❓ The Treasurer defends WA's fiscal policy autonomy against perceived federal overreach, particularly regarding GST distribution and tax policy, advocating for bipartisan support to protect WA's financial interests and prioritize tax relief for ordinary Western Australians.
AnsweredQoN 87Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
FISCAL POLICY
Does the Treasurer think Western Australia’s fiscal policy should be run from Canberra? Mr E.S. RIPPER
Does the Treasurer think Western Australia’s fiscal policy should be run from Canberra? Mr E.S. RIPPER
AnswerView source ↗
Flush with a $15 billion surplus, which he proposes to invest in the share market rather than in infrastructure, Peter Costello has turned his attention to state finances. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the members for Roe and Vasse to order. Mr M.J. Cowper : The sheriff of Belmont! The SPEAKER : I also call the member for Murray to order. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Costello says that the state should abolish stamp duty for business but not for householders. If business stamp duty was to be abolished, it would cost the state’s finances $600 million a year. Previously I have explained to the house that the major areas in which financial capacity needs to be devoted are services, infrastructure, fair pay and tax cuts. Even the member for Vasse would understand - [Interruption from the gallery.] The SPEAKER : I ask the attendants to make sure that that person does not return to this chamber. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I think even the member for Vasse would understand that the same dollar cannot be spent four times. The same dollar cannot be spent on services, infrastructure, wages and tax cuts. Equally, the same dollar cannot be spent twice on different tax cuts. If we follow Mr Costello’s argument and spend $600 million on abolishing stamp duty for business, what will be left over for tax relief for ordinary Western Australians after $600 million has been put to Mr Costello’s purpose? I hear some interjections from the other side, but I want the other side to think about this. This is an issue for the next term of this Parliament. It would be an issue whether we have a Labor government or a Liberal government. I think we need a bipartisan approach. We need to say to Canberra, “Hands off our fiscal policy. We’ll determine our policies here in Western Australia. We’ll determine our priorities for tax relief according to circumstances in our community.” I do not think the Leader of the Opposition or his colleagues would have any joy if all those matters were determined from Canberra. This intervention of Peter Costello comes on top of what is going to happen to our share of goods and services tax grants. Again, all of us, not only members on this side of the house, but also members on the other side, have to think about the implications of this. Over the next four years, this state is going to lose $1.2 billion of our share of GST grants - $1.2 billion. That is $600 for every Western Australian. Two things are happening. Peter Costello is reducing the share of commonwealth money coming to this state while at the same time urging the state to spend its scarce financial resources on business tax relief, not on tax relief for homebuyers in our community. I reject Mr Costello’s approach on two grounds. The first is that tax policy, along with other fiscal policy, will be determined in this state, not in Canberra. The second is that I will not give all the tax relief that is available to business and leave nothing left over for ordinary Western Australians. Peter Costello’s argument, which is that his GST agreement that he signed with Richard Court somehow requires us to do this, is just wrong. Western Australia has abolished all the stamp duties that it was required to abolish under the GST agreement. We have honoured the GST agreement in full, and we have a bipartisan report from the Public Accounts Committee confirming that we have honoured the GST agreement. When I go to Canberra on Thursday and Friday for the Treasurers’ conference, I would like to have the bipartisan support of members of this house. I would like to have the support of every member of this house when I say, “Give ordinary Western Australians a fair go and we’ll determine fiscal policy, including tax policy, in Western Australia, not in Canberra.” Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I really regret that what I am hearing from the other side are foolish interjections. Why do members opposite not put their hands up and join with us for once and defend the interests of Western Australians and Western Australia?
Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: Flush with a $15 billion surplus, which he proposes to invest in the share market rather than in infrastructure, Peter Costello has turned his attention to state finances. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the members for Roe and Vasse to order. Mr M.J. Cowper : The sheriff of Belmont! The SPEAKER : I also call the member for Murray to order. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Costello says that the state should abolish stamp duty for business but not for householders. If business stamp duty was to be abolished, it would cost the state’s finances $600 million a year. Previously I have explained to the house that the major areas in which financial capacity needs to be devoted are services, infrastructure, fair pay and tax cuts. Even the member for Vasse would understand - [Interruption from the gallery.] The SPEAKER : I ask the attendants to make sure that that person does not return to this chamber. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I think even the member for Vasse would understand that the same dollar cannot be spent four times. The same dollar cannot be spent on services, infrastructure, wages and tax cuts. Equally, the same dollar cannot be spent twice on different tax cuts. If we follow Mr Costello’s argument and spend $600 million on abolishing stamp duty for business, what will be left over for tax relief for ordinary Western Australians after $600 million has been put to Mr Costello’s purpose? I hear some interjections from the other side, but I want the other side to think about this. This is an issue for the next term of this Parliament. It would be an issue whether we have a Labor government or a Liberal government. I think we need a bipartisan approach. We need to say to Canberra, “Hands off our fiscal policy. We’ll determine our policies here in Western Australia. We’ll determine our priorities for tax relief according to circumstances in our community.” I do not think the Leader of the Opposition or his colleagues would have any joy if all those matters were determined from Canberra. This intervention of Peter Costello comes on top of what is going to happen to our share of goods and services tax grants. Again, all of us, not only members on this side of the house, but also members on the other side, have to think about the implications of this. Over the next four years, this state is going to lose $1.2 billion of our share of GST grants - $1.2 billion. That is $600 for every Western Australian. Two things are happening. Peter Costello is reducing the share of commonwealth money coming to this state while at the same time urging the state to spend its scarce financial resources on business tax relief, not on tax relief for homebuyers in our community. I reject Mr Costello’s approach on two grounds. The first is that tax policy, along with other fiscal policy, will be determined in this state, not in Canberra. The second is that I will not give all the tax relief that is available to business and leave nothing left over for ordinary Western Australians. Peter Costello’s argument, which is that his GST agreement that he signed with Richard Court somehow requires us to do this, is just wrong. Western Australia has abolished all the stamp duties that it was required to abolish under the GST agreement. We have honoured the GST agreement in full, and we have a bipartisan report from the Public Accounts Committee confirming that we have honoured the GST agreement. When I go to Canberra on Thursday and Friday for the Treasurers’ conference, I would like to have the bipartisan support of members of this house. I would like to have the support of every member of this house when I say, “Give ordinary Western Australians a fair go and we’ll determine fiscal policy, including tax policy, in Western Australia, not in Canberra.” Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I really regret that what I am hearing from the other side are foolish interjections. Why do members opposite not put their hands up and join with us for once and defend the interests of Western Australians and Western Australia?
