❓ Opposition questions Treasurer about increased stamp duty on international travel insurance, alleging WA is breaking a national agreement and implementing backdoor tax increases. Treasurer denies changes to law or interpretation, citing compliance activities and equitable application of existing laws.
AnsweredQoN 194Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
As the Treasurer feels left out, my question is for him. Like the other questions, it is on an important matter. Dr G.I. Gallop: Do you feel left out? Mr D.F. BARRON-SULLIVAN: This is a very important matter. I refer the Treasurer to moves by the Office of State Revenue to break a long-standing national agreement and increase stamp duty paid on international travel insurance policies. (1) Will the Treasurer admit that Western Australia is the only State in Australia to break this agreement, which will see this tax revenue increase from about $1.5 million to a massive $20 million? (2) Given that the Treasurer has increased taxes and charges in each of his first three budgets, despite the Premier’s specific promise not to do so, can he confirm that now, in an election year, it is government policy to sneak tax increases through the back door? Mr E.S. RIPPER
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(2) I am so glad that I asked the Opposition to ask me a few questions. There has been no change in the law of stamp duty on insurance. There has been no change in the interpretation made by the Office of State Revenue in the application of that law. The Office of State Revenue has been applying the law of this State and attempting to collect revenue. From time to time it engages in compliance activities. The Richard Court Government engaged additional compliance officers so that people’s adherence to taxation laws could be checked. The latest compliance activity has been to examine insurance companies providing overseas travel insurance. I am advised that of those examined to date, two companies had paid stamp duty correctly, two had paid stamp duty in accordance with the Insurance Council of Australia interpretation of the apportionment schedule and two had paid no stamp duty at all. I cannot go into individual circumstances of particular taxpayers unless those taxpayers give me permission to know about and then discuss their circumstances. However, I believe that stamp duty law should be applied equally to all sellers of travel insurance. There should not be a circumstance in which two companies are paying on the correct basis, two on an incorrect basis and two not at all. Although I do not know the taxation circumstances of HBF, I am advised that it has about 30 per cent of the travel insurance market in WA. If the correct interpretation of the law were applied, the amount of extra money that might be paid would probably be around $2 million and not the $20 million about which the member spoke. It is all very well for people to talk about revenue, but people need to know what the revenue has been spent on. Since the Gallop Government has come to power, it has spent $650 million a year more on health, or 28 per cent more; $380 million a year more on education and training, or 20 per cent more; and $116 million a year more on the police, or 25 per cent more. That is where the resources of our taxpayers go. We are making those expenditure commitments despite the fact that until this year, year after year, the Commonwealth Government cut our share of commonwealth grants. Finally this year we have been able to get some partial redress of that very unfair situation applied by the Commonwealth Government to the grants available to Western Australia. That allocation will of course be reflected in the budget that will be released on 6 May.
Dr G.I. Gallop: Do you feel left out? Mr D.F. BARRON-SULLIVAN: This is a very important matter. I refer the Treasurer to moves by the Office of State Revenue to break a long-standing national agreement and increase stamp duty paid on international travel insurance policies. (1) Will the Treasurer admit that Western Australia is the only State in Australia to break this agreement, which will see this tax revenue increase from about $1.5 million to a massive $20 million? (2) Given that the Treasurer has increased taxes and charges in each of his first three budgets, despite the Premier’s specific promise not to do so, can he confirm that now, in an election year, it is government policy to sneak tax increases through the back door? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) I am so glad that I asked the Opposition to ask me a few questions. There has been no change in the law of stamp duty on insurance. There has been no change in the interpretation made by the Office of State Revenue in the application of that law. The Office of State Revenue has been applying the law of this State and attempting to collect revenue. From time to time it engages in compliance activities. The Richard Court Government engaged additional compliance officers so that people’s adherence to taxation laws could be checked. The latest compliance activity has been to examine insurance companies providing overseas travel insurance. I am advised that of those examined to date, two companies had paid stamp duty correctly, two had paid stamp duty in accordance with the Insurance Council of Australia interpretation of the apportionment schedule and two had paid no stamp duty at all. I cannot go into individual circumstances of particular taxpayers unless those taxpayers give me permission to know about and then discuss their circumstances. However, I believe that stamp duty law should be applied equally to all sellers of travel insurance. There should not be a circumstance in which two companies are paying on the correct basis, two on an incorrect basis and two not at all. Although I do not know the taxation circumstances of HBF, I am advised that it has about 30 per cent of the travel insurance market in WA. If the correct interpretation of the law were applied, the amount of extra money that might be paid would probably be around $2 million and not the $20 million about which the member spoke. It is all very well for people to talk about revenue, but people need to know what the revenue has been spent on. Since the Gallop Government has come to power, it has spent $650 million a year more on health, or 28 per cent more; $380 million a year more on education and training, or 20 per cent more; and $116 million a year more on the police, or 25 per cent more. That is where the resources of our taxpayers go. We are making those expenditure commitments despite the fact that until this year, year after year, the Commonwealth Government cut our share of commonwealth grants. Finally this year we have been able to get some partial redress of that very unfair situation applied by the Commonwealth Government to the grants available to Western Australia. That allocation will of course be reflected in the budget that will be released on 6 May.
