❓ The Opposition Leader questions the Treasurer about projected budget surpluses and the justification for tax increases. The Treasurer deflects, criticising the previous government's financial management and highlighting past deficits.
AnsweredQoN 324Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
STATE BUDGET, SURPLUS
Yesterday, the Treasurer finally acknowledged that he had inherited a budget surplus, a situation vastly different from that which the Liberal Party inherited from Labor in 1993. (1) Will the Treasurer confirm that Treasury has forecast continuing recurrent surpluses of $422.7 million in 2001-02; $345.6 million in 2002-03; and $387.2 million in 2003-04? (2) Given that, according to Treasury documents, there will be recurrent surpluses for the next four years, will the Treasurer admit that there is no reasonable justification for an increase in taxes and charges in his first budget? Mr RIPPER
Yesterday, the Treasurer finally acknowledged that he had inherited a budget surplus, a situation vastly different from that which the Liberal Party inherited from Labor in 1993. (1) Will the Treasurer confirm that Treasury has forecast continuing recurrent surpluses of $422.7 million in 2001-02; $345.6 million in 2002-03; and $387.2 million in 2003-04? (2) Given that, according to Treasury documents, there will be recurrent surpluses for the next four years, will the Treasurer admit that there is no reasonable justification for an increase in taxes and charges in his first budget? Mr RIPPER
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(2) Come in spinner! I have a bit of information for the Leader of the Opposition. I am surprised that he is surprised about the privatisation surplus. After all, the projected $98 million general government operating surplus, the two projected deficits in forthcoming years and the four deficits that his Government was responsible for delivering were in the pre-election financial statements. On 31 May 2001, I acknowledged the forecast privatisation surplus in a major ministerial statement to this House. However, the issue is not one year’s result, it is the trend. Every credible economic commentator warned that the trend of major coalition financial mismanagement was evident. Do members of the Opposition remember this chart? It shows four operating deficits and two forecast operating deficits. The Leader of the Opposition wants to talk about the surplus years, but he does not want to talk about the four deficit years that his Government delivered or the two more deficit years that were forecast. The problem of the Leader of the Opposition is not attention deficit disorder; it is deficit attention disorder! In January, Alan Wood, writing for The Australian , said that Premier Richard Court’s brief flirtation with fiscal responsibility had ended in a sea of red ink. If a surplus is created on the back of privatisation revenues, which was the case last year, and if the surplus is built on fluctuations in the oil price and on the value of the Australian dollar, that is not a licence to spend money, and it is not a licence to fill the Barnett budget blow-out, because that windfall may not occur in the subsequent year. Members opposite are windfall junkies. They believe that if a person won lotto, he could book up household expenses on the basis that he would win it again; that is a hopeless situation. The Leader of the Opposition is on the record as saying that he does not believe in the forward estimates. He does not believe in the forward estimates because he wants the fig leaf of a one-year surplus. He does not want to acknowledge the history of the previous Government’s four deficits in a row, and he does not want to acknowledge the forecast of deficits in future years that we were left with. He does not want to acknowledge the trend of fiscal recklessness that his Government bequeathed to us. That information came to us in the budget process. I have already referred to the Barnett budget blow-out, and there are plenty of examples of that including the Fremantle Maritime Museum, the police communications and information technology program, laptops in schools, an unfunded commitment to reduce class sizes and the Kwinana motorplex. The Under Treasurer summed up the situation in a memo that I previously read to the House. In 1998, the Under Treasurer said that the current critical situation is entirely attributable to the lack of discipline shown by ministers. He said that the myth of a Treasury pot of gold still exists and that a visit to Treasury for more money was still the first preferred and only option put forward. As examples of the lack of discipline shown by ministers, the Under Treasurer included the then Minister for Education’s announcements on matters including reduced class sizes, which were not funded; the proposal to expand the local area education planning initiative; and the same minister’s proposal on regional power. We all know who that minister was - it was the now Leader of the Opposition. There is one reason that we still have a surplus in 2000-01, and it is not because of the good financial management of the coalition; it is because Labor exercised financial discipline in dealing with the windfall. We have done the responsible thing. We have exercised financial discipline and ploughed every cent of that surplus into the reduction of debt. Members opposite booked up commitments into the future on the basis of windfalls; they are windfall junkies.