Flush with a $15 billion surplus, which he proposes to invest in the share market rather than in infrastructure, Peter Costello has turned his attention to state finances. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the members for Roe and Vasse to order. Mr M.J. Cowper : The sheriff of Belmont! The SPEAKER : I also call the member for Murray to order. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Costello says that the state should abolish stamp duty for business but not for householders. If business stamp duty was to be abolished, it would cost the state’s finances $600 million a year. Previously I have explained to the house that the major areas in which financial capacity needs to be devoted are services, infrastructure, fair pay and tax cuts. Even the member for Vasse would understand - [Interruption from the gallery.] The SPEAKER : I ask the attendants to make sure that that person does not return to this chamber. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I think even the member for Vasse would understand that the same dollar cannot be spent four times. The same dollar cannot be spent on services, infrastructure, wages and tax cuts. Equally, the same dollar cannot be spent twice on different tax cuts. If we follow Mr Costello’s argument and spend $600 million on abolishing stamp duty for business, what will be left over for tax relief for ordinary Western Australians after $600 million has been put to Mr Costello’s purpose? I hear some interjections from the other side, but I want the other side to think about this. This is an issue for the next term of this Parliament. It would be an issue whether we have a Labor government or a Liberal government. I think we need a bipartisan approach. We need to say to Canberra, “Hands off our fiscal policy. We’ll determine our policies here in Western Australia. We’ll determine our priorities for tax relief according to circumstances in our community.” I do not think the Leader of the Opposition or his colleagues would have any joy if all those matters were determined from Canberra. This intervention of Peter Costello comes on top of what is going to happen to our share of goods and services tax grants. Again, all of us, not only members on this side of the house, but also members on the other side, have to think about the implications of this. Over the next four years, this state is going to lose $1.2 billion of our share of GST grants - $1.2 billion. That is $600 for every Western Australian. Two things are happening. Peter Costello is reducing the share of commonwealth money coming to this state while at the same time urging the state to spend its scarce financial resources on business tax relief, not on tax relief for homebuyers in our community. I reject Mr Costello’s approach on two grounds. The first is that tax policy, along with other fiscal policy, will be determined in this state, not in Canberra. The second is that I will not give all the tax relief that is available to business and leave nothing left over for ordinary Western Australians. Peter Costello’s argument, which is that his GST agreement that he signed with Richard Court somehow requires us to do this, is just wrong. Western Australia has abolished all the stamp duties that it was required to abolish under the GST agreement. We have honoured the GST agreement in full, and we have a bipartisan report from the Public Accounts Committee confirming that we have honoured the GST agreement. When I go to Canberra on Thursday and Friday for the Treasurers’ conference, I would like to have the bipartisan support of members of this house. I would like to have the support of every member of this house when I say, “Give ordinary Western Australians a fair go and we’ll determine fiscal policy, including tax policy, in Western Australia, not in Canberra.” Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I really regret that what I am hearing from the other side are foolish interjections. Why do members opposite not put their hands up and join with us for once and defend the interests of Western Australians and Western Australia?
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the members for Roe and Vasse to order. Mr M.J. Cowper : The sheriff of Belmont! The SPEAKER : I also call the member for Murray to order. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Costello says that the state should abolish stamp duty for business but not for householders. If business stamp duty was to be abolished, it would cost the state’s finances $600 million a year. Previously I have explained to the house that the major areas in which financial capacity needs to be devoted are services, infrastructure, fair pay and tax cuts. Even the member for Vasse would understand - [Interruption from the gallery.] The SPEAKER : I ask the attendants to make sure that that person does not return to this chamber. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I think even the member for Vasse would understand that the same dollar cannot be spent four times. The same dollar cannot be spent on services, infrastructure, wages and tax cuts. Equally, the same dollar cannot be spent twice on different tax cuts. If we follow Mr Costello’s argument and spend $600 million on abolishing stamp duty for business, what will be left over for tax relief for ordinary Western Australians after $600 million has been put to Mr Costello’s purpose? I hear some interjections from the other side, but I want the other side to think about this. This is an issue for the next term of this Parliament. It would be an issue whether we have a Labor government or a Liberal government. I think we need a bipartisan approach. We need to say to Canberra, “Hands off our fiscal policy. We’ll determine our policies here in Western Australia. We’ll determine our priorities for tax relief according to circumstances in our community.” I do not think the Leader of the Opposition or his colleagues would have any joy if all those matters were determined from Canberra. This intervention of Peter Costello comes on top of what is going to happen to our share of goods and services tax grants. Again, all of us, not only members on this side of the house, but also members on the other side, have to think about the implications of this. Over the next four years, this state is going to lose $1.2 billion of our share of GST grants - $1.2 billion. That is $600 for every Western Australian. Two things are happening. Peter Costello is reducing the share of commonwealth money coming to this state while at the same time urging the state to spend its scarce financial resources on business tax relief, not on tax relief for homebuyers in our community. I reject Mr Costello’s approach on two grounds. The first is that tax policy, along with other fiscal policy, will be determined in this state, not in Canberra. The second is that I will not give all the tax relief that is available to business and leave nothing left over for ordinary Western Australians. Peter Costello’s argument, which is that his GST agreement that he signed with Richard Court somehow requires us to do this, is just wrong. Western Australia has abolished all the stamp duties that it was required to abolish under the GST agreement. We have honoured the GST agreement in full, and we have a bipartisan report from the Public Accounts Committee confirming that we have honoured the GST agreement. When I go to Canberra on Thursday and Friday for the Treasurers’ conference, I would like to have the bipartisan support of members of this house. I would like to have the support of every member of this house when I say, “Give ordinary Western Australians a fair go and we’ll determine fiscal policy, including tax policy, in Western Australia, not in Canberra.” Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I really regret that what I am hearing from the other side are foolish interjections. Why do members opposite not put their hands up and join with us for once and defend the interests of Western Australians and Western Australia?
The SPEAKER : I call the members for Roe and Vasse to order. Mr M.J. Cowper : The sheriff of Belmont! The SPEAKER : I also call the member for Murray to order. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Costello says that the state should abolish stamp duty for business but not for householders. If business stamp duty was to be abolished, it would cost the state’s finances $600 million a year. Previously I have explained to the house that the major areas in which financial capacity needs to be devoted are services, infrastructure, fair pay and tax cuts. Even the member for Vasse would understand - [Interruption from the gallery.] The SPEAKER : I ask the attendants to make sure that that person does not return to this chamber. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I think even the member for Vasse would understand that the same dollar cannot be spent four times. The same dollar cannot be spent on services, infrastructure, wages and tax cuts. Equally, the same dollar cannot be spent twice on different tax cuts. If we follow Mr Costello’s argument and spend $600 million on abolishing stamp duty for business, what will be left over for tax relief for ordinary Western Australians after $600 million has been put to Mr Costello’s purpose? I hear some interjections from the other side, but I want the other side to think about this. This is an issue for the next term of this Parliament. It would be an issue whether we have a Labor government or a Liberal government. I think we need a bipartisan approach. We need to say to Canberra, “Hands off our fiscal policy. We’ll determine our policies here in Western Australia. We’ll determine our priorities for tax relief according to circumstances in our community.” I do not think the Leader of the Opposition or his colleagues would have any joy if all those matters were determined from Canberra. This intervention of Peter Costello comes on top of what is going to happen to our share of goods and services tax grants. Again, all of us, not only members on this side of the house, but also members on the other side, have to think about the implications of this. Over the next four years, this state is going to lose $1.2 billion of our share of GST grants - $1.2 billion. That is $600 for every Western Australian. Two things are happening. Peter Costello is reducing the share of commonwealth money coming to this state while at the same time urging the state to spend its scarce financial resources on business tax relief, not on tax relief for homebuyers in our community. I reject Mr Costello’s approach on two grounds. The first is that tax policy, along with other fiscal policy, will be determined in this state, not in Canberra. The second is that I will not give all the tax relief that is available to business and leave nothing left over for ordinary Western Australians. Peter Costello’s argument, which is that his GST agreement that he signed with Richard Court somehow requires us to do this, is just wrong. Western Australia has abolished all the stamp duties that it was required to abolish under the GST agreement. We have honoured the GST agreement in full, and we have a bipartisan report from the Public Accounts Committee confirming that we have honoured the GST agreement. When I go to Canberra on Thursday and Friday for the Treasurers’ conference, I would like to have the bipartisan support of members of this house. I would like to have the support of every member of this house when I say, “Give ordinary Western Australians a fair go and we’ll determine fiscal policy, including tax policy, in Western Australia, not in Canberra.” Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I really regret that what I am hearing from the other side are foolish interjections. Why do members opposite not put their hands up and join with us for once and defend the interests of Western Australians and Western Australia?
