s answer and I formally call the member for Kwinana and the member for Mandurah for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : If one-third of the total GST pool is taken, we will lose approximately 60 per cent of our remaining GST over which we would have no control at all. I said to the Prime Minister, and publicly in the lead-up to COAG, that if WA goes along with this system and we can agree because there are benefits—the member is right there are significant benefits—we will be willing to pay an equivalent amount of dollars out of our health budget, or consolidated revenue, into the pool. As I said to the Prime Minister at the beginning of yesterday’s discussion, “Prime Minister, if you accept that point, you will have a deal today; you will have everything you sought and you can walk out here with the deal.” It was the Prime Minister’s choice to not accept that offer. That is where we are at. To answer the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Good. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes, good! “Where is the analysis?” We do not need an analysis on matters of principle. Mr E.S. Ripper : You must have Treasury analysis; you must have it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This is a matter of the federation and of the ability of Western Australians to govern themselves. We do not have an analysis; we do not seek an analysis because this is a matter of principle for which the Liberal–National government stands. I infer from the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that he is willing to throw in the GST to Canberra; I am not.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : It was set up as the state revenue base into the future, a large form of revenue over which the state would have exclusive use and would guarantee state services across a range of areas. It was set in stone; it was never to be varied unless every state agreed. What have we got? Just 10 years later, we have a Prime Minister and a group of Premiers sitting around a table discussing tearing up the GST arrangement. As I pointed out to the Prime Minister and my Premier colleagues yesterday, “You may think you’re setting in stone a new health agreement long term into the future, but I can guarantee that, within 10 years, there will be another Prime Minister and another group of Premiers sitting around the table tearing it up.” We will not as a government give up Western Australia’s rightful share to the GST. Bear in mind that Western Australia has already been done over on this. The Labor commonwealth government—the Labor friends in Canberra of members opposite—gives us 68c in the dollar. What do they give themselves? They give themselves 95c in the dollar in New South Wales, 93c in Victoria and 91c in Queensland. All we get is 68c in the dollar. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s crass politics. You know that; you know how the system works. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question, which I think everyone in this place is interested in, as is everyone outside this place. I am having a little bit of a problem hearing the Premier’s answer and I formally call the member for Kwinana and the member for Mandurah for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : If one-third of the total GST pool is taken, we will lose approximately 60 per cent of our remaining GST over which we would have no control at all. I said to the Prime Minister, and publicly in the lead-up to COAG, that if WA goes along with this system and we can agree because there are benefits—the member is right there are significant benefits—we will be willing to pay an equivalent amount of dollars out of our health budget, or consolidated revenue, into the pool. As I said to the Prime Minister at the beginning of yesterday’s discussion, “Prime Minister, if you accept that point, you will have a deal today; you will have everything you sought and you can walk out here with the deal.” It was the Prime Minister’s choice to not accept that offer. That is where we are at. To answer the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Good. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes, good! “Where is the analysis?” We do not need an analysis on matters of principle. Mr E.S. Ripper : You must have Treasury analysis; you must have it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This is a matter of the federation and of the ability of Western Australians to govern themselves. We do not have an analysis; we do not seek an analysis because this is a matter of principle for which the Liberal–National government stands. I infer from the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that he is willing to throw in the GST to Canberra; I am not.
Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s crass politics. You know that; you know how the system works. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question, which I think everyone in this place is interested in, as is everyone outside this place. I am having a little bit of a problem hearing the Premier’s answer and I formally call the member for Kwinana and the member for Mandurah for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : If one-third of the total GST pool is taken, we will lose approximately 60 per cent of our remaining GST over which we would have no control at all. I said to the Prime Minister, and publicly in the lead-up to COAG, that if WA goes along with this system and we can agree because there are benefits—the member is right there are significant benefits—we will be willing to pay an equivalent amount of dollars out of our health budget, or consolidated revenue, into the pool. As I said to the Prime Minister at the beginning of yesterday’s discussion, “Prime Minister, if you accept that point, you will have a deal today; you will have everything you sought and you can walk out here with the deal.” It was the Prime Minister’s choice to not accept that offer. That is where we are at. To answer the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Good. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes, good! “Where is the analysis?” We do not need an analysis on matters of principle. Mr E.S. Ripper : You must have Treasury analysis; you must have it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This is a matter of the federation and of the ability of Western Australians to govern themselves. We do not have an analysis; we do not seek an analysis because this is a matter of principle for which the Liberal–National government stands. I infer from the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that he is willing to throw in the GST to Canberra; I am not.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question, which I think everyone in this place is interested in, as is everyone outside this place. I am having a little bit of a problem hearing the Premier’s answer and I formally call the member for Kwinana and the member for Mandurah for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : If one-third of the total GST pool is taken, we will lose approximately 60 per cent of our remaining GST over which we would have no control at all. I said to the Prime Minister, and publicly in the lead-up to COAG, that if WA goes along with this system and we can agree because there are benefits—the member is right there are significant benefits—we will be willing to pay an equivalent amount of dollars out of our health budget, or consolidated revenue, into the pool. As I said to the Prime Minister at the beginning of yesterday’s discussion, “Prime Minister, if you accept that point, you will have a deal today; you will have everything you sought and you can walk out here with the deal.” It was the Prime Minister’s choice to not accept that offer. That is where we are at. To answer the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Good. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes, good! “Where is the analysis?” We do not need an analysis on matters of principle. Mr E.S. Ripper : You must have Treasury analysis; you must have it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This is a matter of the federation and of the ability of Western Australians to govern themselves. We do not have an analysis; we do not seek an analysis because this is a matter of principle for which the Liberal–National government stands. I infer from the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that he is willing to throw in the GST to Canberra; I am not.