(1) Will the Treasurer confirm that Treasury has forecast continuing recurrent surpluses of $422.7 million in 2001-02; $345.6 million in 2002-03; and $387.2 million in 2003-04? (2) Given that, according to Treasury documents, there will be recurrent surpluses for the next four years, will the Treasurer admit that there is no reasonable justification for an increase in taxes and charges in his first budget? Mr RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) Come in spinner! I have a bit of information for the Leader of the Opposition. I am surprised that he is surprised about the privatisation surplus. After all, the projected $98 million general government operating surplus, the two projected deficits in forthcoming years and the four deficits that his Government was responsible for delivering were in the pre-election financial statements. On 31 May 2001, I acknowledged the forecast privatisation surplus in a major ministerial statement to this House. However, the issue is not one year’s result, it is the trend. Every credible economic commentator warned that the trend of major coalition financial mismanagement was evident. Do members of the Opposition remember this chart? It shows four operating deficits and two forecast operating deficits. The Leader of the Opposition wants to talk about the surplus years, but he does not want to talk about the four deficit years that his Government delivered or the two more deficit years that were forecast. The problem of the Leader of the Opposition is not attention deficit disorder; it is deficit attention disorder! In January, Alan Wood, writing for The Australian , said that Premier Richard Court’s brief flirtation with fiscal responsibility had ended in a sea of red ink. If a surplus is created on the back of privatisation revenues, which was the case last year, and if the surplus is built on fluctuations in the oil price and on the value of the Australian dollar, that is not a licence to spend money, and it is not a licence to fill the Barnett budget blow-out, because that windfall may not occur in the subsequent year. Members opposite are windfall junkies. They believe that if a person won lotto, he could book up household expenses on the basis that he would win it again; that is a hopeless situation. The Leader of the Opposition is on the record as saying that he does not believe in the forward estimates. He does not believe in the forward estimates because he wants the fig leaf of a one-year surplus. He does not want to acknowledge the history of the previous Government’s four deficits in a row, and he does not want to acknowledge the forecast of deficits in future years that we were left with. He does not want to acknowledge the trend of fiscal recklessness that his Government bequeathed to us. That information came to us in the budget process. I have already referred to the Barnett budget blow-out, and there are plenty of examples of that including the Fremantle Maritime Museum, the police communications and information technology program, laptops in schools, an unfunded commitment to reduce class sizes and the Kwinana motorplex. The Under Treasurer summed up the situation in a memo that I previously read to the House. In 1998, the Under Treasurer said that the current critical situation is entirely attributable to the lack of discipline shown by ministers. He said that the myth of a Treasury pot of gold still exists and that a visit to Treasury for more money was still the first preferred and only option put forward. As examples of the lack of discipline shown by ministers, the Under Treasurer included the then Minister for Education’s announcements on matters including reduced class sizes, which were not funded; the proposal to expand the local area education planning initiative; and the same minister’s proposal on regional power. We all know who that minister was - it was the now Leader of the Opposition. There is one reason that we still have a surplus in 2000-01, and it is not because of the good financial management of the coalition; it is because Labor exercised financial discipline in dealing with the windfall. We have done the responsible thing. We have exercised financial discipline and ploughed every cent of that surplus into the reduction of debt. Members opposite booked up commitments into the future on the basis of windfalls; they are windfall junkies.
(2) Given that, according to Treasury documents, there will be recurrent surpluses for the next four years, will the Treasurer admit that there is no reasonable justification for an increase in taxes and charges in his first budget? Mr RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) Come in spinner! I have a bit of information for the Leader of the Opposition. I am surprised that he is surprised about the privatisation surplus. After all, the projected $98 million general government operating surplus, the two projected deficits in forthcoming years and the four deficits that his Government was responsible for delivering were in the pre-election financial statements. On 31 May 2001, I acknowledged the forecast privatisation surplus in a major ministerial statement to this House. However, the issue is not one year’s result, it is the trend. Every credible economic commentator warned that the trend of major coalition financial mismanagement was evident. Do members of the Opposition remember this chart? It shows four operating deficits and two forecast operating deficits. The Leader of the Opposition wants to talk about the surplus years, but he does not want to talk about the four deficit years that his Government delivered or the two more deficit years that were forecast. The problem of the Leader of the Opposition is not attention deficit disorder; it is deficit attention disorder! In January, Alan Wood, writing for The Australian , said that Premier Richard Court’s brief flirtation with fiscal responsibility had ended in a sea of red ink. If a surplus is created on the back of privatisation revenues, which was the case last year, and if the surplus is built on fluctuations in the oil price and on the value of the Australian dollar, that is not a licence to spend money, and it is not a licence to fill the Barnett budget blow-out, because that windfall may not occur in the subsequent year. Members opposite are windfall junkies. They believe that if a person won lotto, he could book up household expenses on the basis that he would win it again; that is a hopeless situation. The Leader of the Opposition is on the record as saying that he does not believe in the forward estimates. He does not believe in the forward estimates because he wants the fig leaf of a one-year surplus. He does not want to acknowledge the history of the previous Government’s four deficits in a row, and he does not want to acknowledge the forecast of deficits in future years that we were left with. He does not want to acknowledge the trend of fiscal recklessness that his Government bequeathed to us. That information came to us in the budget process. I have already referred to the Barnett budget blow-out, and there are plenty of examples of that including the Fremantle Maritime Museum, the police communications and information technology program, laptops in schools, an unfunded commitment to reduce class sizes and the Kwinana motorplex. The Under Treasurer summed up the situation in a memo that I previously read to the House. In 1998, the Under Treasurer said that the current critical situation is entirely attributable to the lack of discipline shown by ministers. He said that the myth of a Treasury pot of gold still exists and that a visit to Treasury for more money was still the first preferred and only option put forward. As examples of the lack of discipline shown by ministers, the Under Treasurer included the then Minister for Education’s announcements on matters including reduced class sizes, which were not funded; the proposal to expand the local area education planning initiative; and the same minister’s proposal on regional power. We all know who that minister was - it was the now Leader of the Opposition. There is one reason that we still have a surplus in 2000-01, and it is not because of the good financial management of the coalition; it is because Labor exercised financial discipline in dealing with the windfall. We have done the responsible thing. We have exercised financial discipline and ploughed every cent of that surplus into the reduction of debt. Members opposite booked up commitments into the future on the basis of windfalls; they are windfall junkies.