Mr M.J. Cowper : The sheriff of Belmont! The SPEAKER : I also call the member for Murray to order. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Costello says that the state should abolish stamp duty for business but not for householders. If business stamp duty was to be abolished, it would cost the state’s finances $600 million a year. Previously I have explained to the house that the major areas in which financial capacity needs to be devoted are services, infrastructure, fair pay and tax cuts. Even the member for Vasse would understand - [Interruption from the gallery.] The SPEAKER : I ask the attendants to make sure that that person does not return to this chamber. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I think even the member for Vasse would understand that the same dollar cannot be spent four times. The same dollar cannot be spent on services, infrastructure, wages and tax cuts. Equally, the same dollar cannot be spent twice on different tax cuts. If we follow Mr Costello’s argument and spend $600 million on abolishing stamp duty for business, what will be left over for tax relief for ordinary Western Australians after $600 million has been put to Mr Costello’s purpose? I hear some interjections from the other side, but I want the other side to think about this. This is an issue for the next term of this Parliament. It would be an issue whether we have a Labor government or a Liberal government. I think we need a bipartisan approach. We need to say to Canberra, “Hands off our fiscal policy. We’ll determine our policies here in Western Australia. We’ll determine our priorities for tax relief according to circumstances in our community.” I do not think the Leader of the Opposition or his colleagues would have any joy if all those matters were determined from Canberra. This intervention of Peter Costello comes on top of what is going to happen to our share of goods and services tax grants. Again, all of us, not only members on this side of the house, but also members on the other side, have to think about the implications of this. Over the next four years, this state is going to lose $1.2 billion of our share of GST grants - $1.2 billion. That is $600 for every Western Australian. Two things are happening. Peter Costello is reducing the share of commonwealth money coming to this state while at the same time urging the state to spend its scarce financial resources on business tax relief, not on tax relief for homebuyers in our community. I reject Mr Costello’s approach on two grounds. The first is that tax policy, along with other fiscal policy, will be determined in this state, not in Canberra. The second is that I will not give all the tax relief that is available to business and leave nothing left over for ordinary Western Australians. Peter Costello’s argument, which is that his GST agreement that he signed with Richard Court somehow requires us to do this, is just wrong. Western Australia has abolished all the stamp duties that it was required to abolish under the GST agreement. We have honoured the GST agreement in full, and we have a bipartisan report from the Public Accounts Committee confirming that we have honoured the GST agreement. When I go to Canberra on Thursday and Friday for the Treasurers’ conference, I would like to have the bipartisan support of members of this house. I would like to have the support of every member of this house when I say, “Give ordinary Western Australians a fair go and we’ll determine fiscal policy, including tax policy, in Western Australia, not in Canberra.” Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I really regret that what I am hearing from the other side are foolish interjections. Why do members opposite not put their hands up and join with us for once and defend the interests of Western Australians and Western Australia?
The SPEAKER : I also call the member for Murray to order. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Costello says that the state should abolish stamp duty for business but not for householders. If business stamp duty was to be abolished, it would cost the state’s finances $600 million a year. Previously I have explained to the house that the major areas in which financial capacity needs to be devoted are services, infrastructure, fair pay and tax cuts. Even the member for Vasse would understand - [Interruption from the gallery.] The SPEAKER : I ask the attendants to make sure that that person does not return to this chamber. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I think even the member for Vasse would understand that the same dollar cannot be spent four times. The same dollar cannot be spent on services, infrastructure, wages and tax cuts. Equally, the same dollar cannot be spent twice on different tax cuts. If we follow Mr Costello’s argument and spend $600 million on abolishing stamp duty for business, what will be left over for tax relief for ordinary Western Australians after $600 million has been put to Mr Costello’s purpose? I hear some interjections from the other side, but I want the other side to think about this. This is an issue for the next term of this Parliament. It would be an issue whether we have a Labor government or a Liberal government. I think we need a bipartisan approach. We need to say to Canberra, “Hands off our fiscal policy. We’ll determine our policies here in Western Australia. We’ll determine our priorities for tax relief according to circumstances in our community.” I do not think the Leader of the Opposition or his colleagues would have any joy if all those matters were determined from Canberra. This intervention of Peter Costello comes on top of what is going to happen to our share of goods and services tax grants. Again, all of us, not only members on this side of the house, but also members on the other side, have to think about the implications of this. Over the next four years, this state is going to lose $1.2 billion of our share of GST grants - $1.2 billion. That is $600 for every Western Australian. Two things are happening. Peter Costello is reducing the share of commonwealth money coming to this state while at the same time urging the state to spend its scarce financial resources on business tax relief, not on tax relief for homebuyers in our community. I reject Mr Costello’s approach on two grounds. The first is that tax policy, along with other fiscal policy, will be determined in this state, not in Canberra. The second is that I will not give all the tax relief that is available to business and leave nothing left over for ordinary Western Australians. Peter Costello’s argument, which is that his GST agreement that he signed with Richard Court somehow requires us to do this, is just wrong. Western Australia has abolished all the stamp duties that it was required to abolish under the GST agreement. We have honoured the GST agreement in full, and we have a bipartisan report from the Public Accounts Committee confirming that we have honoured the GST agreement. When I go to Canberra on Thursday and Friday for the Treasurers’ conference, I would like to have the bipartisan support of members of this house. I would like to have the support of every member of this house when I say, “Give ordinary Western Australians a fair go and we’ll determine fiscal policy, including tax policy, in Western Australia, not in Canberra.” Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I really regret that what I am hearing from the other side are foolish interjections. Why do members opposite not put their hands up and join with us for once and defend the interests of Western Australians and Western Australia?
Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Costello says that the state should abolish stamp duty for business but not for householders. If business stamp duty was to be abolished, it would cost the state’s finances $600 million a year. Previously I have explained to the house that the major areas in which financial capacity needs to be devoted are services, infrastructure, fair pay and tax cuts. Even the member for Vasse would understand - [Interruption from the gallery.] The SPEAKER : I ask the attendants to make sure that that person does not return to this chamber. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I think even the member for Vasse would understand that the same dollar cannot be spent four times. The same dollar cannot be spent on services, infrastructure, wages and tax cuts. Equally, the same dollar cannot be spent twice on different tax cuts. If we follow Mr Costello’s argument and spend $600 million on abolishing stamp duty for business, what will be left over for tax relief for ordinary Western Australians after $600 million has been put to Mr Costello’s purpose? I hear some interjections from the other side, but I want the other side to think about this. This is an issue for the next term of this Parliament. It would be an issue whether we have a Labor government or a Liberal government. I think we need a bipartisan approach. We need to say to Canberra, “Hands off our fiscal policy. We’ll determine our policies here in Western Australia. We’ll determine our priorities for tax relief according to circumstances in our community.” I do not think the Leader of the Opposition or his colleagues would have any joy if all those matters were determined from Canberra. This intervention of Peter Costello comes on top of what is going to happen to our share of goods and services tax grants. Again, all of us, not only members on this side of the house, but also members on the other side, have to think about the implications of this. Over the next four years, this state is going to lose $1.2 billion of our share of GST grants - $1.2 billion. That is $600 for every Western Australian. Two things are happening. Peter Costello is reducing the share of commonwealth money coming to this state while at the same time urging the state to spend its scarce financial resources on business tax relief, not on tax relief for homebuyers in our community. I reject Mr Costello’s approach on two grounds. The first is that tax policy, along with other fiscal policy, will be determined in this state, not in Canberra. The second is that I will not give all the tax relief that is available to business and leave nothing left over for ordinary Western Australians. Peter Costello’s argument, which is that his GST agreement that he signed with Richard Court somehow requires us to do this, is just wrong. Western Australia has abolished all the stamp duties that it was required to abolish under the GST agreement. We have honoured the GST agreement in full, and we have a bipartisan report from the Public Accounts Committee confirming that we have honoured the GST agreement. When I go to Canberra on Thursday and Friday for the Treasurers’ conference, I would like to have the bipartisan support of members of this house. I would like to have the support of every member of this house when I say, “Give ordinary Western Australians a fair go and we’ll determine fiscal policy, including tax policy, in Western Australia, not in Canberra.” Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I really regret that what I am hearing from the other side are foolish interjections. Why do members opposite not put their hands up and join with us for once and defend the interests of Western Australians and Western Australia?