Mr D.F. BARRON-SULLIVAN: This is a very important matter. I refer the Treasurer to moves by the Office of State Revenue to break a long-standing national agreement and increase stamp duty paid on international travel insurance policies. (1) Will the Treasurer admit that Western Australia is the only State in Australia to break this agreement, which will see this tax revenue increase from about $1.5 million to a massive $20 million? (2) Given that the Treasurer has increased taxes and charges in each of his first three budgets, despite the Premier’s specific promise not to do so, can he confirm that now, in an election year, it is government policy to sneak tax increases through the back door? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) I am so glad that I asked the Opposition to ask me a few questions. There has been no change in the law of stamp duty on insurance. There has been no change in the interpretation made by the Office of State Revenue in the application of that law. The Office of State Revenue has been applying the law of this State and attempting to collect revenue. From time to time it engages in compliance activities. The Richard Court Government engaged additional compliance officers so that people’s adherence to taxation laws could be checked. The latest compliance activity has been to examine insurance companies providing overseas travel insurance. I am advised that of those examined to date, two companies had paid stamp duty correctly, two had paid stamp duty in accordance with the Insurance Council of Australia interpretation of the apportionment schedule and two had paid no stamp duty at all. I cannot go into individual circumstances of particular taxpayers unless those taxpayers give me permission to know about and then discuss their circumstances. However, I believe that stamp duty law should be applied equally to all sellers of travel insurance. There should not be a circumstance in which two companies are paying on the correct basis, two on an incorrect basis and two not at all. Although I do not know the taxation circumstances of HBF, I am advised that it has about 30 per cent of the travel insurance market in WA. If the correct interpretation of the law were applied, the amount of extra money that might be paid would probably be around $2 million and not the $20 million about which the member spoke. It is all very well for people to talk about revenue, but people need to know what the revenue has been spent on. Since the Gallop Government has come to power, it has spent $650 million a year more on health, or 28 per cent more; $380 million a year more on education and training, or 20 per cent more; and $116 million a year more on the police, or 25 per cent more. That is where the resources of our taxpayers go. We are making those expenditure commitments despite the fact that until this year, year after year, the Commonwealth Government cut our share of commonwealth grants. Finally this year we have been able to get some partial redress of that very unfair situation applied by the Commonwealth Government to the grants available to Western Australia. That allocation will of course be reflected in the budget that will be released on 6 May.