Mr RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) Come in spinner! I have a bit of information for the Leader of the Opposition. I am surprised that he is surprised about the privatisation surplus. After all, the projected $98 million general government operating surplus, the two projected deficits in forthcoming years and the four deficits that his Government was responsible for delivering were in the pre-election financial statements. On 31 May 2001, I acknowledged the forecast privatisation surplus in a major ministerial statement to this House. However, the issue is not one year’s result, it is the trend. Every credible economic commentator warned that the trend of major coalition financial mismanagement was evident. Do members of the Opposition remember this chart? It shows four operating deficits and two forecast operating deficits. The Leader of the Opposition wants to talk about the surplus years, but he does not want to talk about the four deficit years that his Government delivered or the two more deficit years that were forecast. The problem of the Leader of the Opposition is not attention deficit disorder; it is deficit attention disorder! In January, Alan Wood, writing for The Australian , said that Premier Richard Court’s brief flirtation with fiscal responsibility had ended in a sea of red ink. If a surplus is created on the back of privatisation revenues, which was the case last year, and if the surplus is built on fluctuations in the oil price and on the value of the Australian dollar, that is not a licence to spend money, and it is not a licence to fill the Barnett budget blow-out, because that windfall may not occur in the subsequent year. Members opposite are windfall junkies. They believe that if a person won lotto, he could book up household expenses on the basis that he would win it again; that is a hopeless situation. The Leader of the Opposition is on the record as saying that he does not believe in the forward estimates. He does not believe in the forward estimates because he wants the fig leaf of a one-year surplus. He does not want to acknowledge the history of the previous Government’s four deficits in a row, and he does not want to acknowledge the forecast of deficits in future years that we were left with. He does not want to acknowledge the trend of fiscal recklessness that his Government bequeathed to us. That information came to us in the budget process. I have already referred to the Barnett budget blow-out, and there are plenty of examples of that including the Fremantle Maritime Museum, the police communications and information technology program, laptops in schools, an unfunded commitment to reduce class sizes and the Kwinana motorplex. The Under Treasurer summed up the situation in a memo that I previously read to the House. In 1998, the Under Treasurer said that the current critical situation is entirely attributable to the lack of discipline shown by ministers. He said that the myth of a Treasury pot of gold still exists and that a visit to Treasury for more money was still the first preferred and only option put forward. As examples of the lack of discipline shown by ministers, the Under Treasurer included the then Minister for Education’s announcements on matters including reduced class sizes, which were not funded; the proposal to expand the local area education planning initiative; and the same minister’s proposal on regional power. We all know who that minister was - it was the now Leader of the Opposition. There is one reason that we still have a surplus in 2000-01, and it is not because of the good financial management of the coalition; it is because Labor exercised financial discipline in dealing with the windfall. We have done the responsible thing. We have exercised financial discipline and ploughed every cent of that surplus into the reduction of debt. Members opposite booked up commitments into the future on the basis of windfalls; they are windfall junkies.