[Interruption from the gallery.] The SPEAKER : I ask the attendants to make sure that that person does not return to this chamber. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I think even the member for Vasse would understand that the same dollar cannot be spent four times. The same dollar cannot be spent on services, infrastructure, wages and tax cuts. Equally, the same dollar cannot be spent twice on different tax cuts. If we follow Mr Costello’s argument and spend $600 million on abolishing stamp duty for business, what will be left over for tax relief for ordinary Western Australians after $600 million has been put to Mr Costello’s purpose? I hear some interjections from the other side, but I want the other side to think about this. This is an issue for the next term of this Parliament. It would be an issue whether we have a Labor government or a Liberal government. I think we need a bipartisan approach. We need to say to Canberra, “Hands off our fiscal policy. We’ll determine our policies here in Western Australia. We’ll determine our priorities for tax relief according to circumstances in our community.” I do not think the Leader of the Opposition or his colleagues would have any joy if all those matters were determined from Canberra. This intervention of Peter Costello comes on top of what is going to happen to our share of goods and services tax grants. Again, all of us, not only members on this side of the house, but also members on the other side, have to think about the implications of this. Over the next four years, this state is going to lose $1.2 billion of our share of GST grants - $1.2 billion. That is $600 for every Western Australian. Two things are happening. Peter Costello is reducing the share of commonwealth money coming to this state while at the same time urging the state to spend its scarce financial resources on business tax relief, not on tax relief for homebuyers in our community. I reject Mr Costello’s approach on two grounds. The first is that tax policy, along with other fiscal policy, will be determined in this state, not in Canberra. The second is that I will not give all the tax relief that is available to business and leave nothing left over for ordinary Western Australians. Peter Costello’s argument, which is that his GST agreement that he signed with Richard Court somehow requires us to do this, is just wrong. Western Australia has abolished all the stamp duties that it was required to abolish under the GST agreement. We have honoured the GST agreement in full, and we have a bipartisan report from the Public Accounts Committee confirming that we have honoured the GST agreement. When I go to Canberra on Thursday and Friday for the Treasurers’ conference, I would like to have the bipartisan support of members of this house. I would like to have the support of every member of this house when I say, “Give ordinary Western Australians a fair go and we’ll determine fiscal policy, including tax policy, in Western Australia, not in Canberra.” Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I really regret that what I am hearing from the other side are foolish interjections. Why do members opposite not put their hands up and join with us for once and defend the interests of Western Australians and Western Australia?
The SPEAKER : I ask the attendants to make sure that that person does not return to this chamber. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I think even the member for Vasse would understand that the same dollar cannot be spent four times. The same dollar cannot be spent on services, infrastructure, wages and tax cuts. Equally, the same dollar cannot be spent twice on different tax cuts. If we follow Mr Costello’s argument and spend $600 million on abolishing stamp duty for business, what will be left over for tax relief for ordinary Western Australians after $600 million has been put to Mr Costello’s purpose? I hear some interjections from the other side, but I want the other side to think about this. This is an issue for the next term of this Parliament. It would be an issue whether we have a Labor government or a Liberal government. I think we need a bipartisan approach. We need to say to Canberra, “Hands off our fiscal policy. We’ll determine our policies here in Western Australia. We’ll determine our priorities for tax relief according to circumstances in our community.” I do not think the Leader of the Opposition or his colleagues would have any joy if all those matters were determined from Canberra. This intervention of Peter Costello comes on top of what is going to happen to our share of goods and services tax grants. Again, all of us, not only members on this side of the house, but also members on the other side, have to think about the implications of this. Over the next four years, this state is going to lose $1.2 billion of our share of GST grants - $1.2 billion. That is $600 for every Western Australian. Two things are happening. Peter Costello is reducing the share of commonwealth money coming to this state while at the same time urging the state to spend its scarce financial resources on business tax relief, not on tax relief for homebuyers in our community. I reject Mr Costello’s approach on two grounds. The first is that tax policy, along with other fiscal policy, will be determined in this state, not in Canberra. The second is that I will not give all the tax relief that is available to business and leave nothing left over for ordinary Western Australians. Peter Costello’s argument, which is that his GST agreement that he signed with Richard Court somehow requires us to do this, is just wrong. Western Australia has abolished all the stamp duties that it was required to abolish under the GST agreement. We have honoured the GST agreement in full, and we have a bipartisan report from the Public Accounts Committee confirming that we have honoured the GST agreement. When I go to Canberra on Thursday and Friday for the Treasurers’ conference, I would like to have the bipartisan support of members of this house. I would like to have the support of every member of this house when I say, “Give ordinary Western Australians a fair go and we’ll determine fiscal policy, including tax policy, in Western Australia, not in Canberra.” Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I really regret that what I am hearing from the other side are foolish interjections. Why do members opposite not put their hands up and join with us for once and defend the interests of Western Australians and Western Australia?
Mr E.S. RIPPER : I think even the member for Vasse would understand that the same dollar cannot be spent four times. The same dollar cannot be spent on services, infrastructure, wages and tax cuts. Equally, the same dollar cannot be spent twice on different tax cuts. If we follow Mr Costello’s argument and spend $600 million on abolishing stamp duty for business, what will be left over for tax relief for ordinary Western Australians after $600 million has been put to Mr Costello’s purpose? I hear some interjections from the other side, but I want the other side to think about this. This is an issue for the next term of this Parliament. It would be an issue whether we have a Labor government or a Liberal government. I think we need a bipartisan approach. We need to say to Canberra, “Hands off our fiscal policy. We’ll determine our policies here in Western Australia. We’ll determine our priorities for tax relief according to circumstances in our community.” I do not think the Leader of the Opposition or his colleagues would have any joy if all those matters were determined from Canberra. This intervention of Peter Costello comes on top of what is going to happen to our share of goods and services tax grants. Again, all of us, not only members on this side of the house, but also members on the other side, have to think about the implications of this. Over the next four years, this state is going to lose $1.2 billion of our share of GST grants - $1.2 billion. That is $600 for every Western Australian. Two things are happening. Peter Costello is reducing the share of commonwealth money coming to this state while at the same time urging the state to spend its scarce financial resources on business tax relief, not on tax relief for homebuyers in our community. I reject Mr Costello’s approach on two grounds. The first is that tax policy, along with other fiscal policy, will be determined in this state, not in Canberra. The second is that I will not give all the tax relief that is available to business and leave nothing left over for ordinary Western Australians. Peter Costello’s argument, which is that his GST agreement that he signed with Richard Court somehow requires us to do this, is just wrong. Western Australia has abolished all the stamp duties that it was required to abolish under the GST agreement. We have honoured the GST agreement in full, and we have a bipartisan report from the Public Accounts Committee confirming that we have honoured the GST agreement. When I go to Canberra on Thursday and Friday for the Treasurers’ conference, I would like to have the bipartisan support of members of this house. I would like to have the support of every member of this house when I say, “Give ordinary Western Australians a fair go and we’ll determine fiscal policy, including tax policy, in Western Australia, not in Canberra.” Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I really regret that what I am hearing from the other side are foolish interjections. Why do members opposite not put their hands up and join with us for once and defend the interests of Western Australians and Western Australia?
This intervention of Peter Costello comes on top of what is going to happen to our share of goods and services tax grants. Again, all of us, not only members on this side of the house, but also members on the other side, have to think about the implications of this. Over the next four years, this state is going to lose $1.2 billion of our share of GST grants - $1.2 billion. That is $600 for every Western Australian. Two things are happening. Peter Costello is reducing the share of commonwealth money coming to this state while at the same time urging the state to spend its scarce financial resources on business tax relief, not on tax relief for homebuyers in our community. I reject Mr Costello’s approach on two grounds. The first is that tax policy, along with other fiscal policy, will be determined in this state, not in Canberra. The second is that I will not give all the tax relief that is available to business and leave nothing left over for ordinary Western Australians. Peter Costello’s argument, which is that his GST agreement that he signed with Richard Court somehow requires us to do this, is just wrong. Western Australia has abolished all the stamp duties that it was required to abolish under the GST agreement. We have honoured the GST agreement in full, and we have a bipartisan report from the Public Accounts Committee confirming that we have honoured the GST agreement. When I go to Canberra on Thursday and Friday for the Treasurers’ conference, I would like to have the bipartisan support of members of this house. I would like to have the support of every member of this house when I say, “Give ordinary Western Australians a fair go and we’ll determine fiscal policy, including tax policy, in Western Australia, not in Canberra.” Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I really regret that what I am hearing from the other side are foolish interjections. Why do members opposite not put their hands up and join with us for once and defend the interests of Western Australians and Western Australia?