I refer the Treasurer to moves by the Office of State Revenue to break a long-standing national agreement and increase stamp duty paid on international travel insurance policies. (1) Will the Treasurer admit that Western Australia is the only State in Australia to break this agreement, which will see this tax revenue increase from about $1.5 million to a massive $20 million? (2) Given that the Treasurer has increased taxes and charges in each of his first three budgets, despite the Premier’s specific promise not to do so, can he confirm that now, in an election year, it is government policy to sneak tax increases through the back door? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) I am so glad that I asked the Opposition to ask me a few questions. There has been no change in the law of stamp duty on insurance. There has been no change in the interpretation made by the Office of State Revenue in the application of that law. The Office of State Revenue has been applying the law of this State and attempting to collect revenue. From time to time it engages in compliance activities. The Richard Court Government engaged additional compliance officers so that people’s adherence to taxation laws could be checked. The latest compliance activity has been to examine insurance companies providing overseas travel insurance. I am advised that of those examined to date, two companies had paid stamp duty correctly, two had paid stamp duty in accordance with the Insurance Council of Australia interpretation of the apportionment schedule and two had paid no stamp duty at all. I cannot go into individual circumstances of particular taxpayers unless those taxpayers give me permission to know about and then discuss their circumstances. However, I believe that stamp duty law should be applied equally to all sellers of travel insurance. There should not be a circumstance in which two companies are paying on the correct basis, two on an incorrect basis and two not at all. Although I do not know the taxation circumstances of HBF, I am advised that it has about 30 per cent of the travel insurance market in WA. If the correct interpretation of the law were applied, the amount of extra money that might be paid would probably be around $2 million and not the $20 million about which the member spoke. It is all very well for people to talk about revenue, but people need to know what the revenue has been spent on. Since the Gallop Government has come to power, it has spent $650 million a year more on health, or 28 per cent more; $380 million a year more on education and training, or 20 per cent more; and $116 million a year more on the police, or 25 per cent more. That is where the resources of our taxpayers go. We are making those expenditure commitments despite the fact that until this year, year after year, the Commonwealth Government cut our share of commonwealth grants. Finally this year we have been able to get some partial redress of that very unfair situation applied by the Commonwealth Government to the grants available to Western Australia. That allocation will of course be reflected in the budget that will be released on 6 May.
(1) Will the Treasurer admit that Western Australia is the only State in Australia to break this agreement, which will see this tax revenue increase from about $1.5 million to a massive $20 million? (2) Given that the Treasurer has increased taxes and charges in each of his first three budgets, despite the Premier’s specific promise not to do so, can he confirm that now, in an election year, it is government policy to sneak tax increases through the back door? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) I am so glad that I asked the Opposition to ask me a few questions. There has been no change in the law of stamp duty on insurance. There has been no change in the interpretation made by the Office of State Revenue in the application of that law. The Office of State Revenue has been applying the law of this State and attempting to collect revenue. From time to time it engages in compliance activities. The Richard Court Government engaged additional compliance officers so that people’s adherence to taxation laws could be checked. The latest compliance activity has been to examine insurance companies providing overseas travel insurance. I am advised that of those examined to date, two companies had paid stamp duty correctly, two had paid stamp duty in accordance with the Insurance Council of Australia interpretation of the apportionment schedule and two had paid no stamp duty at all. I cannot go into individual circumstances of particular taxpayers unless those taxpayers give me permission to know about and then discuss their circumstances. However, I believe that stamp duty law should be applied equally to all sellers of travel insurance. There should not be a circumstance in which two companies are paying on the correct basis, two on an incorrect basis and two not at all. Although I do not know the taxation circumstances of HBF, I am advised that it has about 30 per cent of the travel insurance market in WA. If the correct interpretation of the law were applied, the amount of extra money that might be paid would probably be around $2 million and not the $20 million about which the member spoke. It is all very well for people to talk about revenue, but people need to know what the revenue has been spent on. Since the Gallop Government has come to power, it has spent $650 million a year more on health, or 28 per cent more; $380 million a year more on education and training, or 20 per cent more; and $116 million a year more on the police, or 25 per cent more. That is where the resources of our taxpayers go. We are making those expenditure commitments despite the fact that until this year, year after year, the Commonwealth Government cut our share of commonwealth grants. Finally this year we have been able to get some partial redress of that very unfair situation applied by the Commonwealth Government to the grants available to Western Australia. That allocation will of course be reflected in the budget that will be released on 6 May.