The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question, which I think everyone in this place is interested in, as is everyone outside this place. I am having a little bit of a problem hearing the Premier’s answer and I formally call the member for Kwinana and the member for Mandurah for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : If one-third of the total GST pool is taken, we will lose approximately 60 per cent of our remaining GST over which we would have no control at all. I said to the Prime Minister, and publicly in the lead-up to COAG, that if WA goes along with this system and we can agree because there are benefits—the member is right there are significant benefits—we will be willing to pay an equivalent amount of dollars out of our health budget, or consolidated revenue, into the pool. As I said to the Prime Minister at the beginning of yesterday’s discussion, “Prime Minister, if you accept that point, you will have a deal today; you will have everything you sought and you can walk out here with the deal.” It was the Prime Minister’s choice to not accept that offer. That is where we are at. To answer the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Good. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes, good! “Where is the analysis?” We do not need an analysis on matters of principle. Mr E.S. Ripper : You must have Treasury analysis; you must have it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This is a matter of the federation and of the ability of Western Australians to govern themselves. We do not have an analysis; we do not seek an analysis because this is a matter of principle for which the Liberal–National government stands. I infer from the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that he is willing to throw in the GST to Canberra; I am not.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : If one-third of the total GST pool is taken, we will lose approximately 60 per cent of our remaining GST over which we would have no control at all. I said to the Prime Minister, and publicly in the lead-up to COAG, that if WA goes along with this system and we can agree because there are benefits—the member is right there are significant benefits—we will be willing to pay an equivalent amount of dollars out of our health budget, or consolidated revenue, into the pool. As I said to the Prime Minister at the beginning of yesterday’s discussion, “Prime Minister, if you accept that point, you will have a deal today; you will have everything you sought and you can walk out here with the deal.” It was the Prime Minister’s choice to not accept that offer. That is where we are at. To answer the point of the Leader of the Opposition’s question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Good. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes, good! “Where is the analysis?” We do not need an analysis on matters of principle. Mr E.S. Ripper : You must have Treasury analysis; you must have it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This is a matter of the federation and of the ability of Western Australians to govern themselves. We do not have an analysis; we do not seek an analysis because this is a matter of principle for which the Liberal–National government stands. I infer from the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that he is willing to throw in the GST to Canberra; I am not.
Mr E.S. Ripper : Good. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes, good! “Where is the analysis?” We do not need an analysis on matters of principle. Mr E.S. Ripper : You must have Treasury analysis; you must have it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This is a matter of the federation and of the ability of Western Australians to govern themselves. We do not have an analysis; we do not seek an analysis because this is a matter of principle for which the Liberal–National government stands. I infer from the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that he is willing to throw in the GST to Canberra; I am not.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes, good! “Where is the analysis?” We do not need an analysis on matters of principle. Mr E.S. Ripper : You must have Treasury analysis; you must have it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This is a matter of the federation and of the ability of Western Australians to govern themselves. We do not have an analysis; we do not seek an analysis because this is a matter of principle for which the Liberal–National government stands. I infer from the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that he is willing to throw in the GST to Canberra; I am not.
Mr E.S. Ripper : You must have Treasury analysis; you must have it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This is a matter of the federation and of the ability of Western Australians to govern themselves. We do not have an analysis; we do not seek an analysis because this is a matter of principle for which the Liberal–National government stands. I infer from the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that he is willing to throw in the GST to Canberra; I am not.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : This is a matter of the federation and of the ability of Western Australians to govern themselves. We do not have an analysis; we do not seek an analysis because this is a matter of principle for which the Liberal–National government stands. I infer from the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that he is willing to throw in the GST to Canberra; I am not.
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.