Peter Costello’s argument, which is that his GST agreement that he signed with Richard Court somehow requires us to do this, is just wrong. Western Australia has abolished all the stamp duties that it was required to abolish under the GST agreement. We have honoured the GST agreement in full, and we have a bipartisan report from the Public Accounts Committee confirming that we have honoured the GST agreement. When I go to Canberra on Thursday and Friday for the Treasurers’ conference, I would like to have the bipartisan support of members of this house. I would like to have the support of every member of this house when I say, “Give ordinary Western Australians a fair go and we’ll determine fiscal policy, including tax policy, in Western Australia, not in Canberra.” Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I really regret that what I am hearing from the other side are foolish interjections. Why do members opposite not put their hands up and join with us for once and defend the interests of Western Australians and Western Australia?
Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I really regret that what I am hearing from the other side are foolish interjections. Why do members opposite not put their hands up and join with us for once and defend the interests of Western Australians and Western Australia?
Mr E.S. RIPPER : I really regret that what I am hearing from the other side are foolish interjections. Why do members opposite not put their hands up and join with us for once and defend the interests of Western Australians and Western Australia?
Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: Flush with a $15 billion surplus, which he proposes to invest in the share market rather than in infrastructure, Peter Costello has turned his attention to state finances. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the members for Roe and Vasse to order. Mr M.J. Cowper : The sheriff of Belmont! The SPEAKER : I also call the member for Murray to order. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Costello says that the state should abolish stamp duty for business but not for householders. If business stamp duty was to be abolished, it would cost the state’s finances $600 million a year. Previously I have explained to the house that the major areas in which financial capacity needs to be devoted are services, infrastructure, fair pay and tax cuts. Even the member for Vasse would understand - [Interruption from the gallery.] The SPEAKER : I ask the attendants to make sure that that person does not return to this chamber. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I think even the member for Vasse would understand that the same dollar cannot be spent four times. The same dollar cannot be spent on services, infrastructure, wages and tax cuts. Equally, the same dollar cannot be spent twice on different tax cuts. If we follow Mr Costello’s argument and spend $600 million on abolishing stamp duty for business, what will be left over for tax relief for ordinary Western Australians after $600 million has been put to Mr Costello’s purpose? I hear some interjections from the other side, but I want the other side to think about this. This is an issue for the next term of this Parliament. It would be an issue whether we have a Labor government or a Liberal government. I think we need a bipartisan approach. We need to say to Canberra, “Hands off our fiscal policy. We’ll determine our policies here in Western Australia. We’ll determine our priorities for tax relief according to circumstances in our community.” I do not think the Leader of the Opposition or his colleagues would have any joy if all those matters were determined from Canberra. This intervention of Peter Costello comes on top of what is going to happen to our share of goods and services tax grants. Again, all of us, not only members on this side of the house, but also members on the other side, have to think about the implications of this. Over the next four years, this state is going to lose $1.2 billion of our share of GST grants - $1.2 billion. That is $600 for every Western Australian. Two things are happening. Peter Costello is reducing the share of commonwealth money coming to this state while at the same time urging the state to spend its scarce financial resources on business tax relief, not on tax relief for homebuyers in our community. I reject Mr Costello’s approach on two grounds. The first is that tax policy, along with other fiscal policy, will be determined in this state, not in Canberra. The second is that I will not give all the tax relief that is available to business and leave nothing left over for ordinary Western Australians. Peter Costello’s argument, which is that his GST agreement that he signed with Richard Court somehow requires us to do this, is just wrong. Western Australia has abolished all the stamp duties that it was required to abolish under the GST agreement. We have honoured the GST agreement in full, and we have a bipartisan report from the Public Accounts Committee confirming that we have honoured the GST agreement. When I go to Canberra on Thursday and Friday for the Treasurers’ conference, I would like to have the bipartisan support of members of this house. I would like to have the support of every member of this house when I say, “Give ordinary Western Australians a fair go and we’ll determine fiscal policy, including tax policy, in Western Australia, not in Canberra.” Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I really regret that what I am hearing from the other side are foolish interjections. Why do members opposite not put their hands up and join with us for once and defend the interests of Western Australians and Western Australia?
Flush with a $15 billion surplus, which he proposes to invest in the share market rather than in infrastructure, Peter Costello has turned his attention to state finances. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the members for Roe and Vasse to order. Mr M.J. Cowper : The sheriff of Belmont! The SPEAKER : I also call the member for Murray to order. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Costello says that the state should abolish stamp duty for business but not for householders. If business stamp duty was to be abolished, it would cost the state’s finances $600 million a year. Previously I have explained to the house that the major areas in which financial capacity needs to be devoted are services, infrastructure, fair pay and tax cuts. Even the member for Vasse would understand - [Interruption from the gallery.] The SPEAKER : I ask the attendants to make sure that that person does not return to this chamber. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I think even the member for Vasse would understand that the same dollar cannot be spent four times. The same dollar cannot be spent on services, infrastructure, wages and tax cuts. Equally, the same dollar cannot be spent twice on different tax cuts. If we follow Mr Costello’s argument and spend $600 million on abolishing stamp duty for business, what will be left over for tax relief for ordinary Western Australians after $600 million has been put to Mr Costello’s purpose? I hear some interjections from the other side, but I want the other side to think about this. This is an issue for the next term of this Parliament. It would be an issue whether we have a Labor government or a Liberal government. I think we need a bipartisan approach. We need to say to Canberra, “Hands off our fiscal policy. We’ll determine our policies here in Western Australia. We’ll determine our priorities for tax relief according to circumstances in our community.” I do not think the Leader of the Opposition or his colleagues would have any joy if all those matters were determined from Canberra. This intervention of Peter Costello comes on top of what is going to happen to our share of goods and services tax grants. Again, all of us, not only members on this side of the house, but also members on the other side, have to think about the implications of this. Over the next four years, this state is going to lose $1.2 billion of our share of GST grants - $1.2 billion. That is $600 for every Western Australian. Two things are happening. Peter Costello is reducing the share of commonwealth money coming to this state while at the same time urging the state to spend its scarce financial resources on business tax relief, not on tax relief for homebuyers in our community. I reject Mr Costello’s approach on two grounds. The first is that tax policy, along with other fiscal policy, will be determined in this state, not in Canberra. The second is that I will not give all the tax relief that is available to business and leave nothing left over for ordinary Western Australians. Peter Costello’s argument, which is that his GST agreement that he signed with Richard Court somehow requires us to do this, is just wrong. Western Australia has abolished all the stamp duties that it was required to abolish under the GST agreement. We have honoured the GST agreement in full, and we have a bipartisan report from the Public Accounts Committee confirming that we have honoured the GST agreement. When I go to Canberra on Thursday and Friday for the Treasurers’ conference, I would like to have the bipartisan support of members of this house. I would like to have the support of every member of this house when I say, “Give ordinary Western Australians a fair go and we’ll determine fiscal policy, including tax policy, in Western Australia, not in Canberra.” Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I really regret that what I am hearing from the other side are foolish interjections. Why do members opposite not put their hands up and join with us for once and defend the interests of Western Australians and Western Australia?