(2) Given that the Treasurer has increased taxes and charges in each of his first three budgets, despite the Premier’s specific promise not to do so, can he confirm that now, in an election year, it is government policy to sneak tax increases through the back door? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) I am so glad that I asked the Opposition to ask me a few questions. There has been no change in the law of stamp duty on insurance. There has been no change in the interpretation made by the Office of State Revenue in the application of that law. The Office of State Revenue has been applying the law of this State and attempting to collect revenue. From time to time it engages in compliance activities. The Richard Court Government engaged additional compliance officers so that people’s adherence to taxation laws could be checked. The latest compliance activity has been to examine insurance companies providing overseas travel insurance. I am advised that of those examined to date, two companies had paid stamp duty correctly, two had paid stamp duty in accordance with the Insurance Council of Australia interpretation of the apportionment schedule and two had paid no stamp duty at all. I cannot go into individual circumstances of particular taxpayers unless those taxpayers give me permission to know about and then discuss their circumstances. However, I believe that stamp duty law should be applied equally to all sellers of travel insurance. There should not be a circumstance in which two companies are paying on the correct basis, two on an incorrect basis and two not at all. Although I do not know the taxation circumstances of HBF, I am advised that it has about 30 per cent of the travel insurance market in WA. If the correct interpretation of the law were applied, the amount of extra money that might be paid would probably be around $2 million and not the $20 million about which the member spoke. It is all very well for people to talk about revenue, but people need to know what the revenue has been spent on. Since the Gallop Government has come to power, it has spent $650 million a year more on health, or 28 per cent more; $380 million a year more on education and training, or 20 per cent more; and $116 million a year more on the police, or 25 per cent more. That is where the resources of our taxpayers go. We are making those expenditure commitments despite the fact that until this year, year after year, the Commonwealth Government cut our share of commonwealth grants. Finally this year we have been able to get some partial redress of that very unfair situation applied by the Commonwealth Government to the grants available to Western Australia. That allocation will of course be reflected in the budget that will be released on 6 May.
Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) I am so glad that I asked the Opposition to ask me a few questions. There has been no change in the law of stamp duty on insurance. There has been no change in the interpretation made by the Office of State Revenue in the application of that law. The Office of State Revenue has been applying the law of this State and attempting to collect revenue. From time to time it engages in compliance activities. The Richard Court Government engaged additional compliance officers so that people’s adherence to taxation laws could be checked. The latest compliance activity has been to examine insurance companies providing overseas travel insurance. I am advised that of those examined to date, two companies had paid stamp duty correctly, two had paid stamp duty in accordance with the Insurance Council of Australia interpretation of the apportionment schedule and two had paid no stamp duty at all. I cannot go into individual circumstances of particular taxpayers unless those taxpayers give me permission to know about and then discuss their circumstances. However, I believe that stamp duty law should be applied equally to all sellers of travel insurance. There should not be a circumstance in which two companies are paying on the correct basis, two on an incorrect basis and two not at all. Although I do not know the taxation circumstances of HBF, I am advised that it has about 30 per cent of the travel insurance market in WA. If the correct interpretation of the law were applied, the amount of extra money that might be paid would probably be around $2 million and not the $20 million about which the member spoke. It is all very well for people to talk about revenue, but people need to know what the revenue has been spent on. Since the Gallop Government has come to power, it has spent $650 million a year more on health, or 28 per cent more; $380 million a year more on education and training, or 20 per cent more; and $116 million a year more on the police, or 25 per cent more. That is where the resources of our taxpayers go. We are making those expenditure commitments despite the fact that until this year, year after year, the Commonwealth Government cut our share of commonwealth grants. Finally this year we have been able to get some partial redress of that very unfair situation applied by the Commonwealth Government to the grants available to Western Australia. That allocation will of course be reflected in the budget that will be released on 6 May.
(1)-(2) I am so glad that I asked the Opposition to ask me a few questions. There has been no change in the law of stamp duty on insurance. There has been no change in the interpretation made by the Office of State Revenue in the application of that law. The Office of State Revenue has been applying the law of this State and attempting to collect revenue. From time to time it engages in compliance activities. The Richard Court Government engaged additional compliance officers so that people’s adherence to taxation laws could be checked. The latest compliance activity has been to examine insurance companies providing overseas travel insurance. I am advised that of those examined to date, two companies had paid stamp duty correctly, two had paid stamp duty in accordance with the Insurance Council of Australia interpretation of the apportionment schedule and two had paid no stamp duty at all. I cannot go into individual circumstances of particular taxpayers unless those taxpayers give me permission to know about and then discuss their circumstances. However, I believe that stamp duty law should be applied equally to all sellers of travel insurance. There should not be a circumstance in which two companies are paying on the correct basis, two on an incorrect basis and two not at all. Although I do not know the taxation circumstances of HBF, I am advised that it has about 30 per cent of the travel insurance market in WA. If the correct interpretation of the law were applied, the amount of extra money that might be paid would probably be around $2 million and not the $20 million about which the member spoke. It is all very well for people to talk about revenue, but people need to know what the revenue has been spent on. Since the Gallop Government has come to power, it has spent $650 million a year more on health, or 28 per cent more; $380 million a year more on education and training, or 20 per cent more; and $116 million a year more on the police, or 25 per cent more. That is where the resources of our taxpayers go. We are making those expenditure commitments despite the fact that until this year, year after year, the Commonwealth Government cut our share of commonwealth grants. Finally this year we have been able to get some partial redress of that very unfair situation applied by the Commonwealth Government to the grants available to Western Australia. That allocation will of course be reflected in the budget that will be released on 6 May.