(1)-(2) Come in spinner! I have a bit of information for the Leader of the Opposition. I am surprised that he is surprised about the privatisation surplus. After all, the projected $98 million general government operating surplus, the two projected deficits in forthcoming years and the four deficits that his Government was responsible for delivering were in the pre-election financial statements. On 31 May 2001, I acknowledged the forecast privatisation surplus in a major ministerial statement to this House. However, the issue is not one year’s result, it is the trend. Every credible economic commentator warned that the trend of major coalition financial mismanagement was evident. Do members of the Opposition remember this chart? It shows four operating deficits and two forecast operating deficits. The Leader of the Opposition wants to talk about the surplus years, but he does not want to talk about the four deficit years that his Government delivered or the two more deficit years that were forecast. The problem of the Leader of the Opposition is not attention deficit disorder; it is deficit attention disorder! In January, Alan Wood, writing for The Australian , said that Premier Richard Court’s brief flirtation with fiscal responsibility had ended in a sea of red ink. If a surplus is created on the back of privatisation revenues, which was the case last year, and if the surplus is built on fluctuations in the oil price and on the value of the Australian dollar, that is not a licence to spend money, and it is not a licence to fill the Barnett budget blow-out, because that windfall may not occur in the subsequent year. Members opposite are windfall junkies. They believe that if a person won lotto, he could book up household expenses on the basis that he would win it again; that is a hopeless situation. The Leader of the Opposition is on the record as saying that he does not believe in the forward estimates. He does not believe in the forward estimates because he wants the fig leaf of a one-year surplus. He does not want to acknowledge the history of the previous Government’s four deficits in a row, and he does not want to acknowledge the forecast of deficits in future years that we were left with. He does not want to acknowledge the trend of fiscal recklessness that his Government bequeathed to us. That information came to us in the budget process. I have already referred to the Barnett budget blow-out, and there are plenty of examples of that including the Fremantle Maritime Museum, the police communications and information technology program, laptops in schools, an unfunded commitment to reduce class sizes and the Kwinana motorplex. The Under Treasurer summed up the situation in a memo that I previously read to the House. In 1998, the Under Treasurer said that the current critical situation is entirely attributable to the lack of discipline shown by ministers. He said that the myth of a Treasury pot of gold still exists and that a visit to Treasury for more money was still the first preferred and only option put forward. As examples of the lack of discipline shown by ministers, the Under Treasurer included the then Minister for Education’s announcements on matters including reduced class sizes, which were not funded; the proposal to expand the local area education planning initiative; and the same minister’s proposal on regional power. We all know who that minister was - it was the now Leader of the Opposition. There is one reason that we still have a surplus in 2000-01, and it is not because of the good financial management of the coalition; it is because Labor exercised financial discipline in dealing with the windfall. We have done the responsible thing. We have exercised financial discipline and ploughed every cent of that surplus into the reduction of debt. Members opposite booked up commitments into the future on the basis of windfalls; they are windfall junkies.
In January, Alan Wood, writing for The Australian , said that Premier Richard Court’s brief flirtation with fiscal responsibility had ended in a sea of red ink. If a surplus is created on the back of privatisation revenues, which was the case last year, and if the surplus is built on fluctuations in the oil price and on the value of the Australian dollar, that is not a licence to spend money, and it is not a licence to fill the Barnett budget blow-out, because that windfall may not occur in the subsequent year. Members opposite are windfall junkies. They believe that if a person won lotto, he could book up household expenses on the basis that he would win it again; that is a hopeless situation. The Leader of the Opposition is on the record as saying that he does not believe in the forward estimates. He does not believe in the forward estimates because he wants the fig leaf of a one-year surplus. He does not want to acknowledge the history of the previous Government’s four deficits in a row, and he does not want to acknowledge the forecast of deficits in future years that we were left with. He does not want to acknowledge the trend of fiscal recklessness that his Government bequeathed to us. That information came to us in the budget process. I have already referred to the Barnett budget blow-out, and there are plenty of examples of that including the Fremantle Maritime Museum, the police communications and information technology program, laptops in schools, an unfunded commitment to reduce class sizes and the Kwinana motorplex. The Under Treasurer summed up the situation in a memo that I previously read to the House. In 1998, the Under Treasurer said that the current critical situation is entirely attributable to the lack of discipline shown by ministers. He said that the myth of a Treasury pot of gold still exists and that a visit to Treasury for more money was still the first preferred and only option put forward. As examples of the lack of discipline shown by ministers, the Under Treasurer included the then Minister for Education’s announcements on matters including reduced class sizes, which were not funded; the proposal to expand the local area education planning initiative; and the same minister’s proposal on regional power. We all know who that minister was - it was the now Leader of the Opposition. There is one reason that we still have a surplus in 2000-01, and it is not because of the good financial management of the coalition; it is because Labor exercised financial discipline in dealing with the windfall. We have done the responsible thing. We have exercised financial discipline and ploughed every cent of that surplus into the reduction of debt. Members opposite booked up commitments into the future on the basis of windfalls; they are windfall junkies.
The Leader of the Opposition is on the record as saying that he does not believe in the forward estimates. He does not believe in the forward estimates because he wants the fig leaf of a one-year surplus. He does not want to acknowledge the history of the previous Government’s four deficits in a row, and he does not want to acknowledge the forecast of deficits in future years that we were left with. He does not want to acknowledge the trend of fiscal recklessness that his Government bequeathed to us. That information came to us in the budget process. I have already referred to the Barnett budget blow-out, and there are plenty of examples of that including the Fremantle Maritime Museum, the police communications and information technology program, laptops in schools, an unfunded commitment to reduce class sizes and the Kwinana motorplex. The Under Treasurer summed up the situation in a memo that I previously read to the House. In 1998, the Under Treasurer said that the current critical situation is entirely attributable to the lack of discipline shown by ministers. He said that the myth of a Treasury pot of gold still exists and that a visit to Treasury for more money was still the first preferred and only option put forward. As examples of the lack of discipline shown by ministers, the Under Treasurer included the then Minister for Education’s announcements on matters including reduced class sizes, which were not funded; the proposal to expand the local area education planning initiative; and the same minister’s proposal on regional power. We all know who that minister was - it was the now Leader of the Opposition. There is one reason that we still have a surplus in 2000-01, and it is not because of the good financial management of the coalition; it is because Labor exercised financial discipline in dealing with the windfall. We have done the responsible thing. We have exercised financial discipline and ploughed every cent of that surplus into the reduction of debt. Members opposite booked up commitments into the future on the basis of windfalls; they are windfall junkies.