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the members for Roe and Vasse to order. Mr M.J. Cowper : The sheriff of Belmont! The SPEAKER : I also call the member for Murray to order. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Costello says that the state should abolish stamp duty for business but not for householders. If business stamp duty was to be abolished, it would cost the state’s finances $600 million a year. Previously I have explained to the house that the major areas in which financial capacity needs to be devoted are services, infrastructure, fair pay and tax cuts. Even the member for Vasse would understand - [Interruption from the gallery.] The SPEAKER : I ask the attendants to make sure that that person does not return to this chamber. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I think even the member for Vasse would understand that the same dollar cannot be spent four times. The same dollar cannot be spent on services, infrastructure, wages and tax cuts. Equally, the same dollar cannot be spent twice on different tax cuts. If we follow Mr Costello’s argument and spend $600 million on abolishing stamp duty for business, what will be left over for tax relief for ordinary Western Australians after $600 million has been put to Mr Costello’s purpose? I hear some interjections from the other side, but I want the other side to think about this. This is an issue for the next term of this Parliament. It would be an issue whether we have a Labor government or a Liberal government. I think we need a bipartisan approach. We need to say to Canberra, “Hands off our fiscal policy. We’ll determine our policies here in Western Australia. We’ll determine our priorities for tax relief according to circumstances in our community.” I do not think the Leader of the Opposition or his colleagues would have any joy if all those matters were determined from Canberra. This intervention of Peter Costello comes on top of what is going to happen to our share of goods and services tax grants. Again, all of us, not only members on this side of the house, but also members on the other side, have to think about the implications of this. Over the next four years, this state is going to lose $1.2 billion of our share of GST grants - $1.2 billion. That is $600 for every Western Australian. Two things are happening. Peter Costello is reducing the share of commonwealth money coming to this state while at the same time urging the state to spend its scarce financial resources on business tax relief, not on tax relief for homebuyers in our community. I reject Mr Costello’s approach on two grounds. The first is that tax policy, along with other fiscal policy, will be determined in this state, not in Canberra. The second is that I will not give all the tax relief that is available to business and leave nothing left over for ordinary Western Australians. Peter Costello’s argument, which is that his GST agreement that he signed with Richard Court somehow requires us to do this, is just wrong. Western Australia has abolished all the stamp duties that it was required to abolish under the GST agreement. We have honoured the GST agreement in full, and we have a bipartisan report from the Public Accounts Committee confirming that we have honoured the GST agreement. When I go to Canberra on Thursday and Friday for the Treasurers’ conference, I would like to have the bipartisan support of members of this house. I would like to have the support of every member of this house when I say, “Give ordinary Western Australians a fair go and we’ll determine fiscal policy, including tax policy, in Western Australia, not in Canberra.” Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I really regret that what I am hearing from the other side are foolish interjections. Why do members opposite not put their hands up and join with us for once and defend the interests of Western Australians and Western Australia?
The SPEAKER : I call the members for Roe and Vasse to order. Mr M.J. Cowper : The sheriff of Belmont! The SPEAKER : I also call the member for Murray to order. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Costello says that the state should abolish stamp duty for business but not for householders. If business stamp duty was to be abolished, it would cost the state’s finances $600 million a year. Previously I have explained to the house that the major areas in which financial capacity needs to be devoted are services, infrastructure, fair pay and tax cuts. Even the member for Vasse would understand - [Interruption from the gallery.] The SPEAKER : I ask the attendants to make sure that that person does not return to this chamber. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I think even the member for Vasse would understand that the same dollar cannot be spent four times. The same dollar cannot be spent on services, infrastructure, wages and tax cuts. Equally, the same dollar cannot be spent twice on different tax cuts. If we follow Mr Costello’s argument and spend $600 million on abolishing stamp duty for business, what will be left over for tax relief for ordinary Western Australians after $600 million has been put to Mr Costello’s purpose? I hear some interjections from the other side, but I want the other side to think about this. This is an issue for the next term of this Parliament. It would be an issue whether we have a Labor government or a Liberal government. I think we need a bipartisan approach. We need to say to Canberra, “Hands off our fiscal policy. We’ll determine our policies here in Western Australia. We’ll determine our priorities for tax relief according to circumstances in our community.” I do not think the Leader of the Opposition or his colleagues would have any joy if all those matters were determined from Canberra. This intervention of Peter Costello comes on top of what is going to happen to our share of goods and services tax grants. Again, all of us, not only members on this side of the house, but also members on the other side, have to think about the implications of this. Over the next four years, this state is going to lose $1.2 billion of our share of GST grants - $1.2 billion. That is $600 for every Western Australian. Two things are happening. Peter Costello is reducing the share of commonwealth money coming to this state while at the same time urging the state to spend its scarce financial resources on business tax relief, not on tax relief for homebuyers in our community. I reject Mr Costello’s approach on two grounds. The first is that tax policy, along with other fiscal policy, will be determined in this state, not in Canberra. The second is that I will not give all the tax relief that is available to business and leave nothing left over for ordinary Western Australians. Peter Costello’s argument, which is that his GST agreement that he signed with Richard Court somehow requires us to do this, is just wrong. Western Australia has abolished all the stamp duties that it was required to abolish under the GST agreement. We have honoured the GST agreement in full, and we have a bipartisan report from the Public Accounts Committee confirming that we have honoured the GST agreement. When I go to Canberra on Thursday and Friday for the Treasurers’ conference, I would like to have the bipartisan support of members of this house. I would like to have the support of every member of this house when I say, “Give ordinary Western Australians a fair go and we’ll determine fiscal policy, including tax policy, in Western Australia, not in Canberra.” Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I really regret that what I am hearing from the other side are foolish interjections. Why do members opposite not put their hands up and join with us for once and defend the interests of Western Australians and Western Australia?
Mr M.J. Cowper : The sheriff of Belmont! The SPEAKER : I also call the member for Murray to order. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Costello says that the state should abolish stamp duty for business but not for householders. If business stamp duty was to be abolished, it would cost the state’s finances $600 million a year. Previously I have explained to the house that the major areas in which financial capacity needs to be devoted are services, infrastructure, fair pay and tax cuts. Even the member for Vasse would understand - [Interruption from the gallery.] The SPEAKER : I ask the attendants to make sure that that person does not return to this chamber. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I think even the member for Vasse would understand that the same dollar cannot be spent four times. The same dollar cannot be spent on services, infrastructure, wages and tax cuts. Equally, the same dollar cannot be spent twice on different tax cuts. If we follow Mr Costello’s argument and spend $600 million on abolishing stamp duty for business, what will be left over for tax relief for ordinary Western Australians after $600 million has been put to Mr Costello’s purpose? I hear some interjections from the other side, but I want the other side to think about this. This is an issue for the next term of this Parliament. It would be an issue whether we have a Labor government or a Liberal government. I think we need a bipartisan approach. We need to say to Canberra, “Hands off our fiscal policy. We’ll determine our policies here in Western Australia. We’ll determine our priorities for tax relief according to circumstances in our community.” I do not think the Leader of the Opposition or his colleagues would have any joy if all those matters were determined from Canberra. This intervention of Peter Costello comes on top of what is going to happen to our share of goods and services tax grants. Again, all of us, not only members on this side of the house, but also members on the other side, have to think about the implications of this. Over the next four years, this state is going to lose $1.2 billion of our share of GST grants - $1.2 billion. That is $600 for every Western Australian. Two things are happening. Peter Costello is reducing the share of commonwealth money coming to this state while at the same time urging the state to spend its scarce financial resources on business tax relief, not on tax relief for homebuyers in our community. I reject Mr Costello’s approach on two grounds. The first is that tax policy, along with other fiscal policy, will be determined in this state, not in Canberra. The second is that I will not give all the tax relief that is available to business and leave nothing left over for ordinary Western Australians. Peter Costello’s argument, which is that his GST agreement that he signed with Richard Court somehow requires us to do this, is just wrong. Western Australia has abolished all the stamp duties that it was required to abolish under the GST agreement. We have honoured the GST agreement in full, and we have a bipartisan report from the Public Accounts Committee confirming that we have honoured the GST agreement. When I go to Canberra on Thursday and Friday for the Treasurers’ conference, I would like to have the bipartisan support of members of this house. I would like to have the support of every member of this house when I say, “Give ordinary Western Australians a fair go and we’ll determine fiscal policy, including tax policy, in Western Australia, not in Canberra.” Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I really regret that what I am hearing from the other side are foolish interjections. Why do members opposite not put their hands up and join with us for once and defend the interests of Western Australians and Western Australia?