It is all very well for people to talk about revenue, but people need to know what the revenue has been spent on. Since the Gallop Government has come to power, it has spent $650 million a year more on health, or 28 per cent more; $380 million a year more on education and training, or 20 per cent more; and $116 million a year more on the police, or 25 per cent more. That is where the resources of our taxpayers go. We are making those expenditure commitments despite the fact that until this year, year after year, the Commonwealth Government cut our share of commonwealth grants. Finally this year we have been able to get some partial redress of that very unfair situation applied by the Commonwealth Government to the grants available to Western Australia. That allocation will of course be reflected in the budget that will be released on 6 May.
Dr G.I. Gallop: Do you feel left out? Mr D.F. BARRON-SULLIVAN: This is a very important matter. I refer the Treasurer to moves by the Office of State Revenue to break a long-standing national agreement and increase stamp duty paid on international travel insurance policies. (1) Will the Treasurer admit that Western Australia is the only State in Australia to break this agreement, which will see this tax revenue increase from about $1.5 million to a massive $20 million? (2) Given that the Treasurer has increased taxes and charges in each of his first three budgets, despite the Premier’s specific promise not to do so, can he confirm that now, in an election year, it is government policy to sneak tax increases through the back door? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) I am so glad that I asked the Opposition to ask me a few questions. There has been no change in the law of stamp duty on insurance. There has been no change in the interpretation made by the Office of State Revenue in the application of that law. The Office of State Revenue has been applying the law of this State and attempting to collect revenue. From time to time it engages in compliance activities. The Richard Court Government engaged additional compliance officers so that people’s adherence to taxation laws could be checked. The latest compliance activity has been to examine insurance companies providing overseas travel insurance. I am advised that of those examined to date, two companies had paid stamp duty correctly, two had paid stamp duty in accordance with the Insurance Council of Australia interpretation of the apportionment schedule and two had paid no stamp duty at all. I cannot go into individual circumstances of particular taxpayers unless those taxpayers give me permission to know about and then discuss their circumstances. However, I believe that stamp duty law should be applied equally to all sellers of travel insurance. There should not be a circumstance in which two companies are paying on the correct basis, two on an incorrect basis and two not at all. Although I do not know the taxation circumstances of HBF, I am advised that it has about 30 per cent of the travel insurance market in WA. If the correct interpretation of the law were applied, the amount of extra money that might be paid would probably be around $2 million and not the $20 million about which the member spoke. It is all very well for people to talk about revenue, but people need to know what the revenue has been spent on. Since the Gallop Government has come to power, it has spent $650 million a year more on health, or 28 per cent more; $380 million a year more on education and training, or 20 per cent more; and $116 million a year more on the police, or 25 per cent more. That is where the resources of our taxpayers go. We are making those expenditure commitments despite the fact that until this year, year after year, the Commonwealth Government cut our share of commonwealth grants. Finally this year we have been able to get some partial redress of that very unfair situation applied by the Commonwealth Government to the grants available to Western Australia. That allocation will of course be reflected in the budget that will be released on 6 May.