I have already referred to the Barnett budget blow-out, and there are plenty of examples of that including the Fremantle Maritime Museum, the police communications and information technology program, laptops in schools, an unfunded commitment to reduce class sizes and the Kwinana motorplex. The Under Treasurer summed up the situation in a memo that I previously read to the House. In 1998, the Under Treasurer said that the current critical situation is entirely attributable to the lack of discipline shown by ministers. He said that the myth of a Treasury pot of gold still exists and that a visit to Treasury for more money was still the first preferred and only option put forward. As examples of the lack of discipline shown by ministers, the Under Treasurer included the then Minister for Education’s announcements on matters including reduced class sizes, which were not funded; the proposal to expand the local area education planning initiative; and the same minister’s proposal on regional power. We all know who that minister was - it was the now Leader of the Opposition. There is one reason that we still have a surplus in 2000-01, and it is not because of the good financial management of the coalition; it is because Labor exercised financial discipline in dealing with the windfall. We have done the responsible thing. We have exercised financial discipline and ploughed every cent of that surplus into the reduction of debt. Members opposite booked up commitments into the future on the basis of windfalls; they are windfall junkies.
As examples of the lack of discipline shown by ministers, the Under Treasurer included the then Minister for Education’s announcements on matters including reduced class sizes, which were not funded; the proposal to expand the local area education planning initiative; and the same minister’s proposal on regional power. We all know who that minister was - it was the now Leader of the Opposition. There is one reason that we still have a surplus in 2000-01, and it is not because of the good financial management of the coalition; it is because Labor exercised financial discipline in dealing with the windfall. We have done the responsible thing. We have exercised financial discipline and ploughed every cent of that surplus into the reduction of debt. Members opposite booked up commitments into the future on the basis of windfalls; they are windfall junkies.
(1) Will the Treasurer confirm that Treasury has forecast continuing recurrent surpluses of $422.7 million in 2001-02; $345.6 million in 2002-03; and $387.2 million in 2003-04? (2) Given that, according to Treasury documents, there will be recurrent surpluses for the next four years, will the Treasurer admit that there is no reasonable justification for an increase in taxes and charges in his first budget? Mr RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) Come in spinner! I have a bit of information for the Leader of the Opposition. I am surprised that he is surprised about the privatisation surplus. After all, the projected $98 million general government operating surplus, the two projected deficits in forthcoming years and the four deficits that his Government was responsible for delivering were in the pre-election financial statements. On 31 May 2001, I acknowledged the forecast privatisation surplus in a major ministerial statement to this House. However, the issue is not one year’s result, it is the trend. Every credible economic commentator warned that the trend of major coalition financial mismanagement was evident. Do members of the Opposition remember this chart? It shows four operating deficits and two forecast operating deficits. The Leader of the Opposition wants to talk about the surplus years, but he does not want to talk about the four deficit years that his Government delivered or the two more deficit years that were forecast. The problem of the Leader of the Opposition is not attention deficit disorder; it is deficit attention disorder! In January, Alan Wood, writing for The Australian , said that Premier Richard Court’s brief flirtation with fiscal responsibility had ended in a sea of red ink. If a surplus is created on the back of privatisation revenues, which was the case last year, and if the surplus is built on fluctuations in the oil price and on the value of the Australian dollar, that is not a licence to spend money, and it is not a licence to fill the Barnett budget blow-out, because that windfall may not occur in the subsequent year. Members opposite are windfall junkies. They believe that if a person won lotto, he could book up household expenses on the basis that he would win it again; that is a hopeless situation. The Leader of the Opposition is on the record as saying that he does not believe in the forward estimates. He does not believe in the forward estimates because he wants the fig leaf of a one-year surplus. He does not want to acknowledge the history of the previous Government’s four deficits in a row, and he does not want to acknowledge the forecast of deficits in future years that we were left with. He does not want to acknowledge the trend of fiscal recklessness that his Government bequeathed to us. That information came to us in the budget process. I have already referred to the Barnett budget blow-out, and there are plenty of examples of that including the Fremantle Maritime Museum, the police communications and information technology program, laptops in schools, an unfunded commitment to reduce class sizes and the Kwinana motorplex. The Under Treasurer summed up the situation in a memo that I previously read to the House. In 1998, the Under Treasurer said that the current critical situation is entirely attributable to the lack of discipline shown by ministers. He said that the myth of a Treasury pot of gold still exists and that a visit to Treasury for more money was still the first preferred and only option put forward. As examples of the lack of discipline shown by ministers, the Under Treasurer included the then Minister for Education’s announcements on matters including reduced class sizes, which were not funded; the proposal to expand the local area education planning initiative; and the same minister’s proposal on regional power. We all know who that minister was - it was the now Leader of the Opposition. There is one reason that we still have a surplus in 2000-01, and it is not because of the good financial management of the coalition; it is because Labor exercised financial discipline in dealing with the windfall. We have done the responsible thing. We have exercised financial discipline and ploughed every cent of that surplus into the reduction of debt. Members opposite booked up commitments into the future on the basis of windfalls; they are windfall junkies.