The SPEAKER : I also call the member for Murray to order. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Costello says that the state should abolish stamp duty for business but not for householders. If business stamp duty was to be abolished, it would cost the state’s finances $600 million a year. Previously I have explained to the house that the major areas in which financial capacity needs to be devoted are services, infrastructure, fair pay and tax cuts. Even the member for Vasse would understand - [Interruption from the gallery.] The SPEAKER : I ask the attendants to make sure that that person does not return to this chamber. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I think even the member for Vasse would understand that the same dollar cannot be spent four times. The same dollar cannot be spent on services, infrastructure, wages and tax cuts. Equally, the same dollar cannot be spent twice on different tax cuts. If we follow Mr Costello’s argument and spend $600 million on abolishing stamp duty for business, what will be left over for tax relief for ordinary Western Australians after $600 million has been put to Mr Costello’s purpose? I hear some interjections from the other side, but I want the other side to think about this. This is an issue for the next term of this Parliament. It would be an issue whether we have a Labor government or a Liberal government. I think we need a bipartisan approach. We need to say to Canberra, “Hands off our fiscal policy. We’ll determine our policies here in Western Australia. We’ll determine our priorities for tax relief according to circumstances in our community.” I do not think the Leader of the Opposition or his colleagues would have any joy if all those matters were determined from Canberra. This intervention of Peter Costello comes on top of what is going to happen to our share of goods and services tax grants. Again, all of us, not only members on this side of the house, but also members on the other side, have to think about the implications of this. Over the next four years, this state is going to lose $1.2 billion of our share of GST grants - $1.2 billion. That is $600 for every Western Australian. Two things are happening. Peter Costello is reducing the share of commonwealth money coming to this state while at the same time urging the state to spend its scarce financial resources on business tax relief, not on tax relief for homebuyers in our community. I reject Mr Costello’s approach on two grounds. The first is that tax policy, along with other fiscal policy, will be determined in this state, not in Canberra. The second is that I will not give all the tax relief that is available to business and leave nothing left over for ordinary Western Australians. Peter Costello’s argument, which is that his GST agreement that he signed with Richard Court somehow requires us to do this, is just wrong. Western Australia has abolished all the stamp duties that it was required to abolish under the GST agreement. We have honoured the GST agreement in full, and we have a bipartisan report from the Public Accounts Committee confirming that we have honoured the GST agreement. When I go to Canberra on Thursday and Friday for the Treasurers’ conference, I would like to have the bipartisan support of members of this house. I would like to have the support of every member of this house when I say, “Give ordinary Western Australians a fair go and we’ll determine fiscal policy, including tax policy, in Western Australia, not in Canberra.” Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I really regret that what I am hearing from the other side are foolish interjections. Why do members opposite not put their hands up and join with us for once and defend the interests of Western Australians and Western Australia?
Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Costello says that the state should abolish stamp duty for business but not for householders. If business stamp duty was to be abolished, it would cost the state’s finances $600 million a year. Previously I have explained to the house that the major areas in which financial capacity needs to be devoted are services, infrastructure, fair pay and tax cuts. Even the member for Vasse would understand - [Interruption from the gallery.] The SPEAKER : I ask the attendants to make sure that that person does not return to this chamber. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I think even the member for Vasse would understand that the same dollar cannot be spent four times. The same dollar cannot be spent on services, infrastructure, wages and tax cuts. Equally, the same dollar cannot be spent twice on different tax cuts. If we follow Mr Costello’s argument and spend $600 million on abolishing stamp duty for business, what will be left over for tax relief for ordinary Western Australians after $600 million has been put to Mr Costello’s purpose? I hear some interjections from the other side, but I want the other side to think about this. This is an issue for the next term of this Parliament. It would be an issue whether we have a Labor government or a Liberal government. I think we need a bipartisan approach. We need to say to Canberra, “Hands off our fiscal policy. We’ll determine our policies here in Western Australia. We’ll determine our priorities for tax relief according to circumstances in our community.” I do not think the Leader of the Opposition or his colleagues would have any joy if all those matters were determined from Canberra. This intervention of Peter Costello comes on top of what is going to happen to our share of goods and services tax grants. Again, all of us, not only members on this side of the house, but also members on the other side, have to think about the implications of this. Over the next four years, this state is going to lose $1.2 billion of our share of GST grants - $1.2 billion. That is $600 for every Western Australian. Two things are happening. Peter Costello is reducing the share of commonwealth money coming to this state while at the same time urging the state to spend its scarce financial resources on business tax relief, not on tax relief for homebuyers in our community. I reject Mr Costello’s approach on two grounds. The first is that tax policy, along with other fiscal policy, will be determined in this state, not in Canberra. The second is that I will not give all the tax relief that is available to business and leave nothing left over for ordinary Western Australians. Peter Costello’s argument, which is that his GST agreement that he signed with Richard Court somehow requires us to do this, is just wrong. Western Australia has abolished all the stamp duties that it was required to abolish under the GST agreement. We have honoured the GST agreement in full, and we have a bipartisan report from the Public Accounts Committee confirming that we have honoured the GST agreement. When I go to Canberra on Thursday and Friday for the Treasurers’ conference, I would like to have the bipartisan support of members of this house. I would like to have the support of every member of this house when I say, “Give ordinary Western Australians a fair go and we’ll determine fiscal policy, including tax policy, in Western Australia, not in Canberra.” Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I really regret that what I am hearing from the other side are foolish interjections. Why do members opposite not put their hands up and join with us for once and defend the interests of Western Australians and Western Australia?
[Interruption from the gallery.] The SPEAKER : I ask the attendants to make sure that that person does not return to this chamber. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I think even the member for Vasse would understand that the same dollar cannot be spent four times. The same dollar cannot be spent on services, infrastructure, wages and tax cuts. Equally, the same dollar cannot be spent twice on different tax cuts. If we follow Mr Costello’s argument and spend $600 million on abolishing stamp duty for business, what will be left over for tax relief for ordinary Western Australians after $600 million has been put to Mr Costello’s purpose? I hear some interjections from the other side, but I want the other side to think about this. This is an issue for the next term of this Parliament. It would be an issue whether we have a Labor government or a Liberal government. I think we need a bipartisan approach. We need to say to Canberra, “Hands off our fiscal policy. We’ll determine our policies here in Western Australia. We’ll determine our priorities for tax relief according to circumstances in our community.” I do not think the Leader of the Opposition or his colleagues would have any joy if all those matters were determined from Canberra. This intervention of Peter Costello comes on top of what is going to happen to our share of goods and services tax grants. Again, all of us, not only members on this side of the house, but also members on the other side, have to think about the implications of this. Over the next four years, this state is going to lose $1.2 billion of our share of GST grants - $1.2 billion. That is $600 for every Western Australian. Two things are happening. Peter Costello is reducing the share of commonwealth money coming to this state while at the same time urging the state to spend its scarce financial resources on business tax relief, not on tax relief for homebuyers in our community. I reject Mr Costello’s approach on two grounds. The first is that tax policy, along with other fiscal policy, will be determined in this state, not in Canberra. The second is that I will not give all the tax relief that is available to business and leave nothing left over for ordinary Western Australians. Peter Costello’s argument, which is that his GST agreement that he signed with Richard Court somehow requires us to do this, is just wrong. Western Australia has abolished all the stamp duties that it was required to abolish under the GST agreement. We have honoured the GST agreement in full, and we have a bipartisan report from the Public Accounts Committee confirming that we have honoured the GST agreement. When I go to Canberra on Thursday and Friday for the Treasurers’ conference, I would like to have the bipartisan support of members of this house. I would like to have the support of every member of this house when I say, “Give ordinary Western Australians a fair go and we’ll determine fiscal policy, including tax policy, in Western Australia, not in Canberra.” Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I really regret that what I am hearing from the other side are foolish interjections. Why do members opposite not put their hands up and join with us for once and defend the interests of Western Australians and Western Australia?