Mr D.F. BARRON-SULLIVAN: This is a very important matter. I refer the Treasurer to moves by the Office of State Revenue to break a long-standing national agreement and increase stamp duty paid on international travel insurance policies. (1) Will the Treasurer admit that Western Australia is the only State in Australia to break this agreement, which will see this tax revenue increase from about $1.5 million to a massive $20 million? (2) Given that the Treasurer has increased taxes and charges in each of his first three budgets, despite the Premier’s specific promise not to do so, can he confirm that now, in an election year, it is government policy to sneak tax increases through the back door? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) I am so glad that I asked the Opposition to ask me a few questions. There has been no change in the law of stamp duty on insurance. There has been no change in the interpretation made by the Office of State Revenue in the application of that law. The Office of State Revenue has been applying the law of this State and attempting to collect revenue. From time to time it engages in compliance activities. The Richard Court Government engaged additional compliance officers so that people’s adherence to taxation laws could be checked. The latest compliance activity has been to examine insurance companies providing overseas travel insurance. I am advised that of those examined to date, two companies had paid stamp duty correctly, two had paid stamp duty in accordance with the Insurance Council of Australia interpretation of the apportionment schedule and two had paid no stamp duty at all. I cannot go into individual circumstances of particular taxpayers unless those taxpayers give me permission to know about and then discuss their circumstances. However, I believe that stamp duty law should be applied equally to all sellers of travel insurance. There should not be a circumstance in which two companies are paying on the correct basis, two on an incorrect basis and two not at all. Although I do not know the taxation circumstances of HBF, I am advised that it has about 30 per cent of the travel insurance market in WA. If the correct interpretation of the law were applied, the amount of extra money that might be paid would probably be around $2 million and not the $20 million about which the member spoke. It is all very well for people to talk about revenue, but people need to know what the revenue has been spent on. Since the Gallop Government has come to power, it has spent $650 million a year more on health, or 28 per cent more; $380 million a year more on education and training, or 20 per cent more; and $116 million a year more on the police, or 25 per cent more. That is where the resources of our taxpayers go. We are making those expenditure commitments despite the fact that until this year, year after year, the Commonwealth Government cut our share of commonwealth grants. Finally this year we have been able to get some partial redress of that very unfair situation applied by the Commonwealth Government to the grants available to Western Australia. That allocation will of course be reflected in the budget that will be released on 6 May.
I refer the Treasurer to moves by the Office of State Revenue to break a long-standing national agreement and increase stamp duty paid on international travel insurance policies. (1) Will the Treasurer admit that Western Australia is the only State in Australia to break this agreement, which will see this tax revenue increase from about $1.5 million to a massive $20 million? (2) Given that the Treasurer has increased taxes and charges in each of his first three budgets, despite the Premier’s specific promise not to do so, can he confirm that now, in an election year, it is government policy to sneak tax increases through the back door? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) I am so glad that I asked the Opposition to ask me a few questions. There has been no change in the law of stamp duty on insurance. There has been no change in the interpretation made by the Office of State Revenue in the application of that law. The Office of State Revenue has been applying the law of this State and attempting to collect revenue. From time to time it engages in compliance activities. The Richard Court Government engaged additional compliance officers so that people’s adherence to taxation laws could be checked. The latest compliance activity has been to examine insurance companies providing overseas travel insurance. I am advised that of those examined to date, two companies had paid stamp duty correctly, two had paid stamp duty in accordance with the Insurance Council of Australia interpretation of the apportionment schedule and two had paid no stamp duty at all. I cannot go into individual circumstances of particular taxpayers unless those taxpayers give me permission to know about and then discuss their circumstances. However, I believe that stamp duty law should be applied equally to all sellers of travel insurance. There should not be a circumstance in which two companies are paying on the correct basis, two on an incorrect basis and two not at all. Although I do not know the taxation circumstances of HBF, I am advised that it has about 30 per cent of the travel insurance market in WA. If the correct interpretation of the law were applied, the amount of extra money that might be paid would probably be around $2 million and not the $20 million about which the member spoke. It is all very well for people to talk about revenue, but people need to know what the revenue has been spent on. Since the Gallop Government has come to power, it has spent $650 million a year more on health, or 28 per cent more; $380 million a year more on education and training, or 20 per cent more; and $116 million a year more on the police, or 25 per cent more. That is where the resources of our taxpayers go. We are making those expenditure commitments despite the fact that until this year, year after year, the Commonwealth Government cut our share of commonwealth grants. Finally this year we have been able to get some partial redress of that very unfair situation applied by the Commonwealth Government to the grants available to Western Australia. That allocation will of course be reflected in the budget that will be released on 6 May.