(2) Given that, according to Treasury documents, there will be recurrent surpluses for the next four years, will the Treasurer admit that there is no reasonable justification for an increase in taxes and charges in his first budget? Mr RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) Come in spinner! I have a bit of information for the Leader of the Opposition. I am surprised that he is surprised about the privatisation surplus. After all, the projected $98 million general government operating surplus, the two projected deficits in forthcoming years and the four deficits that his Government was responsible for delivering were in the pre-election financial statements. On 31 May 2001, I acknowledged the forecast privatisation surplus in a major ministerial statement to this House. However, the issue is not one year’s result, it is the trend. Every credible economic commentator warned that the trend of major coalition financial mismanagement was evident. Do members of the Opposition remember this chart? It shows four operating deficits and two forecast operating deficits. The Leader of the Opposition wants to talk about the surplus years, but he does not want to talk about the four deficit years that his Government delivered or the two more deficit years that were forecast. The problem of the Leader of the Opposition is not attention deficit disorder; it is deficit attention disorder! In January, Alan Wood, writing for The Australian , said that Premier Richard Court’s brief flirtation with fiscal responsibility had ended in a sea of red ink. If a surplus is created on the back of privatisation revenues, which was the case last year, and if the surplus is built on fluctuations in the oil price and on the value of the Australian dollar, that is not a licence to spend money, and it is not a licence to fill the Barnett budget blow-out, because that windfall may not occur in the subsequent year. Members opposite are windfall junkies. They believe that if a person won lotto, he could book up household expenses on the basis that he would win it again; that is a hopeless situation. The Leader of the Opposition is on the record as saying that he does not believe in the forward estimates. He does not believe in the forward estimates because he wants the fig leaf of a one-year surplus. He does not want to acknowledge the history of the previous Government’s four deficits in a row, and he does not want to acknowledge the forecast of deficits in future years that we were left with. He does not want to acknowledge the trend of fiscal recklessness that his Government bequeathed to us. That information came to us in the budget process. I have already referred to the Barnett budget blow-out, and there are plenty of examples of that including the Fremantle Maritime Museum, the police communications and information technology program, laptops in schools, an unfunded commitment to reduce class sizes and the Kwinana motorplex. The Under Treasurer summed up the situation in a memo that I previously read to the House. In 1998, the Under Treasurer said that the current critical situation is entirely attributable to the lack of discipline shown by ministers. He said that the myth of a Treasury pot of gold still exists and that a visit to Treasury for more money was still the first preferred and only option put forward. As examples of the lack of discipline shown by ministers, the Under Treasurer included the then Minister for Education’s announcements on matters including reduced class sizes, which were not funded; the proposal to expand the local area education planning initiative; and the same minister’s proposal on regional power. We all know who that minister was - it was the now Leader of the Opposition. There is one reason that we still have a surplus in 2000-01, and it is not because of the good financial management of the coalition; it is because Labor exercised financial discipline in dealing with the windfall. We have done the responsible thing. We have exercised financial discipline and ploughed every cent of that surplus into the reduction of debt. Members opposite booked up commitments into the future on the basis of windfalls; they are windfall junkies.