The SPEAKER : I ask the attendants to make sure that that person does not return to this chamber. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I think even the member for Vasse would understand that the same dollar cannot be spent four times. The same dollar cannot be spent on services, infrastructure, wages and tax cuts. Equally, the same dollar cannot be spent twice on different tax cuts. If we follow Mr Costello’s argument and spend $600 million on abolishing stamp duty for business, what will be left over for tax relief for ordinary Western Australians after $600 million has been put to Mr Costello’s purpose? I hear some interjections from the other side, but I want the other side to think about this. This is an issue for the next term of this Parliament. It would be an issue whether we have a Labor government or a Liberal government. I think we need a bipartisan approach. We need to say to Canberra, “Hands off our fiscal policy. We’ll determine our policies here in Western Australia. We’ll determine our priorities for tax relief according to circumstances in our community.” I do not think the Leader of the Opposition or his colleagues would have any joy if all those matters were determined from Canberra. This intervention of Peter Costello comes on top of what is going to happen to our share of goods and services tax grants. Again, all of us, not only members on this side of the house, but also members on the other side, have to think about the implications of this. Over the next four years, this state is going to lose $1.2 billion of our share of GST grants - $1.2 billion. That is $600 for every Western Australian. Two things are happening. Peter Costello is reducing the share of commonwealth money coming to this state while at the same time urging the state to spend its scarce financial resources on business tax relief, not on tax relief for homebuyers in our community. I reject Mr Costello’s approach on two grounds. The first is that tax policy, along with other fiscal policy, will be determined in this state, not in Canberra. The second is that I will not give all the tax relief that is available to business and leave nothing left over for ordinary Western Australians. Peter Costello’s argument, which is that his GST agreement that he signed with Richard Court somehow requires us to do this, is just wrong. Western Australia has abolished all the stamp duties that it was required to abolish under the GST agreement. We have honoured the GST agreement in full, and we have a bipartisan report from the Public Accounts Committee confirming that we have honoured the GST agreement. When I go to Canberra on Thursday and Friday for the Treasurers’ conference, I would like to have the bipartisan support of members of this house. I would like to have the support of every member of this house when I say, “Give ordinary Western Australians a fair go and we’ll determine fiscal policy, including tax policy, in Western Australia, not in Canberra.” Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I really regret that what I am hearing from the other side are foolish interjections. Why do members opposite not put their hands up and join with us for once and defend the interests of Western Australians and Western Australia?
Mr E.S. RIPPER : I think even the member for Vasse would understand that the same dollar cannot be spent four times. The same dollar cannot be spent on services, infrastructure, wages and tax cuts. Equally, the same dollar cannot be spent twice on different tax cuts. If we follow Mr Costello’s argument and spend $600 million on abolishing stamp duty for business, what will be left over for tax relief for ordinary Western Australians after $600 million has been put to Mr Costello’s purpose? I hear some interjections from the other side, but I want the other side to think about this. This is an issue for the next term of this Parliament. It would be an issue whether we have a Labor government or a Liberal government. I think we need a bipartisan approach. We need to say to Canberra, “Hands off our fiscal policy. We’ll determine our policies here in Western Australia. We’ll determine our priorities for tax relief according to circumstances in our community.” I do not think the Leader of the Opposition or his colleagues would have any joy if all those matters were determined from Canberra. This intervention of Peter Costello comes on top of what is going to happen to our share of goods and services tax grants. Again, all of us, not only members on this side of the house, but also members on the other side, have to think about the implications of this. Over the next four years, this state is going to lose $1.2 billion of our share of GST grants - $1.2 billion. That is $600 for every Western Australian. Two things are happening. Peter Costello is reducing the share of commonwealth money coming to this state while at the same time urging the state to spend its scarce financial resources on business tax relief, not on tax relief for homebuyers in our community. I reject Mr Costello’s approach on two grounds. The first is that tax policy, along with other fiscal policy, will be determined in this state, not in Canberra. The second is that I will not give all the tax relief that is available to business and leave nothing left over for ordinary Western Australians. Peter Costello’s argument, which is that his GST agreement that he signed with Richard Court somehow requires us to do this, is just wrong. Western Australia has abolished all the stamp duties that it was required to abolish under the GST agreement. We have honoured the GST agreement in full, and we have a bipartisan report from the Public Accounts Committee confirming that we have honoured the GST agreement. When I go to Canberra on Thursday and Friday for the Treasurers’ conference, I would like to have the bipartisan support of members of this house. I would like to have the support of every member of this house when I say, “Give ordinary Western Australians a fair go and we’ll determine fiscal policy, including tax policy, in Western Australia, not in Canberra.” Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I really regret that what I am hearing from the other side are foolish interjections. Why do members opposite not put their hands up and join with us for once and defend the interests of Western Australians and Western Australia?
This intervention of Peter Costello comes on top of what is going to happen to our share of goods and services tax grants. Again, all of us, not only members on this side of the house, but also members on the other side, have to think about the implications of this. Over the next four years, this state is going to lose $1.2 billion of our share of GST grants - $1.2 billion. That is $600 for every Western Australian. Two things are happening. Peter Costello is reducing the share of commonwealth money coming to this state while at the same time urging the state to spend its scarce financial resources on business tax relief, not on tax relief for homebuyers in our community. I reject Mr Costello’s approach on two grounds. The first is that tax policy, along with other fiscal policy, will be determined in this state, not in Canberra. The second is that I will not give all the tax relief that is available to business and leave nothing left over for ordinary Western Australians. Peter Costello’s argument, which is that his GST agreement that he signed with Richard Court somehow requires us to do this, is just wrong. Western Australia has abolished all the stamp duties that it was required to abolish under the GST agreement. We have honoured the GST agreement in full, and we have a bipartisan report from the Public Accounts Committee confirming that we have honoured the GST agreement. When I go to Canberra on Thursday and Friday for the Treasurers’ conference, I would like to have the bipartisan support of members of this house. I would like to have the support of every member of this house when I say, “Give ordinary Western Australians a fair go and we’ll determine fiscal policy, including tax policy, in Western Australia, not in Canberra.” Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I really regret that what I am hearing from the other side are foolish interjections. Why do members opposite not put their hands up and join with us for once and defend the interests of Western Australians and Western Australia?
Peter Costello’s argument, which is that his GST agreement that he signed with Richard Court somehow requires us to do this, is just wrong. Western Australia has abolished all the stamp duties that it was required to abolish under the GST agreement. We have honoured the GST agreement in full, and we have a bipartisan report from the Public Accounts Committee confirming that we have honoured the GST agreement. When I go to Canberra on Thursday and Friday for the Treasurers’ conference, I would like to have the bipartisan support of members of this house. I would like to have the support of every member of this house when I say, “Give ordinary Western Australians a fair go and we’ll determine fiscal policy, including tax policy, in Western Australia, not in Canberra.” Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I really regret that what I am hearing from the other side are foolish interjections. Why do members opposite not put their hands up and join with us for once and defend the interests of Western Australians and Western Australia?
Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I really regret that what I am hearing from the other side are foolish interjections. Why do members opposite not put their hands up and join with us for once and defend the interests of Western Australians and Western Australia?
Mr E.S. RIPPER : I really regret that what I am hearing from the other side are foolish interjections. Why do members opposite not put their hands up and join with us for once and defend the interests of Western Australians and Western Australia?
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.