(1) Will the Treasurer admit that Western Australia is the only State in Australia to break this agreement, which will see this tax revenue increase from about $1.5 million to a massive $20 million? (2) Given that the Treasurer has increased taxes and charges in each of his first three budgets, despite the Premier’s specific promise not to do so, can he confirm that now, in an election year, it is government policy to sneak tax increases through the back door? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) I am so glad that I asked the Opposition to ask me a few questions. There has been no change in the law of stamp duty on insurance. There has been no change in the interpretation made by the Office of State Revenue in the application of that law. The Office of State Revenue has been applying the law of this State and attempting to collect revenue. From time to time it engages in compliance activities. The Richard Court Government engaged additional compliance officers so that people’s adherence to taxation laws could be checked. The latest compliance activity has been to examine insurance companies providing overseas travel insurance. I am advised that of those examined to date, two companies had paid stamp duty correctly, two had paid stamp duty in accordance with the Insurance Council of Australia interpretation of the apportionment schedule and two had paid no stamp duty at all. I cannot go into individual circumstances of particular taxpayers unless those taxpayers give me permission to know about and then discuss their circumstances. However, I believe that stamp duty law should be applied equally to all sellers of travel insurance. There should not be a circumstance in which two companies are paying on the correct basis, two on an incorrect basis and two not at all. Although I do not know the taxation circumstances of HBF, I am advised that it has about 30 per cent of the travel insurance market in WA. If the correct interpretation of the law were applied, the amount of extra money that might be paid would probably be around $2 million and not the $20 million about which the member spoke. It is all very well for people to talk about revenue, but people need to know what the revenue has been spent on. Since the Gallop Government has come to power, it has spent $650 million a year more on health, or 28 per cent more; $380 million a year more on education and training, or 20 per cent more; and $116 million a year more on the police, or 25 per cent more. That is where the resources of our taxpayers go. We are making those expenditure commitments despite the fact that until this year, year after year, the Commonwealth Government cut our share of commonwealth grants. Finally this year we have been able to get some partial redress of that very unfair situation applied by the Commonwealth Government to the grants available to Western Australia. That allocation will of course be reflected in the budget that will be released on 6 May.
(2) Given that the Treasurer has increased taxes and charges in each of his first three budgets, despite the Premier’s specific promise not to do so, can he confirm that now, in an election year, it is government policy to sneak tax increases through the back door? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) I am so glad that I asked the Opposition to ask me a few questions. There has been no change in the law of stamp duty on insurance. There has been no change in the interpretation made by the Office of State Revenue in the application of that law. The Office of State Revenue has been applying the law of this State and attempting to collect revenue. From time to time it engages in compliance activities. The Richard Court Government engaged additional compliance officers so that people’s adherence to taxation laws could be checked. The latest compliance activity has been to examine insurance companies providing overseas travel insurance. I am advised that of those examined to date, two companies had paid stamp duty correctly, two had paid stamp duty in accordance with the Insurance Council of Australia interpretation of the apportionment schedule and two had paid no stamp duty at all. I cannot go into individual circumstances of particular taxpayers unless those taxpayers give me permission to know about and then discuss their circumstances. However, I believe that stamp duty law should be applied equally to all sellers of travel insurance. There should not be a circumstance in which two companies are paying on the correct basis, two on an incorrect basis and two not at all. Although I do not know the taxation circumstances of HBF, I am advised that it has about 30 per cent of the travel insurance market in WA. If the correct interpretation of the law were applied, the amount of extra money that might be paid would probably be around $2 million and not the $20 million about which the member spoke. It is all very well for people to talk about revenue, but people need to know what the revenue has been spent on. Since the Gallop Government has come to power, it has spent $650 million a year more on health, or 28 per cent more; $380 million a year more on education and training, or 20 per cent more; and $116 million a year more on the police, or 25 per cent more. That is where the resources of our taxpayers go. We are making those expenditure commitments despite the fact that until this year, year after year, the Commonwealth Government cut our share of commonwealth grants. Finally this year we have been able to get some partial redress of that very unfair situation applied by the Commonwealth Government to the grants available to Western Australia. That allocation will of course be reflected in the budget that will be released on 6 May.
Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) I am so glad that I asked the Opposition to ask me a few questions. There has been no change in the law of stamp duty on insurance. There has been no change in the interpretation made by the Office of State Revenue in the application of that law. The Office of State Revenue has been applying the law of this State and attempting to collect revenue. From time to time it engages in compliance activities. The Richard Court Government engaged additional compliance officers so that people’s adherence to taxation laws could be checked. The latest compliance activity has been to examine insurance companies providing overseas travel insurance. I am advised that of those examined to date, two companies had paid stamp duty correctly, two had paid stamp duty in accordance with the Insurance Council of Australia interpretation of the apportionment schedule and two had paid no stamp duty at all. I cannot go into individual circumstances of particular taxpayers unless those taxpayers give me permission to know about and then discuss their circumstances. However, I believe that stamp duty law should be applied equally to all sellers of travel insurance. There should not be a circumstance in which two companies are paying on the correct basis, two on an incorrect basis and two not at all. Although I do not know the taxation circumstances of HBF, I am advised that it has about 30 per cent of the travel insurance market in WA. If the correct interpretation of the law were applied, the amount of extra money that might be paid would probably be around $2 million and not the $20 million about which the member spoke. It is all very well for people to talk about revenue, but people need to know what the revenue has been spent on. Since the Gallop Government has come to power, it has spent $650 million a year more on health, or 28 per cent more; $380 million a year more on education and training, or 20 per cent more; and $116 million a year more on the police, or 25 per cent more. That is where the resources of our taxpayers go. We are making those expenditure commitments despite the fact that until this year, year after year, the Commonwealth Government cut our share of commonwealth grants. Finally this year we have been able to get some partial redress of that very unfair situation applied by the Commonwealth Government to the grants available to Western Australia. That allocation will of course be reflected in the budget that will be released on 6 May.
(1)-(2) I am so glad that I asked the Opposition to ask me a few questions. There has been no change in the law of stamp duty on insurance. There has been no change in the interpretation made by the Office of State Revenue in the application of that law. The Office of State Revenue has been applying the law of this State and attempting to collect revenue. From time to time it engages in compliance activities. The Richard Court Government engaged additional compliance officers so that people’s adherence to taxation laws could be checked. The latest compliance activity has been to examine insurance companies providing overseas travel insurance. I am advised that of those examined to date, two companies had paid stamp duty correctly, two had paid stamp duty in accordance with the Insurance Council of Australia interpretation of the apportionment schedule and two had paid no stamp duty at all. I cannot go into individual circumstances of particular taxpayers unless those taxpayers give me permission to know about and then discuss their circumstances. However, I believe that stamp duty law should be applied equally to all sellers of travel insurance. There should not be a circumstance in which two companies are paying on the correct basis, two on an incorrect basis and two not at all. Although I do not know the taxation circumstances of HBF, I am advised that it has about 30 per cent of the travel insurance market in WA. If the correct interpretation of the law were applied, the amount of extra money that might be paid would probably be around $2 million and not the $20 million about which the member spoke. It is all very well for people to talk about revenue, but people need to know what the revenue has been spent on. Since the Gallop Government has come to power, it has spent $650 million a year more on health, or 28 per cent more; $380 million a year more on education and training, or 20 per cent more; and $116 million a year more on the police, or 25 per cent more. That is where the resources of our taxpayers go. We are making those expenditure commitments despite the fact that until this year, year after year, the Commonwealth Government cut our share of commonwealth grants. Finally this year we have been able to get some partial redress of that very unfair situation applied by the Commonwealth Government to the grants available to Western Australia. That allocation will of course be reflected in the budget that will be released on 6 May.
It is all very well for people to talk about revenue, but people need to know what the revenue has been spent on. Since the Gallop Government has come to power, it has spent $650 million a year more on health, or 28 per cent more; $380 million a year more on education and training, or 20 per cent more; and $116 million a year more on the police, or 25 per cent more. That is where the resources of our taxpayers go. We are making those expenditure commitments despite the fact that until this year, year after year, the Commonwealth Government cut our share of commonwealth grants. Finally this year we have been able to get some partial redress of that very unfair situation applied by the Commonwealth Government to the grants available to Western Australia. That allocation will of course be reflected in the budget that will be released on 6 May.
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.