Mr RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) Come in spinner! I have a bit of information for the Leader of the Opposition. I am surprised that he is surprised about the privatisation surplus. After all, the projected $98 million general government operating surplus, the two projected deficits in forthcoming years and the four deficits that his Government was responsible for delivering were in the pre-election financial statements. On 31 May 2001, I acknowledged the forecast privatisation surplus in a major ministerial statement to this House. However, the issue is not one year’s result, it is the trend. Every credible economic commentator warned that the trend of major coalition financial mismanagement was evident. Do members of the Opposition remember this chart? It shows four operating deficits and two forecast operating deficits. The Leader of the Opposition wants to talk about the surplus years, but he does not want to talk about the four deficit years that his Government delivered or the two more deficit years that were forecast. The problem of the Leader of the Opposition is not attention deficit disorder; it is deficit attention disorder! In January, Alan Wood, writing for The Australian , said that Premier Richard Court’s brief flirtation with fiscal responsibility had ended in a sea of red ink. If a surplus is created on the back of privatisation revenues, which was the case last year, and if the surplus is built on fluctuations in the oil price and on the value of the Australian dollar, that is not a licence to spend money, and it is not a licence to fill the Barnett budget blow-out, because that windfall may not occur in the subsequent year. Members opposite are windfall junkies. They believe that if a person won lotto, he could book up household expenses on the basis that he would win it again; that is a hopeless situation. The Leader of the Opposition is on the record as saying that he does not believe in the forward estimates. He does not believe in the forward estimates because he wants the fig leaf of a one-year surplus. He does not want to acknowledge the history of the previous Government’s four deficits in a row, and he does not want to acknowledge the forecast of deficits in future years that we were left with. He does not want to acknowledge the trend of fiscal recklessness that his Government bequeathed to us. That information came to us in the budget process. I have already referred to the Barnett budget blow-out, and there are plenty of examples of that including the Fremantle Maritime Museum, the police communications and information technology program, laptops in schools, an unfunded commitment to reduce class sizes and the Kwinana motorplex. The Under Treasurer summed up the situation in a memo that I previously read to the House. In 1998, the Under Treasurer said that the current critical situation is entirely attributable to the lack of discipline shown by ministers. He said that the myth of a Treasury pot of gold still exists and that a visit to Treasury for more money was still the first preferred and only option put forward. As examples of the lack of discipline shown by ministers, the Under Treasurer included the then Minister for Education’s announcements on matters including reduced class sizes, which were not funded; the proposal to expand the local area education planning initiative; and the same minister’s proposal on regional power. We all know who that minister was - it was the now Leader of the Opposition. There is one reason that we still have a surplus in 2000-01, and it is not because of the good financial management of the coalition; it is because Labor exercised financial discipline in dealing with the windfall. We have done the responsible thing. We have exercised financial discipline and ploughed every cent of that surplus into the reduction of debt. Members opposite booked up commitments into the future on the basis of windfalls; they are windfall junkies.
(1)-(2) Come in spinner! I have a bit of information for the Leader of the Opposition. I am surprised that he is surprised about the privatisation surplus. After all, the projected $98 million general government operating surplus, the two projected deficits in forthcoming years and the four deficits that his Government was responsible for delivering were in the pre-election financial statements. On 31 May 2001, I acknowledged the forecast privatisation surplus in a major ministerial statement to this House. However, the issue is not one year’s result, it is the trend. Every credible economic commentator warned that the trend of major coalition financial mismanagement was evident. Do members of the Opposition remember this chart? It shows four operating deficits and two forecast operating deficits. The Leader of the Opposition wants to talk about the surplus years, but he does not want to talk about the four deficit years that his Government delivered or the two more deficit years that were forecast. The problem of the Leader of the Opposition is not attention deficit disorder; it is deficit attention disorder! In January, Alan Wood, writing for The Australian , said that Premier Richard Court’s brief flirtation with fiscal responsibility had ended in a sea of red ink. If a surplus is created on the back of privatisation revenues, which was the case last year, and if the surplus is built on fluctuations in the oil price and on the value of the Australian dollar, that is not a licence to spend money, and it is not a licence to fill the Barnett budget blow-out, because that windfall may not occur in the subsequent year. Members opposite are windfall junkies. They believe that if a person won lotto, he could book up household expenses on the basis that he would win it again; that is a hopeless situation. The Leader of the Opposition is on the record as saying that he does not believe in the forward estimates. He does not believe in the forward estimates because he wants the fig leaf of a one-year surplus. He does not want to acknowledge the history of the previous Government’s four deficits in a row, and he does not want to acknowledge the forecast of deficits in future years that we were left with. He does not want to acknowledge the trend of fiscal recklessness that his Government bequeathed to us. That information came to us in the budget process. I have already referred to the Barnett budget blow-out, and there are plenty of examples of that including the Fremantle Maritime Museum, the police communications and information technology program, laptops in schools, an unfunded commitment to reduce class sizes and the Kwinana motorplex. The Under Treasurer summed up the situation in a memo that I previously read to the House. In 1998, the Under Treasurer said that the current critical situation is entirely attributable to the lack of discipline shown by ministers. He said that the myth of a Treasury pot of gold still exists and that a visit to Treasury for more money was still the first preferred and only option put forward. As examples of the lack of discipline shown by ministers, the Under Treasurer included the then Minister for Education’s announcements on matters including reduced class sizes, which were not funded; the proposal to expand the local area education planning initiative; and the same minister’s proposal on regional power. We all know who that minister was - it was the now Leader of the Opposition. There is one reason that we still have a surplus in 2000-01, and it is not because of the good financial management of the coalition; it is because Labor exercised financial discipline in dealing with the windfall. We have done the responsible thing. We have exercised financial discipline and ploughed every cent of that surplus into the reduction of debt. Members opposite booked up commitments into the future on the basis of windfalls; they are windfall junkies.
In January, Alan Wood, writing for The Australian , said that Premier Richard Court’s brief flirtation with fiscal responsibility had ended in a sea of red ink. If a surplus is created on the back of privatisation revenues, which was the case last year, and if the surplus is built on fluctuations in the oil price and on the value of the Australian dollar, that is not a licence to spend money, and it is not a licence to fill the Barnett budget blow-out, because that windfall may not occur in the subsequent year. Members opposite are windfall junkies. They believe that if a person won lotto, he could book up household expenses on the basis that he would win it again; that is a hopeless situation. The Leader of the Opposition is on the record as saying that he does not believe in the forward estimates. He does not believe in the forward estimates because he wants the fig leaf of a one-year surplus. He does not want to acknowledge the history of the previous Government’s four deficits in a row, and he does not want to acknowledge the forecast of deficits in future years that we were left with. He does not want to acknowledge the trend of fiscal recklessness that his Government bequeathed to us. That information came to us in the budget process. I have already referred to the Barnett budget blow-out, and there are plenty of examples of that including the Fremantle Maritime Museum, the police communications and information technology program, laptops in schools, an unfunded commitment to reduce class sizes and the Kwinana motorplex. The Under Treasurer summed up the situation in a memo that I previously read to the House. In 1998, the Under Treasurer said that the current critical situation is entirely attributable to the lack of discipline shown by ministers. He said that the myth of a Treasury pot of gold still exists and that a visit to Treasury for more money was still the first preferred and only option put forward. As examples of the lack of discipline shown by ministers, the Under Treasurer included the then Minister for Education’s announcements on matters including reduced class sizes, which were not funded; the proposal to expand the local area education planning initiative; and the same minister’s proposal on regional power. We all know who that minister was - it was the now Leader of the Opposition. There is one reason that we still have a surplus in 2000-01, and it is not because of the good financial management of the coalition; it is because Labor exercised financial discipline in dealing with the windfall. We have done the responsible thing. We have exercised financial discipline and ploughed every cent of that surplus into the reduction of debt. Members opposite booked up commitments into the future on the basis of windfalls; they are windfall junkies.
The Leader of the Opposition is on the record as saying that he does not believe in the forward estimates. He does not believe in the forward estimates because he wants the fig leaf of a one-year surplus. He does not want to acknowledge the history of the previous Government’s four deficits in a row, and he does not want to acknowledge the forecast of deficits in future years that we were left with. He does not want to acknowledge the trend of fiscal recklessness that his Government bequeathed to us. That information came to us in the budget process. I have already referred to the Barnett budget blow-out, and there are plenty of examples of that including the Fremantle Maritime Museum, the police communications and information technology program, laptops in schools, an unfunded commitment to reduce class sizes and the Kwinana motorplex. The Under Treasurer summed up the situation in a memo that I previously read to the House. In 1998, the Under Treasurer said that the current critical situation is entirely attributable to the lack of discipline shown by ministers. He said that the myth of a Treasury pot of gold still exists and that a visit to Treasury for more money was still the first preferred and only option put forward. As examples of the lack of discipline shown by ministers, the Under Treasurer included the then Minister for Education’s announcements on matters including reduced class sizes, which were not funded; the proposal to expand the local area education planning initiative; and the same minister’s proposal on regional power. We all know who that minister was - it was the now Leader of the Opposition. There is one reason that we still have a surplus in 2000-01, and it is not because of the good financial management of the coalition; it is because Labor exercised financial discipline in dealing with the windfall. We have done the responsible thing. We have exercised financial discipline and ploughed every cent of that surplus into the reduction of debt. Members opposite booked up commitments into the future on the basis of windfalls; they are windfall junkies.
I have already referred to the Barnett budget blow-out, and there are plenty of examples of that including the Fremantle Maritime Museum, the police communications and information technology program, laptops in schools, an unfunded commitment to reduce class sizes and the Kwinana motorplex. The Under Treasurer summed up the situation in a memo that I previously read to the House. In 1998, the Under Treasurer said that the current critical situation is entirely attributable to the lack of discipline shown by ministers. He said that the myth of a Treasury pot of gold still exists and that a visit to Treasury for more money was still the first preferred and only option put forward. As examples of the lack of discipline shown by ministers, the Under Treasurer included the then Minister for Education’s announcements on matters including reduced class sizes, which were not funded; the proposal to expand the local area education planning initiative; and the same minister’s proposal on regional power. We all know who that minister was - it was the now Leader of the Opposition. There is one reason that we still have a surplus in 2000-01, and it is not because of the good financial management of the coalition; it is because Labor exercised financial discipline in dealing with the windfall. We have done the responsible thing. We have exercised financial discipline and ploughed every cent of that surplus into the reduction of debt. Members opposite booked up commitments into the future on the basis of windfalls; they are windfall junkies.
As examples of the lack of discipline shown by ministers, the Under Treasurer included the then Minister for Education’s announcements on matters including reduced class sizes, which were not funded; the proposal to expand the local area education planning initiative; and the same minister’s proposal on regional power. We all know who that minister was - it was the now Leader of the Opposition. There is one reason that we still have a surplus in 2000-01, and it is not because of the good financial management of the coalition; it is because Labor exercised financial discipline in dealing with the windfall. We have done the responsible thing. We have exercised financial discipline and ploughed every cent of that surplus into the reduction of debt. Members opposite booked up commitments into the future on the basis of windfalls; they are windfall junkies.
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.